Skip to main content

"Take Me Out To the (Ad Message Here) Ball Game!"

The Wall Street Journal reviews stadium naming deals and finds little point in raging against the practice, but even scanter evidence that brand sponsors always get what they're paying for.
"A study in a 2002 edition of the Journal of Advertising Research showed that naming-rights deals do help the companies—at least in the short term. The stock prices of 49 companies studied rose an average 1.7% the day they announced such agreements.

"But a 2003 paper in the Journal of Sports Economics that tracked the stocks of 54 companies for 20 days after the signings showed that only two showed a statistically significant difference—and in both cases, the stock price fell. "Naming rights is about one thing: boys with toys," says the study's co-author, Michael Leeds, an economics professor at Temple University."
Health care boys (and girls) like toys, too. There's Parkview Field in Ft. Wayne, IN, a $3 million deal over ten years.

The Methodist Hospital System is the "Official Healthcare Provider" of the Houston Texans and the naming rights sponsor for the Methodist Training Center, a practice bubble next to Reliant Stadium.

And there's WakeMed Soccer Park in Cary, NC, a 3 year deal at $300,000 per.

And Silver Cross Field in Joliet, IL, home to the Joliet Jackhammers of minor league baseball fame.

Meanwhile, there's an opportunity in Omaha. "Alegent Stadium" anybody?

Though the benefits are hard to quantify, those writing the checks are pretty sure they're real. "A no-brainer" opines one spokeswoman in the WSJ's article. Umm-hmmm.

She must know something I don't, like what's happening this weekend as we watch Super Bowl XLIV 'live' from Miami's Sun Life Stadium. I guess I'm supposed to wake up Monday morning, not with a hangover, but with a strange urge to buy some financial products. Oh right! I need more life insurance.

Play Ball!


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Porter On Health Care Reform

Michael Porter, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, proposes "A Strategy For Health Care Reform - Toward A Value-Based System." His proposals are fundamental, lucid and right-on, meaning they're sure to be opposed by some parties to the debate, the so-called "Yes, but..." crowd. Most important, in my opinion, is this: "... electronic medical records will enable value improvement, but only if they support integrated care and outcome measurement. Simply automating current delivery practices will be a hugely expensive exercise in futility. Among our highest near-term priorities is to finalize and then continuously update health information technology (HIT) standards that include precise data definitions (for diagnoses and treatments, for example), an architecture for aggregating data for each patient over time and across providers, and protocols for seamless communication among systems. "Finally, consumers must become much mor
Post a Comment
Read more

Being Disrupted Ain't Fun. Deal With It.

Articles about disrupting healthcare, particularly those analogizing, say, Tesla's example with healthcare's current state, are frequently met with a chorus of (paraphrasing here) "Irrelevant! Cars are easy, healthcare is hard." You know, patients and doctors as examples of "information asymmetry" and all that. Well, let me ask you this: assuming you drive a car with a traditional internal combustion engine, how much do you know about the metallurgy in your car's engine block? I'll bet the answer is: virtually nothing. In fact it's probably less than you know about your own body's GI tract. Yet somehow, every day, us (allegedly) ignorant people buy and drive cars without help from a cadre of experts. Most of us do so and live happily ever after (at least until the warranty expires. Warranties...another thing healthcare could learn from Tesla.) Now, us free range dummies - impatient with information asymmetry - are storming healthcare
Post a Comment
Read more

My Take On Anthem-Cigna, Big Dumb Companies and the Executives Who Run Them

After last Friday's Appeals Court decision, Anthem's hostile takeover of, er, merger with Cigna has but a faint pulse. Good. Unplug the respirator. Cigna's figured it out but Anthem is like that late-late horror show where the corpse refuses to die. Meanwhile, 150 McKinsey consultants are on standby for post-merger "integration" support. I guess "no deal, no paycheck..." is powerfully motivating to keep the patient alive a while longer. In court, Anthem argued that assembling a $54 billion behemoth is a necessary precondition to sparking all manner of wondrous innovations and delivering $2.4 billion in efficiencies. The basic argument appears to be "We need to double in size to grow a brain. And just imagine all those savings translating directly into lower premiums for employers and consumers."  Stop. Read that paragraph again. Ignore the dubious "lower premiums" argument and focus on the deal's savings. $2.4 billion saved
Post a Comment
Read more