Zell will consider selling naming rights to Wrigley Field

[jersey cubs fan]

Isn't the name Wrigley an ad for the gum/owner?

No. It is named for Wrigley the man himself. In no way other than the commonality of the name "Wrigley" is there any effort to sell Wrigley's chewing gum products: no Wrigley logos, advertisements, &c. People fail to get this. "Durr, Wrigley's a corporate name too." No, it isn't.

 

Yes. Yes it is. That's the advantage of naming a company after yourself.

 

It's like saying Turner Field isn't a corporate name.

 

Or Coors. I'm sure there's plenty of others.

The point stands about actively marketing the product within the ballpark, though. I'm sure they do that at Turner and Coors.

 

Of course, as has been talked about, the Wrigley corporate name isn't even really found on their products anymore. I'd imagine that 8 or 9 out of 10 people who chew their gum don't even know that it's made by Wrigley.

 

Wrigley's name is pretty obvious on Orbit, and I think all of their products.

 

My dog's name is Wrigley, and people around here usually associate it with the Cubs, but often ask "after the gum?"

 

The point stands about actively marketing the product in the stadium, but the point also stands that there is a tangible association between Wrigley Field and the William Wrigley Jr. Company.

[kycubsfan]

It's like saying Turner Field isn't a corporate name.

 

it isn't, they call it The Ted, not "Turner Broadcasting" park

 

it's clearly a tribute to the man himself, there's no Turner corporate signage on the park's facade

 

the wrigley name is similar, you don't see the doublemint arrow out front. the twins were on the scoreboard at one time, but that was an separate advertisement in of itself

 

big difference between these

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g310/broncorocks1/ChaseField3.jpg

http://www.stadiumpage.com/tropicana/TropMarquee.jpg

 

and these

http://www.gotfootagehd.com/thumb/HD-006/HD006-073.thumb.jpg

http://www.conceptsremembered.com/images/TurnerFieldLg.jpg

[seanimal]

The obvious comparison to Wrigley naming the stadium after himself is all the various incarnations of Busch Stadium. Same thing.

 

People want to make the distinction that where the Cubs play is named after the man, not the company, as if there is some monumental difference. There isn't. You're just saying that there is because you have this fantasy about baseball in the sunshine, loveable losers, and getting embarrassingly drunk in one of the most expensive ways possible.

 

Meanwhile the rest of us don't really care about all of this crap, we just want a good baseball team. Its a freaking building - an old, crappy one at that - and you're crying because they might change the name?

[Banedon]

http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/agsupport/USAwebpages/usa3939.jpg

 

Name or Corporation?

[UMFan83]

Has anyone in this thread mentioned that the Wrigley Marquee is a landmark and will not be changed or moved from the field, so most likely it will always say "Wrigley Field". More than likely, any naming rights will involved the Wrigley Field name.

[Banedon]

Has anyone in this thread mentioned that the Wrigley Marquee is a landmark and will not be changed or moved from the field, so most likely it will always say "Wrigley Field". More than likely, any naming rights will involved the Wrigley Field name.

 

Like many of us alluded to, I found this in an article this morning.

 

Landmark status means that the signature Wrigley Field sign on the ballpark's exterior will stay even if a new company obtains naming rights, the alderman said.

 

 

Link

 

From the same article...

 

Team officials now "want to get out of the landmark [designation], period," and they want to increase the density of the proposed commercial project, Tunney said.

[kycubsfan]

http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/agsupport/USAwebpages/usa3939.jpg

 

Name or Corporation?

 

clearly corporate, they paid for that (i'd say it's underutlized there)

 

there are no naming rights deals in place at Turner or Wrigley

[David]

It's like saying Turner Field isn't a corporate name.

 

it isn't, they call it The Ted, not "Turner Broadcasting" park

 

Not really sure how that changes anything. US Cellular Field is called "The Cell" by fans. What the fans call it doesn't mean anything.

 

As for the "not Turner Broadcasting Park" part, Chase Field isn't called "JP Morgan and Chase Co. Field." Tropicana Field isn't called "Tropicana Products Field." What on Earth difference does it make if the company's full & proper name isn't on the stadium?

[kycubsfan]

Meanwhile the rest of us don't really care about all of this crap, we just want a good baseball team. Its a freaking building - an old, crappy one at that - and you're crying because they might change the name?

 

history matters to some of us

[David]

What a ridiculous argument. So when the stadium is named the same as a company owned by the team's owner, it's OK, but when it isn't, it's not?

[jersey cubs fan]

http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/agsupport/USAwebpages/usa3939.jpg

 

Name or Corporation?

 

clearly corporate, they paid for that (i'd say it's underutlized there)

 

there are no naming rights deals in place at Turner or Wrigley

 

Yes, everybody knows there is no deal in place. That's not the point. What is in place is a tangible connection between a stadium's name, a man's name, and a company named after said man.

[David]

So, let me get this straight. If the Tribune had changed the name to Tribune Field, would that be OK? Or would it not be, because the name of that company isn't the name of said company's owner? Or is it because it wouldn't be the stadium's original name? Is that what makes it not ok? Because Wrigley isn't the original name of Wrigley Field, either.

[kycubsfan]

stuff

 

you missed the point

 

the examples you cite are instances of companies putting their most recognizable names on the parks, of all the entities within Turner Broadcasting the actual "Turner" part (a signboard company) is the least recognizable

 

had Turner put up money for the name it would be dubbed "TNT/CNN/TBS Park" or somesuch

[kycubsfan]

So, let me get this straight. If the Tribune had changed the name to Tribune Field, would that be OK? Or would it not be, because the name of that company isn't the name of said company's owner? Or is it because it wouldn't be the stadium's original name? Is that what makes it not ok? Because Wrigley isn't the original name of Wrigley Field, either.

 

a park named for a newspaper would be silly

 

parks named for colorful owners who left a mark on the game (August Busch, Will Wrigley, Ted Turner) are cool. Busch has since paid to keep its name alive, time will tell what happens to the rest

[David]

stuff

 

you missed the point

 

the examples you cite are instances of companies putting their most recognizable names on the parks, of all the entities within Turner Broadcasting the actual "Turner" part (a signboard company) is the least recognizable

 

had Turner put up money for the name it would be dubbed "TNT/CNN/TBS Park" or somesuch

 

You said, "Turner Broadcasting," not all that other crap. And since when is Turner not a recognizable name?

[Old Style]

I think the key issue here is SELLING the naming rights. Ted Turner owns the Braves. William Wrigley owned the Cubs. August Busch owned the Cardinals. Does Joe Coors own the Rockies? Does Vinnie Chase own the Diamondbacks?

[David]

The Wrigleys are hardly a family baseball should pay tribute to.

[David]

I think the key issue here is SELLING the naming rights. Ted Turner owns the Braves. William Wrigley owned the Cubs. August Busch owned the Cardinals. Does Joe Coors own the Rockies? Does Vinnie Chase own the Diamondbacks?

 

OK, so Tribune Field would be (or would have been, however you want to look at it) OK with you?

[Old Style]

I think the key issue here is SELLING the naming rights. Ted Turner owns the Braves. William Wrigley owned the Cubs. August Busch owned the Cardinals. Does Joe Coors own the Rockies? Does Vinnie Chase own the Diamondbacks?

 

OK, so Tribune Field would be (or would have been, however you want to look at it) OK with you?

Tribune is a company. All of my examples are family names.

[Old Style]

If Donald Trump owned a team, Trump Field would be OK. Make sense?

[David]

EDIT - Double Post Edited February 28, 2008 by David

[TruffleShuffle]

Meanwhile the rest of us don't really care about all of this crap, we just want a good baseball team. Its a freaking building - an old, crappy one at that - and you're crying because they might change the name?

 

there's a poll on chicagosports.com, where more than 80% of the voters oppose renaming wrigley field. it's fine to disagree with them, but lose the condescension.

[David]

If Donald Trump owned a team, Trump Field would be OK. Make sense?

 

If Trump owned THE CUBS, you'd be OK with him changing it to Trump Field?

 

Because, if that's the case, then I understand this crazy (non-)issue even less.

[Old Style]

If Donald Trump owned a team, Trump Field would be OK. Make sense?

 

If Trump owned THE CUBS, you'd be OK with him changing it to Trump Field?

 

Because, if that's the case, then I understand this crazy (non-)issue even less.

No. It has already been named Wrigley Field and has been that way for damn near a century. It should always remain Wrigley Field.

[kycubsfan]

And since when is Turner not a recognizable name?

 

it's plenty recognizable, it just makes you think of the man moreso than it does the properties

 

had Atlanta been an example of modern naming rights conventions the name would have changed shortly after Time Warner took control