Signs of trouble: citizen-driven guidelines for sponsor recognition in park and recreation settings

Parks & Recreation, Sept, 2002 by Andrew Mowen, Mark Havitz

The past decade has seen a growth in the use of corporate sponsorships and donations in park settings. Although donations don't necessarily require an exchange of benefits and aren't done for commercial purposes, donors and sponsors may desire recognition as a result of their contributions. Sponsorships, in particular, have traditionally involved a two-way exchange of benefits between the sponsor and the park agency recipient. Park agencies are interested in acquiring additional money, in-kind equipment, personnel expertise or additional advertising/promotion, while corporations seek to enhance their brand recognition and promote their products or services on the basis of their association with park and recreation agencies. Recognition of this exchange process, though important especially for sponsorships, is incomplete in the sense that it minimizes or ignores input from a third critical constituency--the general citizenry.

The City of Waterloo, Ontario, home to a proud and progressive park and recreation tradition, experienced some high-profile controversy during the past year when it named a major new regional park after a local corporation, Research In Motion, in recognition of a Se million dollar donation from several corporate employees. Two million dollars represented a relatively small portion of the nearly $57 million needed to construct the park, and an even smaller percentage of the estimated $145 million needed to pay off principal and interest over 30 years. The ensuing firestorm made front-page and editorial-page news for months, putting a damper on what should have been a major positive milestone in the life of the community.

Visibility is Key

One benefit that donors and sponsors may request from a park agency is visible recognition on signs, banners, plaques, facilities and events. However, the public may not always support the use of sponsor or donor recognition. Given the potential public backlash associated with sponsorships, many park and recreation professionals are pondering guidelines that can be considered when recognizing corporate sponsors in park and recreation settings. Some park agencies are now developing official policies concerning sponsor and donor recognition, and have also polled their constituents about their preferences for sponsorship policies and recognition guidelines. While such developments are favorable, more park organizations will need to adopt formal guidelines if they're to continue successful sponsorships that serve the greatest public good and protect precious park resources.

At least three broad recognition guidelines should be followed:

* Use naming rights sparingly.

* Select an appropriate location for recognizing sponsors and donors.

* Establish size and content restrictions.

Although the following guidelines don't represent all sponsor and donor issues facing park organizations, they do highlight the major concerns expressed by citizenry and how park organizations are responding to such concerns by establishing formal donor and sponsor guidelines. Fortunately, such guidelines aren't mutually exclusive from corporate sponsorship objectives. (Corporate sponsors don't want dissatisfied park constituents any more than do park agencies.) However, it is up to individual park and recreation organizations to decide which specific recognition guidelines work best for their situation.

Guideline #1: Use Naming Rights Sparingly

Recognize Sponsors at Temporary Events Rather than Permanent Facilities

Some sponsors may want to ensure that their company, brand or individual name is recognized in the title of a facility or a special event. Although naming rights of parks aren't favored by most public constituents, there are circumstances where it may be more acceptable. Such acceptable instances involve using temporary recognition at special events as opposed to permanent facilities.

A recent study of public sponsorship preferences conducted for the Fairfax County (Va.) Park Authority suggests that the public prefers corporate naming of special events to corporate naming of park facilities. See the bar graph at right.

That being the case, Waterloo's problems were largely rooted in the fact that an entire park, not a facility within a park or a transitory event, was involved. Although the department had accepted sponsorships of portions of recreation facilities in the recent past, it was the first instance in which a regional park was named for a corporate sponsor. After Millenium Recreation Park was renamed RIM Park because of the $2 million donation from Research In Motion, many letters to the editor of The Record, in Kitchener, Ontario, spoke to the general distrust of corporate interests impinging on public interest. Here are some excerpts from those letters:

* "I recognize that in naming the park, council and its various committees were guided by a report suggesting the easiest way to raise funds for the project would be to allow naming opportunities. It probably is. However, promoting the commercialization of public works only fosters the idea that one needs to be rewarded for being a good corporate citizen. This is not RIM's park, it is the people's park, and while I am grateful to the folks at RIM, I think we are setting the wrong precedent."