Corporate Sponsorship

[jaredong]

Hey guys,

What do you think about corporate sponsorship of public places and services? For example, having educational facilities or art/cultural locations (like science centres and museums) named and sponsored by corporations.

ps: Can anyone remember what town/city in America (i think) sold its naming rights away? I seem to recall some town somewhere changing its name entirely but I cant recall or find it.

-- Jared

[guitrguy]

Well they do need to get funding somehow.

[PianoDan]

I don't see what's wrong with it, even though it's annoying when places are always referred to as "Telstra" this or "Toyota" that.

[mph4ever]

its hard to know. i was at london zoo recently, although i am not for zoos at all, but it could do with some serious sponsorship to help fund its activities even for whats there.

with taxes and everything then public places and services should be funded by the tax paying public. if corporations can afford to sponsor something then surely they should be just taxed more and the taxes used to support the public place or service. instead of giving the corporations tax breaks for spending their money and putting their name before national monuments or museums or places

its fine in sport but i do think cigarette and beer liquor companies should not be allowed associate with anything that is for kids or sport

i'm thinking of going on my holidays to the resort of haliburton iraq

[Aaron]

Provided that the sponsor is a company that is socially responsible, it's fine.

[beso negro]

with taxes and everything then public places and services should be funded by the tax paying public. if corporations can afford to sponsor something then surely they should be just taxed more and the taxes used to support the public place or service. instead of giving the corporations tax breaks for spending their money and putting their name before national monuments or museums or places

what's with everyone on this forum thinking that rich people and corporations should be taken to the bank.

the corporate sponsorship system is great for both parties because it allows companies to get their name out.

[mph4ever]

what's with everyone on this forum thinking that rich people and corporations should be taken to the bank.

i don't think that. i don't know about the rest of them but i don't.


the corporate sponsorship system is great for both parties because it allows companies to get their name out.

sure it is, corporations wouldn't do it otherwise

[Against Miik!]

Sometimes I get real laugh out of it. Like when watching a baseball game or something, they'll say this game brought to by Casterall, the official motor oil of Major League Baseball. I don't know. I think its funny that baseball has an official motor oil.

Speaking of baseball, apparently players can't drink water in the locker room because Gatorade sponsors MLB. I kid you not about this.

[BassRevelation1029]

Hey guys,

What do you think about corporate sponsorship of public places and services?
It just shows how much of our public lives and institutions have been privatized, or simply put up for sale.

I think its a terrible idea. The market already has an overwhelming influence on our lives through our private pursuits, like the internet or television. Now the market is in our public spaces, like our schools and communities.
Whats wrong with the picture is that corporations, with their sums of money in exchange for their name brand on a public institution, are not interested in furthering our developments in learning, or strengthening our communities, but rather they are interested in their next quarter profits.

Not to mention the corporate bias which hinders objective truth. Our newsmedia should not be owned by huge corporations who serve to further their objectives, any more than EXXonMobil should be giving million dollar grants to Universities for conservation studies.

[beso negro]

Whats wrong with the picture is that corporations, with their sums of money in exchange for their name brand on a public institution, are not interested in furthering our developments in learning, or strengthening our communities, but rather they are interested in their next quarter profits.

nice generalization.

again, why does everyone on here hate all corporations?

[BassRevelation1029]

nice generalization.

oh don't be so naive

again, why does everyone on here hate all corporations?
I don't hate all corporations; I hate the idea of large, unfettered entities making huge sums of money. This goes more on my dislike of the capitalist system, though.

[beso negro]

you need to get out more if you think that all big corporations only care about profit.

I hate the idea of large, unfettered entities making huge sums of money. This goes more on my dislike of the capitalist system, though.

and you call me naive

[Smokey D]

It's pretty obvious that a company wouldn't do something if it didn't help it's corporate mission.

[BassRevelation1029]

you need to get out more if you think that all big corporations only care about profit.


You honestly think Wal-Mart gives a **** about your well-being?

[Aaron]

Stop reading Brave New World and go out for a walk.

[Smokey D]

Although I agree companies only do sponsorships because it's economically beneficial, I disagree that that necessarily gives the corporates control over content or even that they would, in most cases, want to alter content.

[Aaron]

It depends on the contract; it's not a matter of them buying the stadium or building it in most cases, they've signed a contract to own the naming rights for a set period.

[BridgeToSolace]

Although I agree companies only do sponsorships because it's economically beneficial, I disagree that that necessarily gives the corporates control over content or even that they would, in most cases, want to alter content.

They inherently limit content.

Once you are sponsored corporately, you cannot do anything that the corporation does not want associated with it without risking the sponsorship and thus your content.

ie. The Office can't have explicit anal sex because they would lose their advertisers.

You honestly think Wal-Mart gives a **** about your well-being?

I can't really consume if I'm dead or otherwise incapacitated, now can I?

[flabbergast]

They inherently limit content.

Once you are sponsored corporately, you cannot do anything that the corporation does not want associated with it without risking the sponsorship and thus your content.

:chug:

I don't mind some soda brand sponsoring a marathon or other cases where there's no direct risk of content being altered in a way that compromises quality of the event/facility, and more funds often means more quality.

But this risk should always be thoroughly considered before making something dependant on corporate sponsorship. If we allow corporations to interweave their interests with those of things that are meant to benefit mankind rather than to make a profit, we run a serious risk of selling our children's future.

[Smokey D]

Once you are sponsored corporately, you cannot do anything that the corporation does not want associated with it without risking the sponsorship and thus your content.

Possibly but not true in all cases.

[mph4ever]

:chug:

I don't mind some soda brand sponsoring a marathon or other cases where there's no direct risk of content being altered in a way that compromises quality of the event/facility, and more funds often means more quality.

But this risk should always be thoroughly considered before making something dependant on corporate sponsorship. If we allow corporations to interweave their interests with those of things that are meant to benefit mankind rather than to make a profit, we run a serious risk of selling our children's future.

we took the risk and we lost. the amount of corporate branding everywhere is sickening. there is no moment that you can enjoy without some marketable product being associated with it.

[BassRevelation1029]

Although I agree companies only do sponsorships because it's economically beneficial, I disagree that that necessarily gives the corporates control over content or even that they would, in most cases, want to alter content.
I see, but who's going to restrict them? Thats the whole deal-we pay and get our way, and the government stays away.

You're probably familiar with American newsmedia, where there is clearly an objective to further the corporation's agenda. Maybe nothing drastic, but its definitely subtle.


I can't really consume if I'm dead or otherwise incapacitated, now can I?
And you certainly can't consume without the help of low-wage, dirt-poor workers creating your goods.

[Aaron]

Heard of subsistance living?

[Smokey D]

I see, but who's going to restrict them? Thats the whole deal-we pay and get our way, and the government stays away.

People seem to think that working for a corporation magically converts a person from ordinary generally human being to profit crazed corporate tyrant out to trick and deceive.



You're probably familiar with American newsmedia, where there is clearly an objective to further the corporation's agenda. Maybe nothing drastic, but its definitely subtle.


Sure but no one who is anyone would accept Fox News sponsoring the Met or something. It's probably true that sponsorship requires some level of censorship or self-censorship but then we have to ask if corporate sponsors should be barred, who should we turn to? The government seems like the obvious choice but I'm not certain that the government always has our best interests at heart either. There have been many examples where government control of the arts has been detrimental to them.

[Against Miik!]

So like, does this not bother a single person?

100 largest economic entities:

Rank Country / Corporation GDP / sales ($mil)
1 United States 8,708,870.00
2 Japan 4,395,083.00
3 Germany 2,081,202.00
4 France 1,410,262.00
5 United Kingdom 1,373,612.00
6 Italy 1,149,958.00
7 China 1,149,814.00
8 Brazil 760,345.00
9 Canada 612,049.00
10 Spain 562,245.00
11 Mexico 474,951.00
12 India 459,765.00
13 Korea, Rep. 406,940.00
14 Australia 389,691.00
15 Netherlands 384,766.00
16 Russian Federation 375,345.00
17 Argentina 281,942.00
18 Switzerland 260,299.00
19 Belgium 245,706.00
20 Sweden 226,388.00
21 Austria 208,949.00
22 Turkey 188,374.00
23 General Motors 176,558.00
24 Denmark 174,363.00
25 Wal-Mart 166,809.00
26 Exxon Mobil 163,881.00
27 Ford Motor 162,558.00
28 DaimlerChrysler 159,985.70
29 Poland 154,146.00
30 Norway 145,449.00
31 Indonesia 140,964.00
32 South Africa 131,127.00
33 Saudi Arabia 128,892.00
34 Finland 126,130.00
35 Greece 123,934.00
36 Thailand 123,887.00
37 Mitsui 118,555.20
38 Mitsubishi 117,765.60
39 Toyota Motor 115,670.90
40 General Electric 111,630.00
41 Itochu 109,068.90
42 Portugal 107,716.00
43 Royal Dutch/Shell 105,366.00
44 Venezuela 103,918.00
45 Iran, Islamic rep. 101,073.00
46 Israel 99,068.00
47 Sumitomo 95,701.60
48 Nippon Tel & Tel 93,591.70
49 Egypt, Arab Republic 92,413.00
50 Marubeni 91,807.40
51 Colombia 88,596.00
52 AXA 87,645.70
53 IBM 87,548.00
54 Singapore 84,945.00
55 Ireland 84,861.00
56 BP Amoco 83,556.00
57 Citigroup 82,005.00
58 Volkswagen 80,072.70
59 Nippon Life Insurance 78,515.10
60 Philippines 75,350.00
61 Siemens 75,337.00
62 Malaysia 74,634.00
63 Allianz 74,178.20
64 Hitachi 71,858.50
65 Chile 71,092.00
66 Matsushita Electric Ind. 65,555.60
67 Nissho Iwai 65,393.20
68 ING Group 62,492.40
69 AT&T 62,391.00
70 Philip Morris 61,751.00
71 Sony 60,052.70
72 Pakistan 59,880.00
73 Deutsche Bank 58,585.10
74 Boeing 57,993.00
75 Peru 57,318.00
76 Czech Republic 56,379.00
77 Dai-Ichi Mutual Life Ins. 55,104.70
78 Honda Motor 54,773.50
79 Assicurazioni Generali 53,723.20
80 Nissan Motor 53,679.90
81 New Zealand 53,622.00
82 E.On 52,227.70
83 Toshiba 51,634.90
84 Bank of America 51,392.00
85 Fiat 51,331.70
86 Nestle 49,694.10
87 SBC Communications 49,489.00
88 Credit Suisse 49,362.00
89 Hungary 48,355.00
90 Hewlett-Packard 48,253.00
91 Fujitsu 47,195.90
92 Algeria 47,015.00
93 Metro 46,663.60
94 Sumitomo Life Insur. 46,445.10
95 Bangladesh 45,779.00
96 Tokyo Electric Power 45,727.70
97 Kroger 45,351.60
98 Total Fina Elf 44,990.30
99 NEC 44,828.00
100 State Farm Insurance 44,637.20

[Smokey D]

No. As powerful as money is, everyone of those companies is firmly bound by law.

[Against Miik!]

Ok, yeah. Its not like they shouldn't be allowed to make those amounts of money. But what we have here is just a handful of companies, who's profits are going nowhere but into the pockets of already rich shareholders, who are bringing in an exponentially larger amount of money than entire countries that contain millions of people who couldn't even get a glass of clean water if they wanted too.

[Smokey D]

I don't know if profits are only going to rich shareholders. A successful company tends to expand, bringing benefits (if you don't agree with Marxist theories of exploitation) to workers provided their governments are willing to subject such companies to the law. Admittedly this isn't always the case.

[Against Miik!]

I'm sure the the Wal-Mart cashier, the bagger at Kroger, and the guy selling GM cars on commission (ie average citizen) can't even keep up with all the benefits being tossed their way.

Of course, its great that they have jobs to begin with, but should a steady income really be a commodity?

[Smokey D]

Also, it's a fallacious to equate sales with profits. Profits are likely to be 10% or less the total value of sales.


Of course, its great that they have jobs to begin with, but should a steady income really be a commodity?

I don't know if it is.

But if it is, what should it be?

[Against Miik!]

Well, in an industrialized country, you can't really live w/o a steady income, or at least in America. I don't know about more socialized countries. But still, its basically equatable to the ability to have a decent, happy life. Now, should that be a commodity?

[Smokey D]

I'm not sure that is commodification.

But if it is, and it shouldn't be, what should it be? Should people receive payment for things not done?

[Against Miik!]

No, but that wasn't my main point anyways.

Point was, the main recipients of the profits (however you define those) of these companies are the higher ups. We are talking about, in some cases, a handful of people having more cash than an entire country, a country, where again, a vast majority can't even have a glass of clean water when they want.

I'm just saying, in the grand scheme, something seems a bit off.

[Smokey D]

Provided they have done nothing immoral, illegal or inequitable, why shouldn't people be allowed to be insanely rich? I share your intuitive misgivings but I can't really rationalise them coherently.

Also, browsing that list again, it's hillariously out of date.

[Against Miik!]

Not hilariously. It's from 2000. The difference I could see would be that GM has dropped out of the top spot and all the oil companies have jumped up. So if anything, it has gotten worse.

And maybe there is nothing illegal about the ways in which these companies get their money, but legalities are social constructs, made by the people making the money. So their is a small conflict of interest there. Not the point though.

It is however, immoral no matter which way you slice it or dice to sit on more cash than you could ever physically spend while things in the world are the way they are.

[Smokey D]

It's out of date because the countries are richer than it suggests. New Zealand's GDP is a few billion shy of $100 billion, not $55billion. The US is closer to $15trillion than it is to 8.


It is however, immoral no matter which way you slice it or dice to sit on more cash than you could ever physically spend while things in the world are the way they are.

Why? Are you saying people have a moral duty to pay for other people's existence?

[BassRevelation1029]

People seem to think that working for a corporation magically converts a person from ordinary generally human being to profit crazed corporate tyrant out to trick and deceive.
I don't see the relevancy of this quote in relation to my post

Sure but no one who is anyone would accept Fox News sponsoring the Met or something.
I meant newsmedia being owned by giant corporations, not media outlets sponsoring anything.

[Against Miik!]

Why? Are you saying people have a moral duty to pay for other people's existence?

I'm saying it is morally reprehensible to take more than your fair share while the majority of others suffer.

Or at least some would say

[Smokey D]

I don't see the relevancy of this quote in relation to my post

I'm saying that most people even those who work for companies, will probably have good intentions when it comes to supporting the arts or what have you.


I'm saying it is morally reprehensible to take more than your fair share while the majority of others suffer.


Well that's the crux of it really. What is a fair share? Why is it unfair for a person with particular ability and insight to receive the total rewards of his gifts?

[Against Miik!]

Yes, that really is the issue. I believe it was Locke who said that set forth the example of a man coming across, o lets say an apple tree. Since the apple tree is Gods gift, which is given to all people, the man is not allowed to take more than he can personally use without the apples spoiling. That was all great until money came around, which does not spoil.

I suppose it is fair to say that those who put more into life deserve more out it, but clearly, at times, the work people do and the things they receive are not quite proportional. And a good amount of people on this earth never even get the oppurtunity to make something of themselves.

[Smokey D]

I don't really like Locke since he talks about God so much. But I don't think that particular argument applies. Bill Gates is a self-made man on his own abilities. He didn't appropriate a natural gift, at least not if you don't include his own natural abilities.

[Against Miik!]

Well, even taking the God thing out of it, I guess it is just a matter of personal opinion, that is, how much of the lands resources each person on earth is allowed to have.

And Bill Gates may be an exception. I've never given him the corrupt businessman label. Sure he accrued quite a fortune over the years, but he is doing good things w/ it now. I know thats not the point, just a little side note.

[BassRevelation1029]

I'm saying that most people even those who work for companies, will probably have good intentions when it comes to supporting the arts or what have you.
ultimately they don't make the decision.

If you're familiar with Benjamin Barber, this is what he refers to as "civic schizophrenia"

[Danish]

I think public spaces should be controlled by the public, not private interests. The privatization of public space is a major social problem: from ownership and control of social services like health care and education, to the physical occupation of visible and virtual spaces.