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

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."

* "City council felt a stronger obligation to corporate interest than it did to the citizens it is supposed to represent."

* "Has council told us how or when it authorized an appointed committee and a fund-raising consultant to sell the name to the highest bidder? Has council told us why RIM Park brochures were printed before the name change was made public? Has council told us that if RIM were to be purchased by Microsoft or ATT that the name of the park would change as well? No. Council hasn't told us much about this project, but it will expect us to help pay for the facility for the next 30-plus years."

Consider Using Naming Rights at New Rather Than Existing Facilities

Some sponsors and donors may insist upon acquiring naming rights at a permanent park facility or setting. In these instances, park professionals should consider whether the amenity in question already exists or is new. According to sports marketing expert Dean Bonham, of the Bonham Group, corporate naming of new facilities built with corporate donations or sponsorship dollars are usually more acceptable than naming existing facilities and settings that have already been paid for with public dollars. The rationale is clear here because, although the public may not perceive a direct benefit from a simple renaming of an existing facility, they may support corporate naming if the corporation played a major role in providing additional park facilities to the community. Cleveland Metroparks was able to successfully add the name of a private donor to a new visitor center while it was in the early planning stages.

It is not always clear as to what constitutes a "new" facility. In the case of the Waterloo controversy, the new park, though not officially open when the sponsor's name was attached, had received much press in the years before its grand opening. A day after the city council moved to change the name, the local paper editorialized that identity had, indeed, already been established in the public mind. "The problem is the park did have a name: the Millennium Recreation Park. If that name wasn't good enough, council should have consulted with the citizens of Waterloo to come up with a better one," the paper wrote.

Use Naming Rights Only When the Contribution is a Substantial Percentage of the Facility

As noted earlier, the scope of the gift relative to the full cost of building a facility or sponsoring an event is also an issue with respect to naming rights. In the Waterloo example, the named sponsor contributed about 3.5 percent of the up-front construction costs, and just more than I percent of the total project costs once interest paid over the ensuing 30 years was calculated. This figure was clearly too low f6r many in the community to accept. Another writer, though considerably liberal with respect to the net worth of the donors, correctly noted that other, less well-heeled constituents contributed large sums as well but without similar recognition. "Waterloo's new park should not be named after RIM just because it has the money to buy its way in," this resident wrote. "What impresses me more is that the Waterloo Minor Hockey Association previously made a donation of $250,000 in December 2000. These are kids donating the money and time, not billionaires trying to make themselves and their company look better."

Naming rights are the least preferred form of sponsorship recognition among constituents, yet they provide the highest degree of visibility for sponsors and donors. Current public sentiment would seem to suggest that naming rights only be used on new facilities, and avoiding it at existing facilities where citizens don't see the added value of the sponsor or donor contribution.

Many park agencies avoid using sponsor naming rights altogether. For example, the Piedmont Park Conservancy in Atlanta doesn't allow using corporate names in the title of events and facilities, but it does allow limited on-site advertising at special events. Citrus County (Fla.) Department of Parks and Recreation also limits the use of naming rights at its facilities. Citrus County places a time limit on facility-naming rights. Sponsored facilities and events can be named for up to, but not exceeding, one year. Fortunately, most sponsors won't demand facility-naming rights, but may desire a visible location or platform to recognize their contributions.

Guideline #2: Select an Appropriate Location for Recognizing Sponsors

Recognizing donors and sponsors has traditionally been accomplished through park recognition walls and commemorative plaques. More and more, however, other on-site recognition locations are being considered. However, sponsor recognition at these locations will not always be perceived favorably. Park professionals should be prepared to make decisions about donor and sponsor recognition on indoor vs. outdoor locations, on-site vs. off-site locations and on various types of facilities or settings.

Highlight Sponsor Contributions at Indoor Rather Than Outdoor Locations

Constituents are more likely to accept identification of sponsors at indoor locations (i.e., on facility honor walls, banners, offices, etc.), than at outdoor locations. One reason may be that visitors perceive sponsorship as a form of commercialization to be confined to developed settings. In its sponsorship study, Fairfax County Park Authority found that its citizens preferred corporate recognition (including the use of corporate logos) on inside signs and banners rather than on outside signs and banners.

Some park agencies have established donor and sponsor guidelines to reflect these location-based preferences. For example, Piedmont Park Conservancy's guidelines state that managers should recognize donors and sponsors on interior placards while ensuring that such recognition never impede upon the natural beauty of the park. Exceptions have included temporary outdoor structures such as park benches. Donations of significant resources may be recognized on park facilities and structures and, to the greatest extent possible, in the interior spaces.

Centre Region Parks and Recreation, in Centre County, Pa., has also established policies acknowledging the importance of inside vs. outside donor and sponsor recognition. Its guidelines note that parks are designed, in part, to provide relief from commercial advertising, especially at resource-based park areas. Although recognition plaques for picnic facilities are allowed, the agency recommends that such sign or plaques be placed inside pavilions, visible only to patrons who enter and use the facility.

Consider Recognizing Sponsors at Off-Site vs. On-Site Locations

Existing park sponsorship guidelines specify that sponsor recognition be placed off-site and away from park settings entirely. This is especially critical for nature-based park settings. Corporate sponsors and donors have realized that they can gain recognition by communicating their contributions at offsite locations and in materials such as Web sites and park agency publications. For example, Cleveland Metroparks provides its sponsors with visible logo recognition on the back page of its monthly program guide. Its sponsors also place the park district's logo on its product packaging. The advantage of recognizing sponsors off-site is that donor and sponsor contributions can be communicated to targeted audiences without intruding directly upon park and leisure experiences.

In its sponsorship guidelines, Piedmont Park Conservancy notes that park newsletter articles may include a story about corporate donations and corporate communications (radio, television, annual reports) may be used to recognize the park sponsorship. Offsite corporate communications in popular media is a good way to recognize sponsors and donors because such messages don't impede on visitors' leisure experiences. Off-site recognition is especially appropriate when park settings include significant nature-based and historic resources.

Minimize Sponsor Recognition in Natural Settings

The type of park and recreation facility in question is also a determining factor in deciding an appropriate donor or sponsor recognition platform. Sport-based and community recreation facilities have pioneered the use of sponsorship in leisure settings, and the public currently perceives these locations as the most appropriate for sponsor recognition (as opposed to nature-based park settings and conservation facilities). Perhaps influenced by historic precedent, Fairfax County Park Authority found that its constituents were more likely to support visible recognition inside recreation centers and on ballfield fences than at trails and historic sites. See the table on page 89.

Citrus County Department of Parks and Recreation allows sponsor recognition on ballfield fences, but allows only one annual sponsor for an entire field or facility. Centre Region Parks and Recreation guidelines indicate that corporate advertising may be appropriate at pools, sports complexes, skate parks or a site where the emphasis is on activity, but not at facilities or settings where the emphasis is on the environment. Along this same line of thinking, Piedmont Park Conservancy guidelines don't allow donor recognition to be affixed to a natural resource. Once an appropriate location has been established, it's a good idea to consider the message or text of donor recognition as well as the overall size restrictions.

Guideline #3; Establish Size and Content Restrictions

Donor and sponsor recognition at public parks should adhere to size, style and content guidelines. Indeed, many sponsorship policies contain language that reserves the right to limit and approve the size, type and appearance of donor or sponsor recognition.

As with the previous recognition guidelines, size and content should be consistent with the type of setting. Some park agencies are developing detailed size and content guidelines to ensure that donor recognition doesn't aesthetically detract from recreation experiences.

Consider Restricting the Size and Duration of Recognition Banner and Placards

Size restrictions are one way to ensure that donor recognition is consistent with its park surroundings. Size limitations allow donor and sponsor recognition, but strive to preserve a noncommercialized atmosphere that's an important element of public park experiences. For example, Piedmont Park Conservancy guidelines state that donor plaques can be placed on park facilities and structures, but shall be no larger than 18 square inches. The conservancy recommends using sign consultants to ensure the appropriate and uniform use of donor and sponsor recognition across its facilities and in promotional materials. Citrus County Parks and Recreation limits the size of its ballfield fence advertising to 4' x 8', and prohibits metal signage. The agency also emphasizes sign uniformity. It has established a donor-recognition wall to be placed in its park for ten years.

Avoid Slogans, Sales Pitches and Agency Endorsement of Sponsors

Not only is the type and size of signage important, but message content should also be reviewed for appropriateness. Although many park agencies allow the use of corporate names and their logos, fewer allow the use of sales slogans for the expressed purpose of selling products. For example, Piedmont Park Conservancy guidelines indicate that brief credit lines can be used stating the project/facility is "made possible by a gift from ..." However, the conservancy doesn't allow advertising campaigns, special promotions or corporate slogans on permanent signs, and only on temporary signs associated with park-based special events. Conservancy guidelines state that corporate recognition should never imply conservancy endorsement of sponsor products or services.

Pursuing nontraditional funding sources is rapidly becoming an accepted practice in parks and recreation settings. However, park and recreation professionals will need to ensure that such efforts don't alienate their core public constituency. Instead of merely maximizing sponsor benefits, park professionals need to carefully consider how to recognize contributions while protecting the very qualities that make recreation settings valued by the public. As one leading public-sector sponsorship authority puts it, this doesn't mean "putting banners and signs all around the parks. The right sponsors won't want to do that, because it will just create backlash."

Park sponsorships are most successful when they're used to create heightened citizen awareness, which can enhance other park and recreation development activities. Complicating the issue, of course, is that "the public" rarely speaks with one voice. Corporate sponsorships and private donations won't entirely replace other forms of park resources and revenues. Nevertheless, as recreation and park professionals become more familiar with sponsorship, they'll be in a better position to articulate and deliver its benefits to both corporations and concerned citizens.

Preference for Corporate Naming Rights
Events v. Facilities

Park Special Events     75%
Park Facilities         42%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Preferences for Recognizing Sponsors
at Fairfax County Park Authority

Appropriateness of sponsor             Percent indicating this
identification at, around or on ...    location as appropriate *

Facility Scoreboards                   64
Ballfield Fences                       56
Inside Golf Course Clubhouses          55
Inside Recreation Centers              50
Playground Equipment                   36
Entrance Signs                         27
Trails                                 20
Historic Sites                         13

* Excludes respondents who evaluated the location
as either inappropriate or neither appropriate nor inappropriate.

Andrew Mowen, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the School of Hotel, Restaurant and Recreation Management at Pennsylvania State University. Mark Havitz, Ph.D., is a professor at the University of Waterloo, in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Both are NRPA members.