Paying for Naming the T

Charlie_mta said:
My guess is that LCD ads would be too distracting to drivers. Video billboards are banned in a lot of places in the US.
Click to expand...

No reason why screens LCD or more likely the OLED flex panels should be obvious installs in the stations and inside the vehicles -- no reason for anymore paper ads
 
I can understand corporate takeovers of stations for extended periods of time, but to refer to a station like "Red Sox Kenmore" or "Celtics North Station" would be atrocious.

Just look at Vodafone Sol in Madrid.
Foto1.jpg

It's fine when we're just talking about slapping up a logo on station signage and whatnot, but for official announcements to include the corporate partner? It just seems like a waste when you consider all of the money spent on rebranding once the agreements are up.
 
whighlander said:
No reason why screens LCD or more likely the OLED flex panels should be obvious installs in the stations and inside the vehicles -- no reason for anymore paper ads
Click to expand...

LCD or OLED flex panels are fine inside a transit vehicle. However, if placed on the outside they become a distraction to drivers who would essentially be watching a video while trying to drive.
 
Wow, [Puerta del] Sol is one of the most significant, if not the most significant of the many transfer stations, in the Madrid Metro because of its location in the heart of the old city.

The Spanish are many times more competent than we are at this kind of public infrastructure, so I guess if they're doing it, we ought to consider it.
 
Charlie_mta said:
LCD or OLED flex panels are fine inside a transit vehicle. However, if placed on the outside they become a distraction to drivers who would essentially be watching a video while trying to drive.
Click to expand...

MTA in New York has done digital ads on their buses for 5 years now, and their screens are customized by neighborhood to show different ads on different bus routes.

new-digital-bus-ads.jpg




There's absolutely nothing traffic degree-of-difficulty that's different or worse about Boston vs. NYC. If it works there in-practice, there's no way it shouldn't be able to work here.


And yes...interior ads are also ripe for this. But those exterior ones fetch the most $$$ being the largest and most widely seen.
 
I'm okay with them as long as they're safe. FHWA or someone should do some studies to determine if video-type signs are too distracting or not.
 
Matthew said:
Wow, [Puerta del] Sol is one of the most significant, if not the most significant of the many transfer stations, in the Madrid Metro because of its location in the heart of the old city.

The Spanish are many times more competent than we are at this kind of public infrastructure, so I guess if they're doing it, we ought to consider it.
Click to expand...

Three million euros for a three-year agreement that rebrands not only Sol but all of Line 2 sounds suspiciously cheap, so I wonder if it really is more about revenue or politics. Assuming that Metro de Madrid would pay for all of the rebranding expenses, the amount of money spent on signage/maps/online alone would be a hefty chunk of change taken from the €3m.

Instead of going this route, the MBTA could first expand media "station dominations" to include ad slots on station signage and put the sponsorship as part of operator announcements; this way they don't have to lock down the assets for extended periods of time and incur substantial fixed costs when the agreement begins and ends.

With that said, though, I think the T's efforts are better focused on controlling its expenses and getting that Big Dig debt off its books (coughMassachusettslegisaturecough) before trying to grab at seemingly inconsequential ancillary revenue.
 
You can't just cover the inside of a car with ad because, at a certain point, the mind just tunes them out. Companies won't buy the space.
 
omaja said:
I can understand corporate takeovers of stations for extended periods of time, but to refer to a station like "Red Sox Kenmore" or "Celtics North Station" would be atrocious.

It's fine when we're just talking about slapping up a logo on station signage and whatnot, but for official announcements to include the corporate partner? It just seems like a waste when you consider all of the money spent on rebranding once the agreements are up.
Click to expand...

OmJ --- What about the MFA .. .we have Bank of America on Huntington and State Street Corporation on the Fenway

I doubt that the Red Sox with want Red Sox Kenmore ... more likely that they would want Kenmore ... Fenway Park
 
...we can only dream. Berliner Fenster, in all BVG vehicles - U, MetroBus, MetroTram - News, Jokes, Ads, Weather all on your daily commute. Would be an awesome venture for the Metro here.

5133099102_13e70966b5_z.jpg
 
whighlander said:
OmJ --- What about the MFA .. .we have Bank of America on Huntington and State Street Corporation on the Fenway

I doubt that the Red Sox with want Red Sox Kenmore ... more likely that they would want Kenmore ... Fenway Park
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider renaming Kenmore to "Kenmore - Fenway Park" to be a corporate sponsorship since the ballpark is a physical landmark for the city. In that same vein, MGH doesn't pay any money for Charles/MGH station naming.
 
omaja said:
I wouldn't consider renaming Kenmore to "Kenmore - Fenway Park" to be a corporate sponsorship since the ballpark is a physical landmark for the city. In that same vein, MGH doesn't pay any money for Charles/MGH station naming.
Click to expand...

Omaj -- If you pay money to the T -- I suspect that you could call it it Kenmore -- Ortiz or Ortiz World Series

Similarly MIT could pay the T $1M and the T would let them call Kendall to be Kendall / nMaSS for the new nano tech complex

But I think Kendall is all ready spoken for by Google

I think Court House / Vertex is already a given

and clearly with their money Airport / Emirates
 
Not sure if you're serious, but ... station names should describe the places where they are. "MGH" on Charles station is fine, but "Citizens Bank" on State station is not.

I'd be fine with "Gillette Station" if Foxboro ever becomes a full-time commuter rail stop. Or "New Balance/WGBH" for the new Brighton train stop.
 
Ron Newman said:
Not sure if you're serious, but ... station names should describe the places where they are. "MGH" on Charles station is fine, but "Citizens Bank" on State station is not.

I'd be fine with "Gillette Station" if Foxboro ever becomes a full-time commuter rail stop. Or "New Balance/WGBH" for the new Brighton train stop.
Click to expand...

Ron -- I don't think that you need worry -- no one seemed interested

Oh, Well
 
That's unfortunate - public transit should of course seek to attract whatever funding it can, and naming rights are a pretty good way to offer commuters benefits at little cost for them. At least the MBTA tried.

On the bright side, the MBTA's asking price is probably now going to drop a bit. Anyone want to pool funds to have an ArchBoston Line on the T?
 
The cost is disconnecting the station naming from its surrounding geography, and the resulting confusion to tourists and new residents. That isn't a cost worth paying.
 
Nomenclature for the stations or lines wouldn't likely change in practice. The way it operates in Madrid is that Vodafone is really just paying for permanent out of home media impressions with advertising on all signage, maps, etc. Nobody actually says "Vodafone Sol" or "Vodafone Line 2" when referencing the station and line that they bought naming rights for.

Does anyone know what the proposed term would be (i.e. how far is that million bucks going to get a company)?
 
itchy said:
That's unfortunate - public transit should of course seek to attract whatever funding it can, and naming rights are a pretty good way to offer commuters benefits at little cost for them. At least the MBTA tried.
Click to expand...

No, it shouldn't. It should be appropriately funded by the public, and failing that, it should only seek to collect exactly as much funding as it needs to span the difference between what the public provides in operational funding and what the actual costs of operation are.

In this particular case, not only is the monetary "benefit" of naming rights effectively worthless, it's actively insulting. In the context of a $118 million shortfall, seeking $1.2 million for the rights to an entire line is downright insulting and accomplishes nothing; in the context of the MBTA's projected $1.867 billion in FY2014 total revenue, the equivalent metaphor is pissing into the drinking water for all the good it does anybody.

Nobody likes to talk about just how little all that advertising actually pulls in. Nobody wants to admit that we're talking about a huge agency with a huge budget, and throwing out "$1.2 million for naming rights!" like it's a game-changer or anything but statistical dishonesty is a sick joke that we're made the punchline of, every single day.

Here's the figures that should be talked about:
  • Projected FY14 Farebox Revenue: $569.2 million
  • Projected Advertisement Revenue: $14.3 million (based on stated $1.8 million increase being "14.4% more" than FY13 Ad Revenue; even in the budget summary the MBTA doesn't want to make it easy to find out how little money the ad offensive makes for them)
  • Projected Ad Revenue as a percentage of combined Ad + Farebox Revenue: 2.4507%
  • FY13 Ridership: 391,902,586
  • FY13 Advertisement Revenue ($12.5 million) per FY13 Rider: $0.0319
If every single T rider pays just a nickel more per ride, the MBTA can eliminate all advertising system wide and actually come out well ahead of where they are right now.

In fact, with margins this narrow, targeted fare hikes could cover the difference without constituting an undue impact against any given target of a fare hike.

Talking about how we can get more revenue out of the ad offensive is like trying to squeeze blood from a stone.
 
I am happy to see advertising revenue maximized in any other way, as long as it doesn't involve renaming stations and lines. Advertising on the T could be helpful to local businesses that are near T stations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top