Former Wachovia Championship, for what it's worth

[Carl Johnson]

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/597/story/565429.html

[Carl Johnson]

What, no comments yet?  The article has been significantly expanded since my initial posting.  Rule: Discussion may not in any way refer to Barak Obama, George Bush, the Congress or the Supreme Court.

[Jason McNamara]

Carl -

(Given your guidelines, I'm happy to participate here.)

Assuming you're in the area, do you expect the field quality will be impacted?  Is the any concern that the date (right before Sawgrass) will get changed without a big-name backer?

Or will the quality of the course continue to keep things generally status quo?

Jason

[RJ_Daley]

Can someone trace back when the first corporate sponsored golf tournament started being called something like the (insert your corporate name I.D. here) Open?  

Perhaps this all went off the trolley not so many years ago when things stopped being called by their city or host names (i.e. the Andy William San Diego Open; the Greater Greensboro Open; the Greater Milwaukee Open, the Hope, the Crosby, etc.)  

Now every sports field is being corporate branded (so far not "Lambeau Field)  and every sporting event has been co-opted by a corporate entity.  Tickets rose exponentially, and ostintateousness and exclusivity via 'corporate pass tents' and private boxes went into hypermode.   What did we gain from this corporate co-opting VS what was lost?  

(And I didn't mention any certain someones or political parties...   )

[Tim_Cronin]

R.J., off the top of my head, wasn't it the Bacardi Open in Havana way back? Not counting the L.A. Open, sponsored by the L.A. Junior Chamber of Commerce since the 1920s, of course.

[Tim Bert]

Pulling the name due to public perception, yet still spending the money to sponsor the tournament due to a contractual obligation sounds like one of the worst use of money I can imagine. 

They've got the obligation throgh 2014.  Why not simply name it the Wells Fargo Championship and get some legs out of the new name?  They could still cancel all the extra parties and things like that. 

[Carl Rogers]

I would suggest the following as means of reform for the PGA Tour:
- adjust the overall purses downward as a way to keep sponsorship and  avoiding political problems
- adjust the payout down the leaderboard (the top finishers get less), so that the journey man can still hang in there
- require contracturally that all PGA tour pros give 20% of their gross earnings to local charities

Get back to the game on the course.

[Greg Holland]

Even if the bank does not want its name associated with the event, why wouldn't they name it after the tournament's top charity, or the Charlotte Open or something to try to generate positive press and support in the community.

[Carl Johnson]

Carl -

(Given your guidelines, I'm happy to participate here.)

Assuming you're in the area, do you expect the field quality will be impacted?  Is the any concern that the date (right before Sawgrass) will get changed without a big-name backer?

Or will the quality of the course continue to keep things generally status quo?

Jason

I live in Charlotte and have attended at least one day of the tournament for most, if not all, of the years it's been here.  However, that gives me no leg up on what might happen.  As most of you know, its been an exceptionally well run tournament on a course the pros seem to like.  Obviously, it's been a boon for golf fans in the area.

From the Charlotte Observer article:

“'All of us involved with the tournament have enjoyed the last six years and are looking forward to doing something very special with the tournament over the next six years,' Quail Hollow Club president Johnny Harris said.

“'We have been working diligently to do what is necessary to produce the premier stop on the PGA Tour and we feel strongly this will do nothing but strengthen the golf experience for our players and patrons.'”

I can predict that if Johnny Harris continues to back the tournament, it will not fail for lack of effort.

Also from the article:

"The main difference for players and spectators will be the name. The re-branding of the event has begun and, other than tickets and a few other printed materials, everything from clothing to signage will sport the new logo and name when the PGA Tour arrives in two months. 'This clarifies a lot for us,' [Kym] Hougham [,Tournament Director,] said. 'Now there is a name that can stay on the tournament for the next six years. We’ll work with the bank after this year’s event and we hope they stay involved.'"

Like Greg, I don't think the new name does as much for the community as other options might have.  Initially I assumed that the Quail Hollow name would be temporary, but Hougham points to the next six years.  He adds, "We'll work with the bank [Wells Fargo] after this year's event and we hope they stay involved."  This leads me to wonder whether, notwithstanding Wells taking it contract obligations seriously, they won't be trying to bail out short of the full six-year term remaining.

[Stewart Abramson]

"Pulling the name due to public perception, yet still spending the money to sponsor the tournament due to a contractual obligation sounds like one of the worst use of money I can imagine.   They've got the obligation throgh 2014.  Why not simply name it the Wells Fargo Championship and get some legs out of the new name?  They could still cancel all the extra parties and things like that. "

You are absolutely right, except that most people (and the media) don't think that logically. At  present, most of the "Joe the Plumbers"  who believe that thay are now  the guardiians of bank dollars have a knee jerk reaction against any kind of sponsorship. From Wells Fargo's perspective the reputational risk and loss of customers and good will from the bad publicity outweighs the advertising benefit of the sponsorship. Take a look at the Northern Trust thread for an example of the beating that was taken by a bank that is somewhat comparable to Wells in that both are conservative, didn't want TARP $$ at the time, and were profitable in FY 2008... and the participants here are usually  a lot brighter than the rest of the world.  Lets hope things turn around soon and maybe Wells can get some benefit from the contract in a future year

[John Moore II]

I have said it before and I will say it again here. This is silly. Wells Fargo/Wachovia is going to spend money to advertise. They probably spend no more than $10 million to be title sponsor of a tour event (likely less). How much TV and print advertisement could they buy for that $10 million (or whatever it is)? I doubt they could get the exposure for that money in regular tv ads that they can get in sponsoring the tour event, especially if Tiger is in the field, which he normally it.

Its strange that we find it ok that these companies receiving bailout funds run standard print, TV and radio ads, but find it appalling that they sponsor golf tournaments. I mean, if they save the few million they spend on the tournament sponsorship by pulling out of the event, they will just reposition that money in the budget to run more TV ads.

Do we really want these companies to simply stop running ads? Then we will be in a bind.

[Sam Maryland]

I have said it before and I will say it again here. This is silly. Wells Fargo/Wachovia is going to spend money to advertise. They probably spend no more than $10 million to be title sponsor of a tour event (likely less). How much TV and print advertisement could they buy for that $10 million (or whatever it is)? I doubt they could get the exposure for that money in regular tv ads that they can get in sponsoring the tour event, especially if Tiger is in the field, which he normally it.

Its strange that we find it ok that these companies receiving bailout funds run standard print, TV and radio ads, but find it appalling that they sponsor golf tournaments. I mean, if they save the few million they spend on the tournament sponsorship by pulling out of the event, they will just reposition that money in the budget to run more TV ads.

Do we really want these companies to simply stop running ads? Then we will be in a bind.

John,

They couldn't possibly approach it in this manner, it would make too much sense to do so.