Vancouver Mayor's Budget Task Force recommends selling naming rights to increase cash flow
bc.ctvnews.ca
A volunteer-run group tasked by the City of Vancouver to analyze its budget is suggesting the city generate revenue from city assets through selling naming rights and running sponsorship campaigns.
  • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
    8·
    6 months ago

    Sponsorship I can get behind; naming rights has always seemed like a bad idea.

    I do think that city-owned assets should be properly labelled though, and putting a “maintenance of this made possible by sponsorship of xyz” on a plaque makes sense to me. But sponsorship should be a subscription, not a one time payment.

    • Nogami@lemmy.world
      4·
      5 months ago

      When you build it yourself you get to name it. When it’s city (public) money you don’t.

      Sonsorship subscriptions are fine though. I’d even suggest that a certain portion must be set aside in a fund that generates interest or investment revenue.

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
      4·
      5 months ago

      putting a “maintenance of this made possible by sponsorship of xyz” on a plaque makes sense to me. But sponsorship should be a subscription, not a one time payment.

      An important thing to add to this, I think, is that it’s important that the sponsorship has no final say in the direction, or management of the asset. It should just be treated as an advertising/philanthropic opportunity for the sponsor.

      One concern that I do have is over-reliance and dependence on the sponsor. It would not be great to have a situation where the City is beholden to some corporation.