Offical titles of games?

Come on.
Really?
A movie with that title would appear on a marquee and expect to be reviewed in a newspaper?

I give up.



- 30 -

 

I have a simple point — you have to be careful with hard and fast rules.

 

Personally, I would think it is best to go with what the reader would most likely recognize and use themselves (within reason, of course). I don't know anyone that is thinking "I can't wait to watch that FedEx Orange Bowl." Orange Bowl is more than fine on first reference for that. In fact, sometimes the confusing and long corporate sponsorship tags, while technically accurate, make it more confusing and less readable for the reader. In my opinion, to include something muddles the article is just nuts.

And as for PNC Park and the like the justification is that we can't exactly just say the Park, can we?

Again, for me, most style choices come down to what makes the story easiest to read for the reader. Like the Timberlake golf tournament previously mentioned or the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl. Do you think the Boise State fans really are worried about the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl or just the Poinsettia Bowl.

 

It doesn't matter if Boise State's fans are worried about it.

What matters is the accuracy and that is our responsibility. On first reference it should be the name.

 

Is there a compelling reason, in terms of news judgment, for the San Diego County Credit Union's name to appear in your paper? In mine? Is it a story? Has it done something newsworthy?

No? Then why shouldn't they take out an ad if they want the readers to know they're sponsoring the game? If not, the readers will find out when they watch on TV, when they become viewers -- viewers of a network reaping some of the benefits of that sponsorship agreement.

 

I've been handed quote sheets at bowl games where the sponsor is edited in when the coach just said Tidy Bowl.

Shameless.

 

I wonder if we would have used the sponsorships in stories from the beginning if they would have left well enough alone and called it the Chick-Fil-A Peach Bowl, etc., etc.

I think one reason they demand complete naming rights is because they know what we'll do otherwise - drop the sponsor name in our coverage.

 

The Chick-fil-A people told us as much a few years ago at the former Peach Bowl.

 

Of course that's one reason they change the name, because they don't get what they believe is their proper PR hit when the "Chick-Fil-A" is dropped.

So it becomes the Chick-Fil-A Bowl, Coca-Cola 600 or the Buick Open.

If I were a sponsor giving $10 million for naming rights, I damn sure wouldn't want it bastardized with four or five other names. It would be the SixToe Bowl and that's it.

 

Bingo.

The key phrase in that post is "compelling reason."

 

Oddly, the Buick Open is one of the few corporate names for a sports event that's legit. It's always been the Buick Open. There was also once a Kemper Open, owned by the Kemper Insurance Co. That's fine. Otherwise, I endorse editorhoo's policy.
And Evil -- or is it Orville? -- if your notion is followed, your first reference policy could be cumbersome if you want a lead -- or lede, for you traditionalists -- that reads well.

 

But those are the only names of the stadium. You cannot remove the PNC from PNC Park, because what do you then call it? Its name is PNC Park. PNC is not a title sponsor, its name is part of the park's proper name.

For a bowl game, the title sponsor is just that, a title sponsor. It is not the proper name of a bowl. The proper name of the bowl is what is left when you remove the title sponsor. The title sponsor should never be referenced unless you are ordered to do so by a superior at your newspaper. Never.