It’s somewhat of a circular debate. The whole point of Hisense and Etihad naming the stadiums is so people become more familiar with the brands. I can’t vouch for Hisense just yet, but Etihad is a massive sport sponsor (Formula 1, golf). I think you will see more from them in Australia sport in the coming years.

I can’t explain why you are yet to see any Hisense brands in the shops you visit, maybe they are yet to hit Cash Convertors stores, but seriously this is alarming as it defeats the purpose of spending on the naming rights. Not that all sponsorships are rational, but I think if a brand is going to spend millions on a six year sponsorship they would make sure they had product in the market.

Getting traction for your venue naming right can be a challenge. Sometimes it’s because the media do not want to acknowledge the corporate backer because of a non-commercial charter (ABC & SBS) or because perhaps a programs is backed by competing brand. There is also the traditionalist journo, clinging on to a bygone era, ‘it will always be Lang Park to me’ (wipes tear from eye), that refuse to acknowledge the corporate backers name. I recall another case with an AFL clubs referring to Telstra Dome as just ‘The Dome’ because it had a rival telco as a sponsor.

I spoke with marketer Harold Mitchell last week and he mentioned the success of the Colonial Stadium deal he brokered way back then and how it moved Colonials brand awareness from 3% to something astronomical.

One thing about stadium naming rights as a sponsorship option, you won’t find your stadium tarnishing your brand name by being out on the grog till all hours.

That’s my ten cents worth anyway.