“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” The famous plea by Juliet to her ill-fated lover bears timeless implications. With a giant sweep of her golden locks and with trembling hand outstretched, she tries desperately to convince Romeo that his family name, Montague – a name instilled with history and pride, is simply an artificial and meaningless convention. It’s the person who carries the name, the one cloaked in its historical persuasion, who embodies any real value and significance, Juliet insinuates.

The quote is a strong testament to the power or, rather, powerlessness of names, along the lines of it’s-what’s-inside-that-counts type of rhetoric. Powerful stuff indeed. And yet, I wonder if Shakespeare would have penned similarly had he been strapped for cash and eagerly searching for a corporate donor to sponsor his artistic endeavours and rename his Globe Theatre, perhaps to “The Molson Brewery Centre for the Performing Arts”.

It’s a bird, it’s a plane – it’s a name

Walking the streets of Toronto, I can’t help but question whether some organizations would exist at all were it not for the corporate giants – or middleweights – whose names adorn their facilities. “Naming rights have become an established part of the culture in North America,” says Terry Burton, president and founder of Vancouver-based Dig-In Research. With his work focused unilaterally on naming rights, Burton has established a strong niche in a field that is growing in both popularity and reach. His studies demonstrate that these particular sponsorship arrangements have become fruitful opportunities for nonprofits and corporations alike.

And, really, who can blame them? With continuous funding cuts and little likelihood their cash flow will be improving anytime soon, organizations are looking into deeper pockets for their sustainability. After all, hospital wings need to be constructed, arts centres need to be refurbished and other valid concerns need to be addressed. And the argument continues, if the government and the public aren’t going to help nonprofits achieve their goals, perhaps Canon or TELUS can. “Nonprofits are required to use their resources in the best interest of the mission and goodwill is a huge resource,” says Jane Garthson, president of the Garthson Leadership Centre, dedicated to strengthening organizations through enhanced leadership and ethics.

The power of a name

Take Vancouver’s TELUS World of Science. “The naming sponsorship with TELUS has injected significant dollars annually into the enhancement of our exhibitions, programs and shows,” says Adam Reibin, marketing and communications specialist. “Visitors to TELUS World of Science enjoy an even better experience as a result of this financial support.”

From the corporate perspective, what better way to support a cause while achieving invaluable marketing objectives than by placing your moniker in lights atop a permanent structure? “Naming rights help corporations feel they’re making a difference and their dollars count,” explains Burton. I would have loved to hear more on this perspective but none of the corporations I contacted were willing to talk. Considering the mutually beneficial relationships they’ve established, the tight-lipped policy seems a bit odd. But I digress.

The right fit

Nonprofit organizations, however, had lots to say in support of their naming rights arrangements. Though each relationship is different, those boasting successful partnerships all agree on the need for one fundamental thing: synergy. Without this vital element, neither the nonprofit nor the corporation will gain much value from the oft-pricey venture. But, with an infusion of synergy, opportunities seem boundless. Case in point: Sony and the arts. Take a prominent iconic theatre in downtown Toronto with an eye to the future. Add Sony, a fully integrated entertainment company with divisions in music, television, film and more. Mix well.

And voila!

“This is naming rights on steroids,” gushes Dan Brambilla, CEO of the newly-minted Sony Centre for the Performing Arts. Formerly, the Hummingbird Centre, the agreement is in line with the theatre’s redevelopment project, one that now involves state-of-the-art technology that Brambilla claims will “Sony-ize” the theatre. “I’m in the process of bringing the theatre into the 21st century, making it a venue that will be unsurpassed,” he says. Also in discussion with Sony’s music and television divisions, Brambilla adds, “Everything we’re doing here is about the future and technology and how it relates to the arts.” A fit this great, he concludes, comes along once every 100 years.

Terms of engagement

Of course, a really good fit sometimes extends beyond its synergistic attributes. “If the company is buying into the naming rights, odds are it’s interested in buying into other things that are really important to it,” says Bernie Colterman, president of Colterman Marketing Group. “They are probably really engaged in the cause as well.” Sony’s strong association with the arts is a good example, he offers. And the positive impact on a company’s profile as a result of those relationships is huge. “From the selling and corporate perspective we always ask, ‘what’s the pure value worth from an impression perspective; how many eyeballs and ears will there be?’”

Another naming rights relationship in the arts community certain to impress upon a significant number of eyes and ears is the Toronto International Film Festival Group and Bell Canada. This past summer, the duo announced a new name and logo for TIFFG’s upcoming home and headquarters: Bell Lightbox. After a ten year relationship with Bell as their major sponsor, TIFFG was confident the corporation would be a good match. “It was essential for us that a naming partner understand our mission and be supportive of the programs TIFFG develops to support that mission,” explains senior director of development and marketing, Lori Willcox. “And it was clear they understood the potential impact that a new building would have for film lovers 365 days a year.”

Hoping to establish Bell Lightbox as an international landmark for the future, and a technology showcase to benefit film lovers, the partnership will prove mutually beneficial. “It will provide Bell with a tremendous opportunity to reach a savvy audience and showcase Bell’s most-advanced next-generation products and services that will also enhance the experience of TIFFG audiences,” says Willcox. So, synergy prevails here as well.

Ditto for TELUS World of Science. In fact, says Reibin, finding the right fit was at the forefront of partnership discussions. “In seeking title naming rights, community research indicated that Science World should look for a major Canadian technology-based corporation,” he explains. Having been a strong supporter of Science World in the past – contributing almost $2.5 million over the past 15 years – and with their strong interest in the facility, TELUS was the nonprofit’s obvious counterpart of choice.

Name with care

But what if a naming rights scenario lacks synergy, can a match be undermined by a less-than-fitting alliance? The consensus seems to be a definite yes. Nonprofits must be cautious about their choice of partners, says Garthson. “A policy should be in place – before there’s a huge dangling cheque – about what types of corporations a nonprofit will and won’t deal with.” For example, she offers, Cancer Canada shouldn’t name a building after a tobacco company. “Make sure you’ve thought about whether it’s a corporation that’s suitable for your long-term linking to mission and value.”

Nonprofits should also be careful not to engage in naming rights that allow corporations to significantly influence their behaviour, decisions or mission. Brambilla, made that point clear at the start of his conversations with Sony. “I said, ‘you cannot influence our content in any way’,” he recounts. “And I told them, ‘look at our history, look at who we are and what we’re trying to accomplish as the multicultural theatre of Canada’.” So, with a strong track record and free speech on Brambilla’s side, Sony agreed not to place any restrictions on who or what graces the Sony Theatre stage.

Limitations and synergistic concerns aside, is it not possible that under all the corporate glitter and bright lights, sits an organization slowly losing a sense of who they are and what they stand for? Perhaps. But, says Colterman, in this day of limited resources, trade-offs are necessary. “If, through naming rights, you’re able to do a lot of things you couldn’t do before, isn’t that the goal?” So long as you’ve partnered with a company that stays true to your cause and creates fair value, it’s a win-win situation, he adds. Something to ponder as I walk past the Rogers Museum of History toward the Scotiabank Community Centre on my way to the Corel Theatre. Perhaps.

Elisa Birnbaum is a freelance journalist, producer and communications consultant living in Toronto. She can be reached at: esbirnbaum@gmail.com.