Welcome to Chantilly Montessori, brought to you by Ford.
Why not? In Charlotte, our public school system is facing a 100 million dollar shortfall for the next school year. Just, wow. I’m not going to get into why this happened and who is to blame, that’s for the politicians. Rather, I’m going to talk about a possible solution that I do know something about – advertising.
While the rest of the universe might be digging its way out of a recession, big brands continue to have massive budgets in place that beg for publicly promotable places to live. They understand how branding works. It’s why Pepsi and Kohls can run million dollar giveaways online. It’s great publicity and, purportedly, good for the institutions they serve.
So why not invite brands to sponsor our schools? For one million dollars a year, we will give Ford (or Kraft, UnderArmor, Coke, etc.) exclusive naming partnerships (sponsored by Ford) along with logo placement on all correspondence, including the signage. Including that big sign out front that families, visitors and passersby see daily and which only helps reinforce your brand as a integral member of our community, in the mind of your audience. Many of whom are idling in car lines to pick up their kids. Exclusivity is beautiful.
Why does this work for schools? Branding exists in schools anyway – whether we like it or not. Those $110 Uggs you send your 9-year-old daughter to school in? They’re an ad for Uggs (stop doing that, by the way. It’s ridiculous.) That North Face jacket your son wears? The brand of notebooks the kids write in? The big DELL stamp above all the monitors? Branding’s already prevalent. What harm can come from official sponsorship?
Maybe sponsorship allotments are based on performance? Maybe not. Maybe there’s a way to ensure that all schools are sponsored in some capacity? I’d love to say ‘let the brands do whatever is good for the school – screw the money limits’ but I see hell breaking loose if not every school is represented fairly equally, regardless of performance.
We’d definitely need new branding standards so that all sponsors uniformly comply, as per their sponsorship level, as a way to keep the temptation to bullwhip the audience, because of exclusivity, to a minimum. The goal of this concept isn’t to disrupt the educational process by using Go Daddy type messaging, but rather to enhance it. Respect must be the core principle of this endeavor.
No, Coke can’t sell its products to students through machines on campus (nor should they), so short of a popular kid wearing a shirt with Coke on it, there are limited impressions with Coke’s primary target audience for 8 hours a day. School sponsorship offers exclusivity with parents (who have direct purchasing power) and with students (who drive purchasing indirectly and who will be buying themselves, in a few years.) Think of sponsorship as the opportunity to have a personal dialogue with the people who matter most to you. Day after day after day. Without direct competition. Not that I think Coke is the best answer to this problem. I’m just sayin.
We definitely can’t whore sponsorships out to the highest bidder. Or maybe, that’s the only way this can work? And maybe GoDaddy has to be a sponsor? Thankfully, with standards in place, we would at least control the obnoxiousness. I think we have to draw the line on adult sponsors, though. No alcohol. No plastic surgeons No Hooters.
The key is to ink long term deals. Five years minimum. This way we’re not put right back into the same shortfall situation we’re in right now in case a brand decides to bail after a year.
Laugh if you want to, but I’m just hashing this out in a twenty minute brain dump. This isn’t a crazy idea. This is 2011.
***
Chris Bishop
Jan 14, 2011
Nice post. That’s exactly what’s happening in California, I believe, due to larger budget shortfalls there.
Jim Mitchem
Jan 14, 2011
It’s a capitalistic endeavor in the land of capitalism. Why the hell not? We sell our kids as billboards by letting them wear branded clothes (that we actually pay for) – why not sell our schools as well? Within reason, and for true value of course. It doesn’t surprise me if other regions are doing this. It’s too obvious.
Mike McBride
Jan 14, 2011
Jim Mitchem sees the forest AND the trees. I like your ideas on the subject. NOTHING is more important that our kids education.
Fox
Jan 14, 2011
This is a great idea. It’s starting here in Arizona. I’ve see school buses with “Dr. Pain dentistry” ads on the side of the bus.Another way to cut budget issues would be to allow sponsors for specific expenses. Have the football team sponsored by Nike and make Nike provide the jerseys, equipment repair, and expenses around all the games and practices. The computers could be sponsored by Apple or Dell and they’re provided by Apple or Dell, along with the software needed to run them. A local t-shirt company could provide school shirts or varsity jackets with the schools name and list of sponsors, etc.Many schools already get local businesses to shell out for ads in the newsletters to pay for its expense. These ideas would be simply taking it to the next level. Stop making the schools pay for the supplies, generate sponsors who give the school the supplies along with a few bucks to have their name features in school activities (pep rally sponsored by Proctor and Gamble) and media.I do have issues with junk food & soda sponsors because of already bad eating habits of a large part of our country. However, I do think you’re on the right warpath here, Jim.
Gabriel Miranda
Jan 14, 2011
The idea of putting corporate sponsorship in schools is intriguing. I for one wouldn’t mind if there was some system of corporate matching dollars for fund raising that is already in place ( candy sales? Scholastic books ) or as a way to phase those out. The only problem I have would be waving corporate dollars in front of a questionable school board – yeah there are some school boards out there that defy conventional reasoning. I’m only thinking from the perspective of the corporations who would have to monitor the money to ensure that their investments are serving the best interests of the students and the community at large. They just can’t throw product placement dollars into a black hole of spending while children are still using textbooks from the 1980’s.While education is still underfunded at the lower levels and competition is fierce for every penny allocated, throwing advertising money into the mix might send a greedy school board into a feeding frenzy; leaving some needy schools less than scraps for classrooms, teachers, and books. I personally wouldn’t mind my kids going to “GOOGLE” academy or “Apple” middle school if it meant that my children didn’t have to walk unadvertised picket lines asking for Mayor Beame to “Save our School” – like I did back in the cash-strapped days of NYC in the 70’s.
Tina Roggenkamp
Jan 14, 2011
I remember them talking about that back in 1997-1998 when I was in school at CMS. I’m surprised they haven’t done it by now.
CharlotteAgency
Jan 14, 2011
I believe the Freakonomics guys also explored this option. Very interesting, and like you said, why not?
steveolenski
Jan 14, 2011
Hey Jim,As a father of school aged kids and a writer in advertising I can absolutely see the validity of your thinking. As you pretty much state: Why the hell not? Think about it, is there any bastion left that is NOT open for advertising?I just read a story where NJ is following the lead of some other states and allowing advertising on the sides of school buses, at least it’s proposed anyway. I would echo Gabriel’s concern re: the school boards and who is ultimately responsible for where the windfall will go… cause it damn well better go to the kids and not to some bureaucrat who needs a new Lexus ever year. Without a checks & balances system in place, we could be right back to where we started from.. in a shortfall situation. What then? Ask the company for more money?Open it up to the those you reference, the adult-themed companies?I love the idea… my caveat would be a stringent laundry list of rules and regs be put in stone beforehand. Great, insightful though-provoking post!Steve O
Jim Mitchem
Jan 14, 2011
As I dropped the kids off at school this morning, I looked right at the school busses. Yes, they’re moving billboards. Everything is a target. Children (hell, all of us) are subject to more branding today than at any time in history. I do not think for a second that children will be phased by having a sponsored school. Whether the subliminal part of branding is real, and we all start buying Fords (in this case) without realizing it, it’s worth the gamble – to me. Hopefully brands have evolved enough to understand that the real value isn’t with any tricky brand messages, but straight-up helping the communities. That’s how credibility is developed. Sadly, everyone keeps pointing back to how corrupt we are as humans and that because humans have to allocate funds, the entire concept is flawed. It pisses me off, but yes, that’s a huge hurdle. Humans can’t be trusted any more than brands.
Fox
Jan 14, 2011
Why won’t it work? (You keep asking on Twitter)What’s considered a damaging sponsor? You mention ‘adult’ type of sponsors to be limited. Is Hooters worse than Nike? Hooters openly promotes sexuality while Nike makes shoes with child labor overseas behind our backs (I don’t have proof of this and am simply using Nike as an example).The first to jump on board would be the manufacturers of junk food. Do we need more of those endorsements targeted at kids? What about pharmacutical companies? I don’t want my kids attending Prozac High, even though the kids there have less depression than average. Maybe my kids can go to Trojan High because they have lower incidents of sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy rates. Is a condom endorsment worse than Hooters?Who’s to choose what’s good as an endorsement? Naturally, I’m using these as extremes but who’s to draw the line? The parents? Administration? Politicians?Just thoughts. I like the idea. The implimentation will have issues in our free society and with the sharply divided (and closed minds) on either side of the political spectrum.
johnbcavanaugh
Jan 14, 2011
You’re all over it, Jim. And I think @stevolenski brings up the most pertinent concerns. I think of this idea as a kind of underwriting more than advertising. Underwriting brings in the rules and oversight that could keep it from getting silly while still giving the corporations the exposure they would want in the equation. And, at least at first, there could be some valuable PR associated with the “sponsorships” (or whatever you would call them). Imagine being the company that saves a school from the wrecking ball? Or saves a dozen teacher positions from being eliminated. That’s gold!
Seth Gray
Jan 14, 2011
The local Coca Cola distributor actually sponsored the lights for the soccer field at my high school back in the mid 90’s. We got to play night games, and the school only sold Coke products.
Mahoney
Jan 14, 2011
As a sponsorship guy, I love the idea. The challenges are hiring talented sales professionals to sell (could be outsourced), hiring people to activate the sponsorships (change signage, documents, whatever elements) and companies won’t just do this for “goodwill”, they will want a return on their investment. Only other challenge that I’ve talked to CATS about before. It is difficult to set regulations about who can advertise with “public” entities without fear of discrimination or 1st amendment lawsuits. In other words if you sell a sponsorship to Ford you may also have to sell one to NAMBLA if they sue you for the right to do so. Problematic. But love the idea! There are solutions to the above questions, but they have costs also.
Jeff Oeth
Jan 14, 2011
Interesting idea. We would have to be VERY careful about how this is done. I’d say Coke is way off limits. And I think Susan Linn would have several reasons why this is not a good idea at all… http://fearlessrevolution.com/blog/mad-men-and-our-children.html
Christy Tomes
Jan 16, 2011
My question is… who’s bringing up the idea to the school board? It’s one thing to talk about it but it’s another to create some energy behind it.
SuzanneVara
Jan 27, 2011
JimIt is a great idea but will it work? There are some school systems that are bigger than others so will they really be able to cover and fund all the schools? I wrote about the school bus advertising in New Jersey and while it is a great idea we have to look at the expenses associated with the creation of the ads, maintenance as well as where will the money really be spent? I live in the worst school district in the country and they are proposing $270 less per student. Would a brand sponsorship be able to make a dent? If we go to a performance based model then the teachers will be teaching how to test and not necessarily what the children need to learn at school. I am all about funding for education but will it be enough and will it actually be spent properly?Love the topic Jim as as a parent it hits home.
Jim Mitchem
Jan 27, 2011
Forget it. No one is going to take this seriously. I don’t know what I was thinking. This is way too non-traditional for serious people to consider seriously. Especially if they haven’t commissioned a team to research it. It’s just a blog post. Nothing more. Our schools will all go to hell and the officials will just keep focusing on ways to cut budgets. We’re just simple minded idiots who don’t know anything.
When Advertising is Evil « Obsessed with Conformity
Jun 8, 2011
[…] 2011-2012. Blame whomever you want, but this is not an unsolvable problem. In fact, back in January I proposed a way to let big brands help out – but that radical idea never got off the ground. And why would it when brands can pump their logos […]
My novel – Minor King
Recent Posts
Copyright © Jim Mitchem. Hosted by Command Partners.