Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

When is Sponsorship Unacceptable? New York Musings

7th Jan 2015
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

As the British Government seeks to cut spending to 1930 Depression levels, the United States gives a chilling glimpse of our future.

It is easy to look at the old days through rose-tinted glasses and generally, developments during our lifetimes have been a boon for us all.

This column has enthused about the way that technology has changed and improved many aspects of contemporary living and made accountancy an even more enjoyable profession, if that is possible.

There have been downsides such as the replacement of the traditional workday with a 24/7 culture but many see that as a small price to pay for the other benefits including the entertainment revolution addressed last week.

Indeed, it is remarkable that this column can be posted effortlessly from New York City, although it is necessary to pop over the road in 20o Fahrenheit and a scattering if snow to get Internet access.

One consequence of the current Government policy to cut all spending is that many bodies will find themselves needing to raise money that they had previously expected to come from central or local sources.

That is likely to lead to further ventures into the American sponsorship culture. We are already well along the way.

Product placement in films is apparently prevalent and the same seems to be happening in other art forms.

One of the theatres in the National complex has recently been refurbished and changed its name to that of a principal benefactor.

However, that is unusual and some of the last theatres to rename were dedicated to Noel Coward and Harold Pinter, playwright/actors rather than wealthy benefactors.

On the sporting front, it may soon be necessary to recruit fatter footballers or cricketers in order to find enough room for all of the sponsors’ logos. Motor racing finds this easier, since both cars and drivers can be festooned.

How long will it be before boxers are tattooed with logos from corporate sponsors rather than (former) loved ones?

Similarly stadia and teams are now taking on new names to raise finance. At least Lord’s is still named after the man who established the ground over 200 years ago but as the MCC looks at another redevelopment, how long will it be before a name change?

The Americans are way ahead of us. It seems as if every room at MOMA is personally named, while all ambulances are private.

Does any of this matter? For the most part, if a rich person wants to help and be memorialised by an institution that does nobody else any harm.

If a company attaches its name to something that might represent insidious advertising but again do we really care unless it is persuading youngsters to smoke or drink?

The Americans do tend to lead the way in such matters, having never quite understood the welfare state culture that was Britain’s pride and joy for 60 years after the War.

During this stay, two examples have made a big negative impression. While artistic Americans have generally been more willing to beg (there is no other word) in order to create and survive, it still feels odd to us.

WQXR is a joy – a classical radio station available online that might be seen as New York’s equivalent to Radio 3. On my first day in New York, the “listener-supported” station spent the whole time asking or nagging listeners to make donations in order to ensure that it survives. That seems as good a reason to pay the BBC licence fee as one could ask for.

A different side to the same coin showed itself during a visit to a theatre that doubles as a house of worship.

Not only was the room sponsored along with seats etc. The building was adorned with stained glass windows and every one contained the names of donors or those that they supported as prominently as the religious message .

While the ones in view contained individual names, who knows whether some beer company hadn’t got its hands on some others.

Is this the way that we want to go? The answer is probably yes but it will change the nature of our culture. We should at least debate this topic in election year (though all parties are tending this way) before taking the final steps down a road from which there will be no return.

Tags:

You might also be interested in

Replies (0)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

There are currently no replies, be the first to post a reply.