In case you missed it, take a look at this plan for the cash-strapped New York M.T.A. to sell off naming rights to subway stations. The first taker: Barclays, which will buy the privilege to change the name of the stop at Atlantic Avenue and Pacific Street in Brooklyn to Barclays Center.
I think this is a fantastic idea, but why stop short? Currently Subway restaurants are getting a free ride on the backs of the taxpayers, reaping scads of publicity from the system without paying a dime for the privilege. Why not sell the naming rights to the whole thing? I think the “Dow Chemical Underground Rail System” has a nice ring to it.
And why stop there? How about naming rights to freeways? One very equitable possibility: why not rename Michigan’s Chrysler Freeway the Chrysler Unsecured Creditors Expressway? Seems like fair compensation given what the lenders have been through.
P.S. — The supercomputers are still crunching the data on your hilarious entries in the Worst Road competition. Results soon.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Great, our whole lives can look like a NASCAR race, or the movie “Idiocracy.”
I actually think it is a good idea to sell naming rights, within reason, of course (which is not exemplified by your post).
To act like we ought not deign to allow naming rights is the same sort of snobbery that calls it “selling out” for a band to–GASP!–take money to allow a company to use their music in a commercial. Oh, the humanity!
If a city needs money, why not sell naming rights? If someone wants to pay $100 million to put their name on a bowl game, or a road, or what have you, well, better from them than from me.
I do, of course, draw the line at certain things. I certainly wouldn’t want to go to “Marlboro’s Smokey Mountain National Park.” Not only would I think that a bit crass, but I would not like the notion of having such a dirty sponsor.
If a city can sell advertising on the sides of buses, why not other areas of mass transit, etc.
Are we too good for such things?
Didn’t the shareholders of the Pennsylvania Railroad technically already pay for the naming rights of older stations?
I realize the post contains just a hint of sarcasm as to the merits of this idea, but as someone who travels through the station-soon-to-be-formally-known-as-Atlantic-Avenue-and-Pacific-Street on a daily basis, I have absolutely no problem with this idea. It beats having fares raised for the third time in two years.
Having said that, I can only assume that the revenue generated will continue to be wasted on union kickbacks and graft. But one can hope.
Unfortunately, if there were a “crash” on the “Bill Golden Gates Bridge”, hitting Control+Alt+Delete, would not be an option.
nice post- i would call marketing in general corporate pollution- the reason why imprinting corporate logos on public spaces is wrong is the same reason that graffiti (private marketing pollution) is wrong- it is an aesthetic violation of a public space- just because gates has 1 bill doesn’t give him the right to spraypaint his name on the highway system any more than joey spraycan has to ‘bomb’ highway placards
Reminds me of “Infinite Jest”, where corporations buy naming rights for a particular year.
Will this work retroactively? New York might have to pay York England for borrowing its name or even Amsterdam for an earlier one. Same for New Mexico, New Jersey, etc. How about other places whose names originated from the Native Americans? Will they pay for the use of names borrowed from others?