Best Buy Theater Reaches Times Square

I can see the attraction and these projects generally have a positive impact on the area in which they are located. I've watched Times Square go from a grimy, crime-ridden neighborhood to Disneyland/Las Vegas strip.

But no matter what you do, you're going to offend someone who sees it as a blatant advertisement. And if you're thinking of obtaining naming rights you better make sure your reputation stays squeaky clean or else your name is up there in lights to throw proverbial rocks at.

Overall, I think retailers and manufacturers are better off endowing a chair in their company's name at a university or attaching their names to community projects that people will associate with something positive.

Len Lewis, President, Lewis Communications, Inc.

Perhaps the first naming rights in North America may have begun when the Anheuser-Busch company in 1953 proposed re-naming Sportsman's Park, occupied by the St. Louis Cardinals, to "Budweiser Stadium." When this idea was rejected by Ford Frick, the Commissioner of Baseball at that time, Anheuser-Busch then proposed the title "Busch Stadium." And that idea was passed.

I'm not certain any of these corporate sponsorships help or hurt the venue, however it typically generates revenue for the brand. Great move, Best Buy!

Ralph Jacobson, Global Consumer Products Industry Marketing Executive, IBM

I've always thought naming deals were overrated--it definitely gets a company's name out in a constant, public way, but quickly these sponsorships fade out of the public consciousness. For example, I just saw Tom Petty perform at a venue everyone in Massachusetts calls "Great Woods," although officially it is known as the Comcast Center and has gone through numerous sponsor names in the past 10 years or so. And everyone around here still says "Foxboro Stadium," "Boston Garden," etc.

Dan Berthiaume, Editor, Independent consultant

Best Buy is a company with an emphasis on family entertainment. The synergy between them and Times Square is obvious. They have made a good decision; and it should pay off for them.

My concern with naming rights is when there is no relationship between the buyer and the facility. Several years ago a company, no longer in business, whose main product was underwear bought the naming rights for the Miami Dolphins Stadium which was then known as Joe Robbie Stadium. Joe Robbie was the former owner and main catalyst for the stadium being built. The media had a field day with it. To this day, and after several name changes, the stadium is known as the stadium "formerly known as Joe Robbie Stadium."

Ed Rosenbaum, CEO, The Customer Service Rainmaker, Rainmaker Solutions

There are few retailers as Best Buy that have the kind of reach with the customers to do naming rights. Plus considering the markets they serve, the naming of a theater seems pretty appropriate. I think it's very appropriate.

Jerry Gelsomino, Principal, FutureBest

This discussion is appropriately listed under "Brand Image."

Naming rights are most often overdone and sometimes downright silly, precisely because the connection with brand image is lacking. It most cases, purchasing naming rights seems more ego than marketing.

In the case of the BestBuy Theater this is perfect. BestBuy is all about entertainment. It becomes a showcase not just for Nokia phones, but for everyone's phones, everyone's TV, etc... It sends a message that BestBuy's focus is the same as their customer.

The local connections also work. It makes the companies that want to be part of the community, part of the community, i.e. Heinz Field and Target Field.

On the other hand, do we really want to see our bank spending millions to name PNC Field or CitiPark? I think not.

Gene Detroyer, Entrepreneur, Advisor, Consultant, Professor, Independent

Like most of the respondents here, I'm generally cool to naming rights (that so many facilities bear the name of hometown corporations says more about CEOs spreading their feathers than it does about the inherent soundness of these ideas); but in this case--where there is some connection between the facility's product/equipment and the sponsor--I can at least give a quiet approval; my only concern is a potential conflict between marketing and operations: will the former group insist the latter use products sold in the stores, even if they're not the best choice?

'notcom'

I've never thought that naming rights paid off in any way. Didn't do much for Nascar's Winston Cup, now named the Sprint Cup. The two major problems with naming rights are: 1. they change, which confuses consumers; and 2., they go to the highest bidder. Can you picture Enzyte Stadium?

That's why Yankee Stadium will always be Yankee Stadium, and Madison Square Garden will always retain its name.

M. Jericho Banks PhD, President, CEO, Forensic Marketing LLC

This is all about promotion, marketing and advertising of the Best Buy brand. Naming rights are only one of many ways to do this. Their efficiency at delivering increased Top-of-Mind awareness, is very questionable and the costs to do this--especially during these cost sensitive days--is very difficult. The bad press from undertaking a new naming convention is in itself an issue. Best Buy is better off focusing its monies on increased community actions or awareness, rather than this naming convention, IMHO.

Kai Clarke, President, Miraclebeam Products, Inc.