Future Campus Framework Presentation...

[OttoMets]

This might have already been posted but I saw that annually Carrier's initial investment works out to roughly $87,500 per year for the naming rights.

Several firms that specialize in naming fees have stated that SU would get 1-2 million per year for the naming rights. They all said that 1 million was extremely conservartive. So yea you fight like hell to get the naming rights for the dome revoked and bring in a group that will pay close to that $2,000,000 per year fee.

This is where every news outlet that's reported on the matter has misled the public.

One or two people made off-the-cuff comments to that effect, but no firm (or even an employee of a firm) has studied the matter and publicly said anything about $2 million a year.

I think that misleading and baseless figure has a lot of people too optimistic about potential revenue.

 

[Townie72]

The only thing here we differ on is that "Carrier isn't getting all that much benefit out of the name"

The dome is unique to college sports in that it hosts a national powerhouse basketball team and a (ahem) high level football program. There are many football and basketball events there that get national and regional exposure. On every broadcast, Carrier gets "free" advertising when their name is mentioned over the course of an event. What type of buyout do you think Carrier would accept and then how much do you think SU could get on the open market for it?

The only time I would expect an entity to accept less than the market value is in a case like Enron Field where creditors would be willing to accept pennies on the dollar just to get something from a bankrupt corporation.

But because of the way their product is sold and how it is bought, this kind of name recognition have very little value.

GE makes nuclear power plants. Do you think they should advertise that?

 

[cliftonparksufan]

To me, the building's got as much name recognition as the corporate brand. It's like Wrigley Field - just a person's last name on a building.

Of course none of us can quantify what Carrier gets out of the gift, but it doesn't feel like much from my vantage point.

Guess you never heard about Wrigley's gum. Where do you think the Wrigley family got their money from

 

[Townie72]

Toyota did it to embarrass the Big 3.

They did it to sell trucks.

 

[OttoMets]

Guess you never heard about Wrigley's gum. Where do you think the Wrigley family got their money from

Can't tell if I'm missing sarcasm, but that was my point - Wrigley and Carrier are neutral names that have a corporate connection without hitting us over the head like American Airlines or 3Com.

 

[xc84]

But because of the way their product is sold and how it is bought, this kind of name recognition have very little value.

GE makes nuclear power plants. Do you think they should advertise that?

Does GE not advertise GE? They don't have to advertise power plants. Just like Ford is not advertising trucks when it put its name on Ford Field in Detroit.

 

[Fly Rodder]

Does GE not advertise GE? They don't have to advertise power plants. Just like Ford is not advertising trucks when it put its name on Ford Field in Detroit.

Yeah, watch these GE spots and tell me what in the blue hell they're selling.

 

[xc84]

Brand Awareness
Brand-building is a full-time pursuit of marketers, and major sports teams can create or enhance brand awareness. Whenever a game is played, it’s almost unavoidable for cameras to pick up shots of the stadium and for sportscasters to at least mention the facility in passing. Additional mentions can occur when any team news breaks. This intense media attention might be of particular value to companies trying to get in the public consciousness. Therefore, rights have been sold for the Gaylord Entertainment Center, Great American Ballpark (Great American Insurance) and Petco Park, among others.

Fan Loyalty
Corporate marketers strive to achieve an emotional connection with target audiences. When deciding to buy naming rights, they want fans’ warm feelings toward the home team to rub off on their corporate or brand names. For instance, Wrigley Stadium became a beloved institution to Chicagoans while Busch Stadium achieved the same result in St. Louis. While these facilities were actually named after corporate founders, both individuals shared their names with their companies.

Free Advertising
The average cost per 30-second national television commercial during Super Bowl XLVII in 2013 was a breathtaking $3.8 million, but there was no charge whenever the game location was mentioned. That was good news for one car company, since it took place at the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans. The 2013 NBA finals achieved that same level of attention for sponsoring corporations, with championship games hosted by the Chesapeake Energy Arena (Oklahoma City Thunder) and American Airlines Arena (Miami Heat). For that matter, all important seasonal games and playoff contests in all four major team sports garner valuable unpaid ad time with every facility mention.

Staying Relevant

In the competitive marketplace, maintaining relevance and visibility is a brand’s #1 priority. Often, naming rights is not necessarily about increasing ROI, but reminding consumers that a brand exists, which can translate into brand preference when considering what product to purchase.

 

[supp]

To me, the building's got as much name recognition as the corporate brand. It's like Wrigley Field - just a person's last name on a building.

Of course none of us can quantify what Carrier gets out of the gift, but it doesn't feel like much from my vantage point.

If you do a search of "Carrier Dome" on the carrier.com site, you get zero hits. I think you're right that it's not exactly a cornerstone of their marketing approach but it's certainly educated a lot of people about Carrier's business over the years.

To be honest, I'm not sure any company that puts their name on a building is getting their "money's worth." But they continue to do for more and more money, so it must mean something to them and by extension it must mean something to Carrier. Townie's mistake is thinking that every business decision is a rational one just because that's how it's written up the textbooks. The game theorists have blown giant holes in much of advertising theory but that doesn't stop more and more money being spent on advertising.

 

[reedny]

The only thing here we differ on is that "Carrier isn't getting all that much benefit out of the name"

The dome is unique to college sports in that it hosts a national powerhouse basketball team and a (ahem) high level football program. There are many football and basketball events there that get national and regional exposure. On every broadcast, Carrier gets "free" advertising when their name is mentioned over the course of an event. What type of buyout do you think Carrier would accept and then how much do you think SU could get on the open market for it?

The only time I would expect an entity to accept less than the market value is in a case like Enron Field where creditors would be willing to accept pennies on the dollar just to get something from a bankrupt corporation.

Townie has downplayed the value throughout the thread, and basically posted that SU's lucky to have the name (be getting screwed/losing $900k per year). Those aren't my numbers, they're from people with expertise in valuing corporate (sports) naming rights. So saying there's no value isn't accurate when the experts put the value between $1M - $2M per year, and we're getting $72k.
Syracuse is negotiating for new naming rights deal on Carrier Dome (report)

 

[cpatrocks]

I say we all chip in and buy the naming rights: SyracuseFan.com Dome.

I'll start with a Fiver

 

[Townie72]

If you do a search of "Carrier Dome" on the carrier.com site, you get zero hits. I think you're right that it's not exactly a cornerstone of their marketing approach but it's certainly educated a lot of people about Carrier's business over the years.

To be honest, I'm not sure any company that puts their name on a building is getting their "money's worth." But they continue to do for more and more money, so it must mean something to them and by extension it must mean something to Carrier. Townie's mistake is thinking that every business decision is a rational one just because that's how it's written up the textbooks. The game theorists have blown giant holes in much of advertising theory but that doesn't stop more and more money being spent on advertising.

My problem is I actually understand the market for Carrier's products. And this means I recognize how little impact having their name associated with a stadium has on their business. Of course, they never saw it as an investment, anyway. It was a gift.

All business attempt to be rational even though its hard with most advertising. And there's a huge difference between consumer products marketing and advertising and industrial products marketing and advertising.

 

[BKCuse]

Nope and nope. I am not defending Carrier's "honor" nor have I even discussed it. Why ? Because it is irrelevant.

The university has done nothing yet that you know of except open up a conversation with Carrier. They have not said "the deal is over" for sure. You say I said renovations were not enough the allow for the contract to be null but in Feb. I said this:
"I have no sympathy for Carrier either...but it is irrelevant. I know that SU has said on multiple occasions that they have looked into it and there is nothing they can do. That's not a guess on my part. I have already said there is likely a threshold of renovations where the building becomes a different building."

On the other hand, you have offered these goofy arguments:

We can "hatch a plan" strategy:
"I won't be satisfied until Syverud and Coyle hatch a plan to dump the Carrier name and sell naming rights to another company. "

The agreement is from yesteryear strategy:

"You seem put a lot more stock in a 35 year old contract that was drawn up before the age of selling naming rights. My guess is if we hire a savvy lawyer we can get out of this ridiculous deal we're stuck with. If they paid 2.75M and we spend another 500M to reno I have to believe we can break that deal from yesteryear."

The alumni donors have more rights that corporate donors strategy:

"idk sure sounds like a lot of defending Carrier's interest to me - elevating them to the level of alumni donors and arguing in favor of maintaining the awful deal we made with them " "Surely you understand the difference between private family donations towards academic buildings and a corporate branding across our most valuable asset, no? "

Just notify Carrier we are putting the name up for bid because they've had it long enough argument:

"Hey Carrier it's a cold world. You got a helluva ride for 35 years but the stadium is under going a major facelift and we've decided the naming rights are up for bid again."

The Carrier has made "more than enough" argument:

"There has to be a way to sell new naming rights and get out of the Carrier deal. I mean 30+ years of Naming rights is more than enough of a return on 2.75M "

Yet every indication is that the University is doing exactly as I hoped they would.

Sorta validates my position and negates your empassioned arguments to keep the original deal, wouldn't you say? Lol

I'm done engaging on this.

 

[Orijinal]

Maybe Carrier gets a percentage of whatever we collect on a naming rights deal if they allow us to change the name?

Hmm ...

 

[xc84]

Yet every indication is that the University is doing exactly as I hoped they would.

Sorta validates my position and negates your empassioned arguments to keep the original deal, wouldn't you say? Lol

I'm done engaging on this.

This was your position.

"IMO moving your manufacturing out of Syracuse and severely damaging the city's economy is more than enough of a moral clause offense to break deal."

I am pretty sure that is not SU's legal argument.

Here is what we have been told so far in the news:

“Negotiations are happening now,” said Pete Sala, SU’s chief facilities officer. “We asked Carrier to be a player.”

"If Syracuse and Carrier can’t reach an agreement, the university could attempt to buy out the original contract. The school could also go to court to make the argument that the original deal should be scrapped, because when the dome is renovated, it will be radically different from the venue Holm sponsored."

Sound familiar?

 

[CuseOnly]

But because of the way their product is sold and how it is bought, this kind of name recognition have very little value.

GE makes nuclear power plants. Do you think they should advertise that?

I guess IBM started their smarter campaign to sell "smarter" or "smarts" to the public then.

I never knew I could buy a smarter.

 

[ForCuseSake]

GE makes nuclear power plants. Do you think they should advertise that?

Only in Shelbyville.

 

[orangecuse]

Yet every indication is that the University is doing exactly as I hoped they would.

Sorta validates my position and negates your empassioned arguments to keep the original deal, wouldn't you say? Lol

I'm done engaging on this.

 

[SU2NASA]

They did it to sell trucks.

Astute observation.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

I say we all chip in and buy the naming rights: SyracuseFan.com Dome.

I'll start with a Fiver

Dollars or Millions

 

[Townie72]

All we have heard is what the University wants. It's the University (Sala) that said they are negotiating' Maybe he should have said they have contacted Carrier and would like to negotiate this with them.

It's the University that wants the change. Why should Carrier? What's in it for them? Why should they negotiate?

Negotiations take two sides at least.

 

[Townie72]

Astute observation.

Well it wasn't an attempt to embarrass The Big Three.

The Big Three have done an excellent job of embarrassing themselves since about 1970.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

Can't tell if I'm missing sarcasm, but that was my point - Wrigley and Carrier are neutral names that have a corporate connection without hitting us over the head like American Airlines or 3Com.

Nope, missed your point. I took it that you meant that Wrigley Field was named after a person and not a corporation. Of course, back in the day, many corporations were named after people or families. US Steel might have been one of the first big ones that wasn't.

 

[Cheriehoop]

For multitude of reasons the Syracuse football alumni's relationship with the program and the school has been strained. It's been discussed many times but you don't see a lot of the faces. You would think that guys like Chris Gedney and Tim Green and others would help bridge the gap. Melo made a huge investment in the basketball program. Has any football players done the same.

It's a by-product of stability. Basketball luckily has had JB as an assistant or HC for over 45 years, football hasn't had it the past 25 + years.

 

[Townie72]

Townie has downplayed the value throughout the thread, and basically posted that SU's lucky to have the name (be getting screwed/losing $900k per year). Those aren't my numbers, they're from people with expertise in valuing corporate (sports) naming rights. So saying there's no value isn't accurate when the experts put the value between $1M - $2M per year, and we're getting $72k.
Syracuse is negotiating for new naming rights deal on Carrier Dome (report)

Screwed? Screwed? The University got screwed?

Carrier gave them a$2.4M gift (in 1979 Dollars) when they needed it badly. And that $2.4M is worth $7M in 2016 dollars.

The University and some of its supporters want to reneg on the deal and get more money? Instead of gratitude for the $2.4 M gift, what we hear is a sense of entitlement for more. The value went up, so we are entitled to more, is what I hear.

It's like selling someone a house and having that house go way up in value for the new owners. None of that money the new owners made is yours.

If I'm Carrier, my bottom number for relinquishing the name is $7M And they can wash their hands of the deal. Of course, they might also want to write a letter and publish it warning other corporations not to get involved with SU.