Naming the LVEC... corporatism gone too far?

[posting]

As the LVEC is about to become the "K-Rock ---" the issue of whether civic buildings paid for by the public should be corporatized by selling "naming rights" has stirred some critics - see below.

-- Kingston Electors


Big corporate is taking over all aspects of U.S.

from the Kennebec Journal / Morning Sentinel 2008-02-11
http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/view/letters/4730418.html

As I travel around the country attending trade shows, I see all too often stadiums, civic centers and the like named after big corporations. ("AUGUSTA: Name that auditorium").

I sickens me to no longer see these facilities named after individuals who may have contributed in no small way to their communities. These houses of entertainment and public functions often were named after the city in which they were built -- paid for by the taxpayers. They gave the city a place of identity, you knew exactly where the facility was located.

Do you know where PETCO Park is located? (San Diego -- I didn't know until I drove past it last summer). How about TD BankNorth Garden? It previously was named Fleet Center Garden. Before that it was Boston Garden.

I drive into Boston frequently and it irritates me to see the name of a big commercial bank emblazoned across the top of the building -- a bank, like so many others, who have taken so much advantage of its customers with usurious interest rates.

Big corporate has taken over all aspects of our country, including politicians who supposedly makes laws for all the people, not just to benefit the big corporations and the super rich.

Are you ready to throw in the (crying) towel and hand over the Augusta Civic Center to Big Corp?

I want my country back and if you think about it you may just want it back too!


Ron Vincent
Sanford

[McClung]

Corporatism is slowly extending its way into Canada. Will our schools be next? The following article shows how this trend has spread in the USA.


What’s in a Name? The Corporate Branding of America’s Schools
The Fifth Annual Report on Trends in Schoolhouse Commer******m, Year 2001-2002

epsl.asu.edu/ceru/Annual%20reports/EPSL-0209-103-CERU-exec.rtf

Alex Molnar
Arizona State University

Executive Summary

Commercial activities increasingly define children’s experience of school. The manner and degree to which commerce is woven into the fabric of American schools is evident from the numerous examples provided in The Fifth Annual Report on Trends in Schoolhouse Commer******m, Year 2001-2002.


The report examines eight categories of commer******m. One category, the sponsorship of education programs and activities, marked a sharp increase in the number of citations in popular, business, marketing, and education media. The increase is revealed most clearly through widespread reports on the sale of naming rights to school property and events.


Naming Rights

Naming rights, a practice borrowed from the world of professional sports stadium construction, and the erection of public buildings such as convention centers, are usually portrayed as a means for acknowledging corporate contributions to civic institutions. In
fact, they allow business to leverage substantial public expenditures in the service of their own marketing goals. Now schools have begun to participate in this practice.


One example is the Brooklawn, N.J., school district which sold the rights to name its new gymnasium to the town’s only supermarket.


In addition to sponsorship of programs and activities, the report examines trends in seven other categories of commer******m:


* Exclusive agreements. Example: Schools look more critically at agreements granting soft drink companies, like Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola, exclusive distribution rights.


* Incentive programs that reward students with commercial products in achieving certain academic goals. Example: The Hartford, an insurance company in Hartford, Conn., rewarded 20 randomly chosen elementary students, who had perfect school attendance records, with a shopping spree at a local mall.


* Appropriation of public school space by commercial entities promoting their names, brands, logos, etc. Example: Confectioner Cadbury Schweppes distributed a half-million book covers to middle schools to market its Sour Patch Kids and Swedish Fish candies.


* Sponsorship of educational materials and curricula. Example: Lawry’s Foods Inc. worked its name into the curriculum of a Los Angeles middle school by sponsoring a one-night, student-run restaurant.


* Electronic marketing targeted at schools and students. Example: In Point Breeze, Pa., NetworkNext signed 500 high schools to display “discreet” advertising messages from companies on free mobile computer equipment that would carry the advertising along with lecture content.


* Privatization. Example: For-profit school management firms like Edison Schools continue to produce questionable academic results, operating loses, and controversy.


* Fundraising. Example: General Mills’ long-standing fundraising program donates money to schools based on the number of special box top coupons students turn in from the company’s products—and extended the program now to reward schools that involve parents.


For most of the last decade, media references to these eight forms of schoolhouse commer******m have been steadily rising. In 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, however, media citations in a number of categories have declined. Nevertheless, the number of citations found during 2001-2002 is greater than the number of citations recorded in 10 of the preceding 13 years studied.

Messages Target Children

Although critics face severe challenges, efforts to resist commer******m appear to be increasing. School boards, including Seattle, Los Angeles, and Madison, Wis., for example, have implemented limitations on commercial activities, banning exclusive agreements with soft drink companies, and in some cases, ordering the removal of, or limitations on, school advertising.


The most frequent source of citations involving schoolhouse commer******m is the popular press. Business and marketing press sources also yield a substantial number of the citations. The education press, however, appears to largely ignore commercial activity in education, as it has in previous years.

Corporate curricula that promote distorted views of important issues do not teach critical thinking. Adding schools to the long list of public spaces that have been given over to the aesthetics and the principles of the marketplace seems certain to encourage the reduction of all issues to matters of buying and selling. The end result seems likely to be a society of pliant shoppers valued mostly for what they can buy rather than one of independent thinkers who can build and maintain a democracy.

Paying a Price for Commer******m

Consider the Brooklawn, N.J., school district that sold the rights to name its new gymnasium to the town’s ShopRite supermarket. Schools Superintendent John Kellmayer acknowledged that selling a school’s naming rights represented “the privatization of public responsibility.” “We’ll be the first school district to be branded with a corporate logo. You hope children can become sophisticated enough to deal with it,” he said.


Yet such “sophistication” may have its price, report author Professor Alex Molnar warns. “We might just as well say that we hope our children become cynical enough to dismiss such adult behavior with a wink and a nod. At a time when adults talk at length about the need to teach virtue and character in the schools, incidents such as these teach children about what adults actually mean by ‘virtue’ and ‘character’.”


Author Information

Alex Molnar is a professor of Education Policy Studies and director of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University. Research assistance was provided by Rafael Serrano of Arizona State University. The full text of The Fifth Annual Report on Trends in Schoolhouse Commer******m, 2001-2002, is available on the website of EPSL/CERU. (http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/ceru.htm)

[Dogma]

I can tell you now, this "concerned citizen" - is bias and bases his longings or "dreams for the good old days" on little, but his conspiracy theory.

I have travelled much more than this fellow who is limited in his "sighting" in North America. I have extensive experience with these facilities, working in them & around the world, and the assumptions of this forum should have considered that they are NOT just public builds, nor are they just pubically paid for through our taxes,. Infact; the LVEC for the most part is not financied by local taxes.

McCormick Place. That is a facilities named after an individual who may have contributed in no small way to their communities. Where is it ????

Roger Centre - where is this? They never call the "Skydome" - The Toronto Skydome Centre? Nor was it ever know for it!

And does not Ted Rogers contribute to our community and Canada infact through employment, telecommunication leader, and to keep those pesky Americans at bay - for takeover of our telecommunication industry?

Your "Big Corporation Conspiracy" - has taken over "every aspect" of your life - really sounds nuts.

Yes, indeed, amny things are owned and developed by companies. Go figure they make the technology the organisations and stuff you consume! If you do not like this - no one stopping you to statrt a company! Lets see how you do.

Banks sure make money , interest rates are at historic lows, they also contribute to good paying jobs, community charities and international and local economic stability. Whats the problem again???

Crying towel, more like whinning towel.

Please get your facts straight before - making such silly statements.


As I travel around the country attending trade shows, I see all too often stadiums, civic centers and the like named after big corporations. ("AUGUSTA: Name that auditorium").

I sickens me to no longer see these facilities named after individuals who may have contributed in no small way to their communities. These houses of entertainment and public functions often were named after the city in which they were built -- paid for by the taxpayers. They gave the city a place of identity, you knew exactly where the facility was located.

Do you know where PETCO Park is located? (San Diego -- I didn't know until I drove past it last summer). How about TD BankNorth Garden? It previously was named Fleet Center Garden. Before that it was Boston Garden.

I drive into Boston frequently and it irritates me to see the name of a big commercial bank emblazoned across the top of the building -- a bank, like so many others, who have taken so much advantage of its customers with usurious interest rates.

Big corporate has taken over all aspects of our country, including politicians who supposedly makes laws for all the people, not just to benefit the big corporations and the super rich.

Are you ready to throw in the (crying) towel and hand over the Augusta Civic Center to Big Corp?

I want my country back and if you think about it you may just want it back too!


Ron Vincent
Sanford

[Molly]

Since the LVEC has been paid for by our local taxpayer dollars I cannot see where there is a "conspiracy" of any kind.

Selling the LVEC naming rights raised only a small amount of capital for this large public project. It would seem like a fair comment that the building's name should be decided to honour a public figure and not a rotating list of commercial enterprises.

[Dogma]

Molly - you are somewhat typical of the public who have not read the LVEC business plan or the financial or market reports regarding this project.

1) The public (tax contribution) to this project is neither significant nor a major contributor to the LVEC. Most of the 47 million and its ongoing operation/maintenance cost are being paid for by private sources, grants, donations and revenues from the trade show, sports and entertainment events, OHL hockey and the local BIA.

The only significant "public asset" that the local Municipal (City of Kingston) is contributing on behalf of the general public or "tax payer"...is a a credit rating based on a loan (mortgage) for 30 years for financing the LVEC.

When people come up with "conspiracy theory", or arm chair assumptions with regards to "public financing by the taxpayer" it is ridiculous...because they obviously do not have (any knowledge or experience) to tell fact from fiction.

I believe that having "naming rights" is an important (long term financial contribution) to the LVEC, especially for its maintenance and operational costs going forward.

P.S - it is all in the LVEC business plan issued 2 years ago to the general public.

These "Anglan Bay" reports, plans were discussed and critiqued by local and independent auditors for council(s) previous and present to make decisions going forward for the LVEC on i.e expanding the seat capacity, to LEED design....etc.

Again, my point is also - where is McCormick place? Or The Rogers Centre?

[Lydia]

All the fuss about naming rights, Geez.

We as a society will complain whether we do or whether we don't use a major contributor's name to a project.

Personally, I am more than glad to have anybody, any company, any donator's name on it. As long as those who's name appears on it ACTUALLY ARE UPFRONT AND WILLING TO CONTRIBUTE A MAJOR PART OF THE EXPENSES OF DOING BUSINESS WITH IT. Also As long as it isn't FREE to the named person, corporation for doing business with it for ever without them paying due compensation.

I am not that wealthy to worry about it. I know that people should be respected by the public have getting their names on STUFF. I would PREFER to honour PEOPLE than corporations. However, since I won't be contributiong lots of money to the LVEC, I am not worried one bit.

As you kinow Dogma, ALL OF US have our favorite name that we call it. I already suggested "The Rosen", The Dogma". THE KCAL suggested "The Black Hole". After seening that K Rock isn't so bad.

However, I still like my name best so I will call it "The Rosen"":D:D:D

[Lydia]

Scott Environmental Group (SEG), which recently announced a major expansion andacquisition on Fortune Crescent in Kingston's west end, is nationally recognized as a leading provider of industrial waste management and environmental emergencyresponse services. SEG has built a solid reputation based on service excellence, environmental responsibility and innovative solutions for conserving natural resources by recycling usable products back into the supply chain.


Every bit counts, $50,000.00 is the donation and we should all be happy that is an amount that the taxpaper doesn't have to worry about.

Thank you Scott Environmental Group

[Lydia]

Steve Garrison was total correct in wanting more clarity on the issue of naming rights.

Councillors, in a pre-determined policy were not told of the company involved while they debated the financial terms in front of them. Not knowing the name behind the numbers caused angst among some of them.

Aboved appeared in the Heritage newspaper. Also A commentary by Bill Hutchins stated the following

Issues mave have been lost on councillors when they debated and APPROVED THE NAMING RIGHTS WITHOUT KNOWING THE COMPANY'S NAME

All they knew at the time was that the company was local and the dollar signs were big.

My question to all the councilors is this

"WHY THE HELL ARE YOU APPROVING SOMETHING YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT???"

Councilors, you have now joined the previous councilors who RUBBERED STAMPED ITEMS JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT.

When you do crap like that you show total disrespect for the residents of this city. You also GUARANTEE that "The Rosen/LVEC/Krock" will be what Dogma has indicated the KCAL group names it "THE BLACK HOLE".

By doing crap like voting for something without know what you are doing. You will ASSURE THE DEMISE OF THE LVEC.

I am not saying that K Rock has done anything wrong at all. I AM SAYING THAT COUNCIL DID BY NOT KNOWING EVERYTHING THERE IS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE LVEC OR ANY OTHER PROJECTS THAT WILL BE PLANNED.

[Dogma]

Issues mave have been lost on councillors when they debated and APPROVED THE NAMING RIGHTS WITHOUT KNOWING THE COMPANY'S NAME.

Actually, the agreement with the vendor or the tendor proposal was written to not disclose the "partial /name" or proponent for the name rights that appears on the LVEC. i.e K-Rock - "sports and entertainment Centre".

The name - has little to do with the "agreement" for the long term financing agreement.

It (the name) has everything to do with politics. i.e If one likes "the name" or not, ethical business practices etc.

Thus, the reason non disclosure was issued in the tendor to (all) interested tendor proponents.

Personally, (a name) on a building or on ones "I love me wall" - is somewhat the same thing.

The main reasons for this use of ones "company name" - if you read the agreement that is on the City web site
- its more about promotion/branding inside the building at (all future events) than the name sign on the outside facade.

Frankly, I do appreciate to support "local business" but the name K- Rock Centre - is rather pathetic. I would have rather view - The Empire Centre or Royal Bank Cenre - than "K-Rock".

[Lydia]

Dogma, the Name isn't the problem, the clause allowing NON DISCLOSURE IS.

There should never ever be a non-disclosure on anything that councillors are to vote on and accept.

Now I don't mean that tenders should be DISCLOSED. After several companies have put forth their bid, Councillors should pick the best of them.

Then and ONLY then should councillors be told EXACTLY who they have chosen. However, if the company picked was a disgrace to humanity or the owners are, then council can chose the second runner up.

However, THEY SHOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHO AND WHAT THEY ARE VOTING FOR.

Actually Dogma, K Rock Centre isn't any different to me that the ones you just mentioned.

[Dogma]

Disclosure of a (tenders bid) should not be done. Staff also understand bias's that can and do occur when a company or persons name is "linked" to a proponents bid. Thus the process after the "shortlisting" is done.

To me it makes little sense to need to know the "City staff's" recommended bidders name.

Whats more important to the long term success of the financial plan...is the substance of the accepted bid, and the financial strength of the bidder. e.g if the bidder was Ted Rogers verses Joes Variety Store - the process of the tender such as financial stability should be priority, which includes:quality of the bid, i.e ISO 2000 certified firm, bank credit statements checked, local exposure, and extras the vendor can include in the bid. Name whats in a name other than "conspiracy theory" for the naysays.

I still like "The Dogma Dome". :rolleyes: