A bit of controversy has broken out over the name of Raleigh's new downtown concert venue -- which the city wants to name the Bud Light Amphitheater in a sponsorship deal that would bring in $1.5 million over five years. But state law prohibits public buildings from having the name of an alcoholic beverage in their moniker. So the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission will have to grant an exception.
The Bud Light naming-rights deal "is not a foregone conclusion," mayor Charles Meeker said at a Monday press conference, noting that the city is soliciting comments about the deal. He also pledged that all future amphitheater business will happen in open session, in response to criticism of the city council giving tentative approval to the Bud Light deal in a closed session.
The Monday press conference's other main order of business was to announce the lineup for a free "open house" preview show on June 4. Seven local acts will play:
5:20 p.m. -- Th' Bullfrog Willard McGhee
6 p.m. -- Small Ponds
6:45 p.m. -- Sleep Control
7 p.m. -- Old Avenue
8:15 p.m. -- MOSADI
9 p.m. -- I Was Totally Destroying It
9:55 p.m. -- Connells
Comments
bud light naming
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 23:40 — conreyif you grant an exception to the naming rights then there is no law reguarding naming rights. Lets name it "Whatever".
What About Bud Bowl?
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 21:25 — Rollo_Tomasi"InBev Perdue Chicken House of Boos" (yeah - that's the ticket!)
...needing the money!
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 19:39 — JustAGuyInNCIt's amazing what kinds of rules and/or regulations some are willing to disregard when we are desperate for a few more dollars, and a beer company is willing to be the highest bidder for marketing rights to a public venue. Can you say hypocrisy?!
Bud Light limits appeal of potential acts and attendees
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 19:22 — liveonourporchesI certainly would not take my kid to a "Bud Light Ampitheatre", because I assume it is a rowdy joint for adults only and not suitable for children, which will discourage families from coming downtown. I also think it will brand it for seniors if they choose to do concerts there; "NC Symphony at Bud Light"? I don't think so. If this is to be an adult environment only, then its probably okay, but I cannot imagine Barney, Dora, Sesame Street, Disney, Marvel, or any other child brand stage show from allowing their acts to appear there because of the potential impact to the brand; Gaylord's comment suggesting that that no one else would pay for the naming rights is likely grossly inaccurate, where the location and even limited signage is on a gateway street and is a major brand billboard opportunity without any competition; I'll bet an internet company would buy the naming rights or a radio station. The Goodmans, who own WRAL, were willing to pay $1.5 Million for the "sexy" Plenza light sculpture; who is to say they won't pay $1.5 Million to have WRAL on a billboard in an iconic location in downtown. And finally, there will be many who will take significant offense at a public venue with an alcohol name on it, and there is no reason to create unnecessary debate
I was going to argue against
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 21:07 — vdotuI was going to argue against your point, but Im now for it..
There are three baseball stadiums named for beer, but you wouldn't know it if you weren't a beer drinker:
Coors Field, Miller Park, Busch Stadium
I think that Bud Ampitheater is ok. Bud Light is not.
My reasons to oppose this sponsorship
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 19:01 — SandyJBNsw_NC, do you think you make a valid comparison - between this sponsorship and the State Lottery? Think again: the State Lottery profits are all used for education in N.C., whereas the beer profits - which the sponsors hope to increase through such deals - go ... to the beer corporation.
NCtorwart, you probably didn't notice that this sponsorship is against state law, not just against the opinions of "a bunch of p**ssies".
Trekkie, do you have to be so rude to make your point? By the way, I'm not religious, I've never been, but I appreciate civil dialogue - even with the religious!
I couldn't care less if all the Bud Light fans get drunk under the table to celebrate the City Council's choice - as long as they are of legal age to do so.
What I really care about is the wrong message sent to children by having a Bud Light Amphitheater downtown. It's one of various ways of increasing the appeal of alcohol for them, and it's wrong for our City Council to give its support to this.
As for funding: there will be advertising forthcoming after this venue will open, of course ticket sales, related merchandise sales and fees from concession stands around it. Besides, even if there are no other companies ready to pay for naming rights NOW, I have no doubt that such offers will come in the next few years, when the amphitheater will be operating successfully.
Way to keep it classy,
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 18:51 — staraustyWay to keep it classy, Raleigh!
Naming Rights
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 17:31 — ncoldsaltHow about The Black Water Symphony?
The Mikey and Mary Easley School of Ethics?
The Dumplin Center for the Performing Arts?
Drink and Strip Stadium?
The list goes on.............
LOL!!!@ NCTORWART - I agree;
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 17:26 — TThugdescoLOL!!!@ NCTORWART - I agree; get with it Raleigh, NC!!!!
who cares what you call it.
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 16:36 — nctorwartLet's call it "this country is becoming a bunch of p**sies amphitheater". Seriously don't people have better things to do than worry about what an ampitheater is called, what cigarettes are called, all for the sake of not offending left handed seagulls. Good lord.
whut?
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 17:35 — trekkie@nctorwart
Try the religous nutjobs are the ones who get their panties in a bunch about alcohol advertisements, not the liberals. Get your default insult groups right.
Who cares?
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 14:44 — Notsurewhere_NCThe opposition arguement holds no water, especially with a state agency called the lottery commission running ads and promotions for "gambling" called the State Education Lottery"
Great message, gambling on one hand, although state sponsored and operated is ok, but drinking is not? More definitions of what is good for the masses by the enlighted team running the Banana Republic.
$300k/year for naming rights?
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 13:59 — RonBThat seems a bit steep. It is probably more than just naming rights, and sets Harris/InBev up as the sole beer merchant as well. Nothing wrong with that, as long as that agreement is out in the open as well.
Personally I'm glad the naming rights are sold for this, "saving" the naming rights to the Convention Center across the street. Or setting its price tag at $300k/year as well, which will help service its debt.
I'd rather see $300k/year go to continuing Raleigh Downtown Live. Let them have Moore Square every other weekend.
At least we get a free Connell's show out of it!
They, not the Backstreet Boys, will hopefully be remembered as the opening act.
The waiver if granted by the
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 13:58 — saddmhThe waiver if granted by the ABC Commission set a legal precedent and open the floodgates statewide for the same type of sponsorship. Only if Bud Light agrees to pay their fair share toward the treatment of alcoholism in every county in N.C.
Hold the alcohol folks for harm caused just as the tobacco folks were held for harm caused. 6.8 billion dollars per year lost in N.C. due to alcoholism and other drug addictions.
This is not a good idea to name this facility after an alcoholic beverage.
I agree
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 17:00 — uBniceThis would set an ugly precedent.
There should be guidelines for some type of common decency for naming such buildings. As much as some people may declare that they should name it for anyone who comes up with the money, then if Hustler Magazine were to come up with the money, would we care if the name was the Hustler Magazine Amphitheatre? The Arabs have a great deal of money, would we let it be named some Arabic name because they gave the money? I doubt it. What about the Viagara Amphitheatre?
Let it be named for whoever
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 13:11 — blackdogLet it be named for whoever pays for the operations. If not, we can place a sign there stating the names of the opposition who prevented it. Or the taxpayers can pay for it... if we don't amend the law.
No Exception
Mon, 05/17/2010 - 12:28 — uBniceI hope the ABC Commission does not grant an exception here. I imagine that the State prohibits naming of buildings after alcoholic beverages for a reason. The name certainly would not be a family friendly name (just one part of the constituency). I understand the need to try to generate income in these difficult economic times. But let's not do it this way.