BC Place Stadium Naming Rights Research

• Prepared for the BC Pavilion Corporation • Results of Focus Groups • August 4th, 2010

© Synovate 2010

1

The end of an era, the beginning of a new one

Grand ‘Opening’ 2011

© Synovate 2010

2

Contents
• Executive Summary • Research Overview
− Background − Objectives & Methodology − Status Of The Data

• Key Findings
− Recall & Perceptions of Vancouver Sports & Entertainment Venues − BC Place − Reactions To Concept − Rules For Renaming − Reactions To Telus as naming sponsor − Reactions To Naming Options

• Conclusion
© 2010. Synovate Ltd. All rights reserved. The concepts and ideas submitted to you herein are the intellectual property of Synovate Ltd. They are strictly of confidential nature and are submitted to you under the understanding that they are to be considered by you in the strictest of confidence and that no use shall be made of the said concepts and ideas, including communication to any third party w ithout Synovate’s express prior consent and/or payment of related professional services fees in full. © Synovate 2010

3

Executive Summary

©Synovate 2010

4

Executive Summary (1)
• There is clear permission for PavCo to sell the naming rights to the new facility. - However, there is a need for a clear link from the revenue generated from naming to the $458 million price tag, not everyone seemed to instantly connect the dots – communication needs to be unequivocal about where the money is going. • It is also clear that PavCo needs to communicate the explicit and implicit benefits of the new facility to deflect what some see as “extravagant” spending. • Further, there needs to be some efforts made to ensure that the facility is seen to be separate and independent from the hotel casino complex to avoid misperceptions that BC Place will be owned by “those guys from Vegas!” • In part, this attitude grew from the lack of awareness or knowledge of who PavCo is and what its mandate is. • There are also some concerns that projects such as this (as with the convention centre ) will not be appropriately cost contained: efforts need to be made to reassure the public about the efficacy of the fixed price contract. • BC Place was not just an entertainment facility – it was also known to host popular, largescale trade shows as well as famous concert artists, and the BC Lions. It is also considerably larger than its competitors including Rogers Arena. It is also known to have somewhat deficient acoustics. In part, these perceptions shaped reactions to the potential names of the facility. • It seemed to us that not all respondents thought the new roof was going generate incremental and more exciting entertainment opportunities. This too suggests another talking and positioning opportunity.
© Synovate 2010

5

Executive Summary (2)
• Telus is more than just an acceptable “sponsor” - they fit three key criteria:
- West Coast best, Canadian at least - Financially sound, capable - Community minded and…. - “They’d be right across the street from Rogers – there’ll be some good battles!”

• However, brand (i.e. service) perceptions of Telus tend to mitigate overall positive sentiment. • It appears that Telus Centre and Telus Place feel the most appropriate and acceptable names. • Yet, there is some concern that Telus Place may lead to easy consumer reversion to the old moniker of BC Place. • Telus Centre, on the other hand, feels like a better fit with the new identity (featuring a retractable roof) and the new surrounding development. • Facility name extensions such as Live were not in keeping with the Telus brand, and other extensions seemed very awkward, innocuous or vague ie Space. • While it was preferable to keep the branding “local,” the use of British Columbia or BC seemed awkward with the naming schemes presented to respondents. • The “old” BC Place was an icon that defined Vancouver – there is belief or at least hope that the new facility will do the same.
© Synovate 2010

6

Research Overview

©Synovate 2010

7

Background
• BC Place’s iconic inflatable roof is at the end of it’s useful life and in need of replacement. • PavCo has initiated the roof replacement project which will see BC Place outfitted with the largest cable-supported retractable roof on Earth. • The total cost of the project is fixed at $458 million. • PavCo is committed to increasing revenue streams in order to offset the cost of the project, as well as enhancing the facility as an economic generator for the Province. • One part of the plan will see the development of an entertainment complex, including a casino and two hotels, built by Paragon.
- Paragon will pay a set leasing fee to PavCo for a period of 70 years for associated rights

• Another part of the revenue stream generation plan is to sell the naming rights to the newly roofed facility which was the focus of this exploratory study.

© Synovate 2010

8

Objectives & Methodology
• The objectives of the research were:
- To gauge reaction to ideas of selling the naming rights to BC Place - To explore reactions to Telus being the naming sponsor - To gauge reactions and gather input and on proposed names

• We conducted two focus groups in Vancouver on July 26, 2010: - One with females - One with males - Respondents were Lower Mainland residents and ranged in age from 25 to 60 • We covered the following topics: - Awareness and perceptions of sports and entertainment venues in Vancouver - Perceptions of BC Place re-roofing project - Perceptions of the role of PavCo - Reactions to plans to develop hotels and casino in the surrounding area - Reactions to the option of selling naming rights - Reactions to the idea of Telus as the naming sponsor - Input on proposed naming options • The groups were conducted and results analyzed by David Rink

© Synovate 2010

9

Status of the Data
• Qualitative research is always a range of response, not consensus. • The data cannot be used to statistically project the findings to the population of users or potential users. • The focus groups are intended to provide insights, not verbatim solutions.

%
© Synovate 2010

10

Key Findings
• • • • • • Recall & Perceptions of Vancouver Sports & Entertainment Venues BC Place Reactions To Concept Rules For Renaming Reactions To Telus as naming sponsor Reactions To Naming Options

©Synovate 2010

11

Vancouver Venues: Places to go, Arenas to see
• Sporting events are associated with GM Place (Rogers Arena), Pacific Coliseum, BC Place, Empire Stadium, Swanguard, Nat Bailey. • Concerts and other events are associated with BC Place, Canada Place, Orpheum, Queen Elizabeth Theatre. • While there is some belief that Vancouver doesn’t always get as many ‘big name’ talent acts and shows as Toronto or major cities in the US, the Olympics has helped catapult the Vancouver brand into some higher global “entertainment consciousness. • Could the new facility help enhance the brand or finally put paid to the notion of Vancouver as a “no fun” city?

© Synovate 2010

12

BC Place: Local Landmark ‘Closed For Renovations’
• BC Place was seen as a Vancouver landmark and the ‘puffy white roof’ was an instantly recognizable feature of the city’s skyline. • Some sense that it was “Government” owned and operated, belongs to ‘us’ (the taxpayers of BC) although this is not always clear – maybe it was the City’s? Indeed there is a considerable lack of awareness and many facilities appear to being taken for granted. • Need for repair or replacement of the roof is clearly understood but sentiment is divided on necessity for the retractable roof – “458 million is a LOT of money – what’s in it for me?” - Positive
Unique & “world class,” enhances our Olympic reputation Relief for sports fans attending summer games (very hot on upper levels) Connection with the elements, watching a game under the open sky Needs a new roof, might as well make it something special PCL: reputable/competent local company, local jobs

- Negative
Timing: just starting to pay off Olympic costs Fewer big name concerts / professional sporting events in Vancouver Rarely filled to capacity as it is Welcome to the Wet Coast: how often can we even utilize an open roof? Fixing the roof doesn’t address future problems to the existing structure (which is 25 years old)

© Synovate 2010

13

The Concept – PavCo Role & Reputation
• There is a feeling that BC Place is probably provincially owned, but unclear of details. • Certainly low awareness of who PavCo is or what they do. • Crown corporation  bureaucracy (inefficiency) and little motivation to be profitable.
- “A privately owned management company would probably be more efficient”

• Some suspicions of bidding process for the restoration - little available information suggests ‘friends in high places’ and PavCo inflating the budget. • Is this going to be the same issue as the Convention Centre’s over-run costs? • Despite fixed contract “we” (taxpayers) own BC Place, and “we” are on the hook for the bill for the new roof – so communication efforts about mitigating risk will be appreciated by PavCo. • Paragon development:
- Some concern that we are selling out to big (US) corporations. - OK with it as long as money goes toward paying for the roof and reduces what “we” have to pay AND that agreement is a lease, not a sale. - Seems to be confusion about the relationship between what Paragon is doing and the “roof”. that is being built.

© Synovate 2010

14

Name For Sale (Or Rent) – What are the “rules”?
• Local would be great and Canadian company strongly preferred/essential • Financially successful (able to shoulder at least $10 million per year!) • Financially stable (able to commit to 5 – 10 year contract) • Socially responsible / ethical reputation
- Lululemon, VanCity even Granville island would be “cool” but do they really have the resources?

• Opinion divided on which venue is worth more (Rogers Arena & BC Place)
- BC Place was bigger, naming rights are worth more! - Canucks get the most exposure, Rogers Arena gets more international television coverage and therefore it’s naming rights are more valuable as a marketing platform!

• Development around BC Place, plus new roof might attract bigger name talent for concerts AND MLS Soccer, which could broaden marketing appeal but “how often would we have the roof open? And it only opens 30% so….” • Little or no opposition to selling naming rights, especially once it’s made clear that it reduces our burden in paying for the roof! It is acceptable and even expected! Everyone does it.

“The more THEY pay, the less WE pay”

© Synovate 2010

15

Telus
• The Positive
Recognizably Canadian Financially capable and stable Active sponsor of charity and community events Positive marketing image – animals, happy, fun, family, friendly - Good / best cell phone coverage - Competition with Rogers

• The Negative
- Negative customer service / billing experience - Outsourcing jobs (to India) - Name kind of plain, weird, square, hard to pronounce for those unfamiliar with it - Telecommunications companies taking over (Rogers &Telus in same area, same type of venue)

• Bottom Line: Telus meets and exceeds all criteria, no objections, but no real passion.
© Synovate 2010

16

What’s in a name…
• Telus Centre: seemed to be preferred by both groups - sounds good, safe, fits in context of the surrounding development. • Our sense though was Telus Centre is a rational choice – simply put it was “preferred” because is seemed to work better than the others - there just was not much emotion around the name. • With the new roof comes a new identity/image and the chance to re-brand - Telus Centre might ‘stick’ better, since the old signifier – the white dome will be disconnected from consumer consciousness. • Telus Place: another positive choice - some feelings of nostalgia, established identity, why not keep ‘Place?’ • Telus Complex: at best acceptable, suitable for future development plans (entertainment complex), not spectacular, safe, but is it anyplace you would say you are going to? Does not sound like much fun. • Telus Space feels like a science project and totally devoid of interaction. • Telus Park does conjure some “green” imagery but for the most part it competes with well known Parks such as Stanley Park. It just never seemed to describe what BC Place seemed to be and now aspires to be.

© Synovate 2010

17

What’s in a Name?
• The ‘Live’ label clearly struck a chord with females (but in context with using Molson – a lifestyle brand)
- Pros: Strong emotional impact, suggests fun, energy, hip, youth. - While Live seemed to work with Molson, by contrast, Telus and ‘Live’ seemed too much of a disconnect: the brand values of Telus did not seem to match the strong emotional impact that females seemed to associate with live with. - Cons: Males saw it as NOT conveying a place name (it’s a verb), confusion on pronunciation (liv vs. līv) and generally too abstract. How does this describe the Home show or the Auto show some wondered?

© Synovate 2010

18

BC or not to Be…
• Nice to have BC in the name, but only if it sounds right (don’t force it!). In all cases using British Columbia at the end of the name feels as though you are providing an address . • The question is who needs to know that it is BC? Is it, respondents wondered, a need for “us” to feel good about the place or to remind us “we’re all on the hook”? • Telus BC Place was OK, but almost all other permutations using BC (before, in the middle or after) felt awkward. - However, any form using BC Place could lead to continuing to reference it as BC Place (as Rogers Arena is still commonly referred to as GM Place or the Garage, due to the strong associations with the Canucks hockey team) - Telus BC Centre, did not appear to feel or sound right to respondents. It was awkward to say and the BC felt almost redundant when used with Centre: Telus is for some, BC brand.

© Synovate 2010

19

Conclusion
• It is clear that there was an expectation the new facility would be “named,” and that on principle, putting this revenue towards reducing the cost (and exposure) is a good thing. • PavCo will need to manage expectations of a $458 million expense and ensure that the link between all revenues (not just naming rights) are clearly communicated to reducing the impact on consumers. • PavCo should also be clear about the incremental opportunities. • It is just as clear that Telus is an appropriate naming sponsor for the facility and some think that it is a great opportunity to take on Rogers right across the street! • “Centre” seems to be the best choice of names we presented to respondents. • Incorporating BC or British Columbia is, to some degree, desirable, but not for the sake of making the name unpronounceable or politically correct. • From Telus’ perspective, we suspect, using BC will require careful consideration to ensure that the Telus brand name is consciously used and spoken in relation to the Facility – i.e. that the colloquial use is not dumbed down, or an offensive nickname.

© Synovate 2010

20

Centre
Grand Opening Grey Cup 2011

© Synovate 2010

21

Appendix
• Topic Guide and “Concept”

©Synovate 2010

22

July 23, 2010 INTRO: Self, Synovate, Purpose of Research, Roles and “Rules”, Features of Room, Confidentiality WARM-UP: First name, familial circumstances, how long lived in Lower Mainland, last great holiday! PERCEPTIONS AND AWARENESS Pretend I had just moved here from abroad and wanted to see and go concerts, events and see live sporting events ….w here would you tell me where to go? What facilities does Vancouver have? What are the most important ones? Make a list on flip chart…. Explore key “named” facilities: Rogers Arena, Nat Bailey (Scotia Bank) (other named facilities?) ( leave BC Place for last) •What sorts of events are held in each of these places •Have they been around a long time? •Why is it named this? Who are they? • Why would they want to •How did it get its name? Focus on BC Place Stadium •What can you tell me about BC Place (Stadium)? How do you refer to it? Check the “Stadium” part of the name. •Who owns this facility? •How is it funded? •What is happening to it now (listen for awareness of new roof and other development aspects) REACTIONS TO THE “CONCEPT” (In this section I am going to reveal pieces of information and gauge reaction and perceptions after each “Part” o n separate sheets of paper – please see “outline”. I want them to have a decent perspective of the evolution and the role of PavCo and the financial implications and benefits. I will not allow this to get into the “whether this should be done or not debate but, rather, steer this to a- “ it is done and we need to accept that” - place.) I’ll be checking each section after they read it in silence: After Part 1) How does this make you feel? Was there anything new or surprising in this section? What did it tell you? Part 2) How does this make you feel? Was there anything new or surprising in this section? What did it tell you? What were the most interesting parts?

© Synovate 2010

23

Part 3) How do we feel about this (naming rights)? What would be the advantage of this? (listen for lessening the cost of the “taxpayer “ bill) Categories Do any specific kinds of companies come to mind? (listen for banks or FIs, for telecoms, insurance sports companies etc. Specific brand names Are there specific companies you think could be a naming partner for the facility? Record brand names… Give a set of pre-written brand names on index cards and have a volunteer sort them. (some local versus national and international brands – se e if the sort produces a “local” pull) In the set we would have: Telus, ICBC, RBC, VanCity Manulife, Blackberry, Nike, Best Buy, Granville Island Brewery, Molson, Lululemon, Finning. OTHERS? After sorting: What can we say about this – why did X respondent sort them this way. What else can you tell me about this? Was this about their personal preference? Why? Does anyone else feel different about how these were sorted? Discuss sorting and then focus on three in particular including Telus. •Why would they (each in turn of the three) be a good choice for naming the facility - Why is that? - In what ways might they be a better choice than X? - Do they do anything for the community? - Do they feel like a local company? Is that important? •Why would they not be a good choice? - Anything else? - What would have to happen before they become a better choice? NAME COMPLETION Ok. Let’s say it is either two of the three we just focused on (Telus will be one of the two) and we need to complete the name of this facility. (PARK, LIVE, HOUSE, CENTRE, PLACE, COMPLEX ,SPACE Write the above names on the flip chart and then read each of the two brand names against each. How does each of these feel when I say them Telus PARK Telus LIVE etc. Does one feel better than the other …why is that? Check preferred monikors by adding the suffix “ British Columbia”. Check if that has a different “feel”about the name. What is it like to say it? WRAP and CLOSE Check with back room for additional questions
© Synovate 2010

24

1) BC Place is owned and operated by BC Pavilion Corporation (PavCo), a Provincial Crown Corporation. PavCo also operates the Vancouver Convention Centre. BC Place is the largest event facility of its kind in British Columbia In September 2009, the Provincial Government asked PavCo to re-submit an updated business case which took into account current economic and fiscal realities. In October 2009, after a rigorous planning and tendering process, the Province and PavCo announced a fixed-price contract with PCL Constructors Westcoast Inc. for a cable-supported retractable roof – the largest roof of its kind in the world – to replace the existing airsupported roof. BC Place closed for construction on April 6th, 2010. Once construction on the new retractable roof is complete, BC Place will be ready to host several new events under its new roof in summer 2011; and will fully reopen in time for the 99th CFL Grey Cup in November 2011. On May 5, 2010, the air-supported dome roof on BC Place - the largest of its kind in the world - was permanently deflated after capping the building for 27 years. The total cost of the roof replacement project is $458 million, including contingencies.

2)
The Provincial Government is the sole shareholder. Of PavCo. In a normal operating year, if PavCo is profitable, the taxpayer makes money. If not, then the taxpayer subsidizes the operation. The $458 million budget for the roof is being provided by the Provincial Govt to PavCo as a loan to be repaid with interest through 2049.. PavCo has developed a business plan to increase revenues in order to support this loan, and also to increase the economic benefit of BC Place in the province. One part of this includes developing the lands around the stadium; Paragon will build the entertainment complex and two internationally branded hotel will also be built. Paragon will pay PavCo a set amount of money per year (plus inflation after 10 years) for 70 years. There are a number of other revenue streams that are being explored and opened up because of the revitalization project. The aim of this business plan is to reduce the burden on the taxpayer and enhance this asset as an economic generator for BC. 3) Another revenue stream will include a naming partner for the refurbished facility. They would pay a yearly fee for the right to name the facility.

© Synovate 2010

25

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful