So Long Safeco Field...
by EireDuck on Apr 23, 2008 6:54 AM PDT
Email
Print...get ready for - Liberty Mutual Stadium?
Insurance Merger = No More Safeco?
Don't get me wrong - it's not like Safeco Field was the best name ever. But for a corporate name, it was okay. The Safe. Starts with the same letter as Seattle. Has a couple things going for it.
Liberty Mutual has no such advantages, plus it sounds like a whole new place. It's hard to get more corporate than the word "Mutual". Maybe someone can donate millions of dollars to Liberty Mutual to rename it Edgar Martinez Field.
46 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I have been worried about this for awhile
SAFECO is kind of mediumish sized and was just begging to be swallowed up by a larger company. I really don’t want SAFECO Field to become like the park in San Francisco and not have people from out of town be able to remember the name of our stadium.
That's an odd worry
I’m not sure why people from out of town would need to remember the name of the stadium. It’s not like people can’t locate Random Phone Company Park, or get there in a cab or something. As long as it’s not called something like Quicken Loans Arena or TD Banknorth Garden, I’m good – Liberty Mutual Field isn’t actually too terrible.
It’s really sad that I, and to a lesser extent society, have become OK with corporate named stadia “as long as it’s not too bad”. Sigh. Oh well, as long as my favorite bands don’t ever sell their music to TV commercials…AWWWWW CRAP.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
Regrettably your bands are not the ones doing the selling.
A number of years ago Congress caved to record industry lobbyists and gave ownership of songs to the distributor and not the writer/performer.
The user formerly known as Sec 108.
Yeah, I know.
I just remember the fuss that was raised when the Beatles’ “Revolution” was used in a Nike ad, and how everybody was convinced that was the End Of Music As We Know It – and now advertisements are a completely viable, and often preferred, way of getting new bands’ stuff out there.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
Yep, having much interaction with Marketing Demons
it boils down to the work of a new band being cheaper to use. Then on the flip side the record company makes money on selling user rights while getting the song more airtime. Ah, corporate love affairs are so cute.
The user formerly known as Sec 108.
They knew what they were doing when they signed to a major.
Therefore, anything the label does with their music can be blamed on the band.
Support local music.
by Aaron Campeau on Apr 23, 2008 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm 25, have a serious, long-term girlfriend, and years of playing rock music has jaded me beyond comprehension.
I understand why bands sign to majors. But they have to make a choice between more money/exposure and complete creative control. I’m not one to holler “sell-out” at anyone, but I don’t think it’s entirely fair to let the bands off the hook completely.
I also think most good bands have more leverage than they realize, and a better lawyer would usually allow them to hang on a greater amount of creative control. But that’s a whole different topic.
Support local music.
by Aaron Campeau on Apr 23, 2008 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Wasn't trying to be mean, but somewhere 30 years of age with 15 years of
Playing in multiple bands that were full of idealistic goals and getting married I decided I would like to actually have some money in my pocket. Regrettably the only band I ever played in that drew sniffs from the labels was in my early 20’s, so I eventually had to get a real job.
The weeding out process of major labels can break many less than educated musicians, but it is still the only path to economic validity as a musician.
The user formerly known as Sec 108.
It's not the only path.
There are plenty of bands that did fairly well for themselves without ever being on a major. Sleater-Kinney and Fugazi spring immediately to mind. Obviously, this is the exception rather than the rule, but if you’re a good enough band and you’re willing to work hard, it’s possible.
What it comes down to, for me, is this; is a band that refuses to give up creative control/ownership of their recordings and how they are used in exchange for financial gain more worthy of my respect than a band that gives up said control to cash in? In my estimation, yes, they are. That doesn’t mean I won’t continue to like/support/listen to bands on majors, but I’m also not going to let them off the hook for things that I think invalidate them as artists, and allowing their music to be used in commercials or releasing a bad album to fulfill a contract does just that. But it’s not a black and white issue.
Support local music.
by Aaron Campeau on Apr 23, 2008 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
When you say "let them off the hook"
what does that mean, exactly? I’m not asking to be snarky, I’m just curious – does that mean you stop buying music from bands that “cross the line”, or don’t go to their shows, or…???
The band I always think of in debates like this is Wilco. Great band, indie darling, everything you’d want in a smallish band – but then they went and licensed their music to Volkswagen. Does this invalidate the stunning success (both musically and commercially) that was Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, or the underappreciated gem that was AM? Again, not being snarky, just curious…
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
Man, I can't believe this was still in the clipboard from yesterday.
That’s a fair question. By “letting them off the hook” I was mainly responding to Sec 108’s initial statement that the labels, not the bands, were the ones typically doing the selling. Which is technically true.
Any band considering signing to a major should be aware of the fact that the label is going to have a lot of control over their recordings and how they’re used, however, so I don’t think it absolves the band of responsibility for commercial use of their songs. The band has to choose to either stick with an indie, work a deal with the label that allows them control of their music, or be willing to accept that their music may be used in ways they aren’t particularly fond of. To choose the latter option and then attempt to deflect criticism because it was the label that licensed the song is dishonest.
So, to answer your question; no, if I like a band enough I will go see them live/buy their albums/ respect their work, etc. But I think it calls into question the artistic integrity of the band/performer when they allow such things to happen (or, in some cases, facilitate these sorts of things themselves.) It doesn’t invalidate the merits of the work, I just think it’s kind of lame.
As an aside, the person responsible for the trend in using 60’s punk in commercials must be stopped. The first time I heard the Sonics’ “Have Love Will Travel” in a Range Rover commercial I wanted to vomit. Now Axe is using a Seeds song? Seriously, it’s like some douchebag marketing major somehow ended up with a cool college roommate who owned the Nuggets boxed set and thought “Hey, I could sell jeans with this shit!” If the Lollipop Shoppe end up in a commercial I am gonna’ knife somebody in the kidneys.
Support local music.
by Aaron Campeau on Apr 24, 2008 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Out of towners...
I know that they would be able to find the stadium fine, its just annoying that Pac Bell Park has become SBC and then AT&T all in less than a decade. I just don’t want that to happen here.
I'd love it if one of the super-rich athletes
like ARod or Michael Jordan or someone like that bought the naming rights and named the stadium after themself.
That'd be awesome
Random dude on the bus: where you headed, man?
Me: To the M’s game. at THE ROD.
Dude: huh?
Me: Alex Rodriguez bought the naming rights to what used to be Safeco. Now it’s Alex Rodriguez Park. But it’s so much easier to call it THE ROD.
Dude: Awesome.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
I think it'd be hilarious-er if a politician did it with campaign money as a big advertisement
Dave: Welcome to the show! Tonight we have Mariners vs. Angels at George Bush in 04 Park!
by seattlebruin on Apr 23, 2008 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions
That would make me ill
and not just because you used Bush as a reference point. It would make me ill with any politician’s name on it. Unless you went for the classics – Taft in ‘09 Field! Whig Party Park!
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
I went for Bush because it already happened
instead of seemingly promoting a current candidate which would clearly be in violation of LL’s no politics rule
by seattlebruin on Apr 23, 2008 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Bull Moose Field?
I'd rather know a little about a lot than a lot about a little
I bet the concessions at Taft in '09 field would be great.
Support local music.
by Aaron Campeau on Apr 23, 2008 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions
As long as they don't call it a "stadium"
I’ll be happy. You know, because it is a God damned ballpark. Although from the article it sounds like they won’t be eliminating the SafeCo brand name.
It'll remain Safeco Field...
In my semi-conscious, post-late-thanks-to-a-trip-to-Safeco-night state as I was awoken by my radio alarm clock this morning, I’d heard that they weren’t going to change the name at all. They’re keeping the Safeco name for everything—which is a lot of the reason why the shareholders agreed to sell to this particular company.
Ill Ligitamus Non Carberendum
Yeah, they're keeping the name
It’ll be one of THOSE mergers, where the merged company continues to operate publically as the same entity they always are… just that someone else is pulling the strings.
That's good
Because they would’ve had to change the big Safeco Field sign out in LF, which could’ve cost another million or so to replace.
Until someone else takes over at Liberty Mutual
and changes the rules. Good faith agreements like this only as long as the people who made them are in charge.
Yeah, Exactly...
...they said this for some of the San Fran mergers too, and an almost infinite history of companies. When the merger is still tentative or new, nothing’s going to change. Then in 5 years, no one’s ever heard of the company name for the one that was bought. Ultimately, corporations just don’t like split-personality branding.
Pigs flying. Hell getting chilly. Bavasi having a good off-season. If the M's can't win this year, there's really no hope.
Didn't this happen when SeaFirst was bought out?
I think I remember that when SeaFirst was bought out that they said that BOA wouldn’t take Hec Ed’s name and that it would be named SeaFirst Arena. We all know how that turned out.
They said they'd keep the name "for a while"
BoA never guaranteed that SeaFirst’s name would stay; they kept it (the bank, not the arena) as SeaFirst for several years, until they bought up pretty much every other bank in the country, and then the dual-name thing became too expensive/unnecessary to maintain.
Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.
When Rogers Communications bought the SkyDome, one of the bidders
for the newly available naming rights was SKYY Vodka. It would have been the SKYYDome.
Alas, Rogers decided to name it after themselves.
That would have been pretty awesome.
I’m less disgusted by corporate world domination when it’s clever.
Support local music.
by Aaron Campeau on Apr 23, 2008 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
How about we just buy the naming rights
and call it “Willie’s SAFEco Field!”
ugh I hope they keep the name
I dont know why things like this bother me so much. i mean Safeco is a company too so its not like theyre “selling out” any more. and Wrigley field used to be called Cubs Park.
just shows how good that advertising really is I guess. I hear “Safeco” and I think “yay! fun at the SAFE with friends! god bless safeco!” but when I hear liberty mutual I think “RABBLE RABBLE what the hell damn corporations RABBLE!”
I just finished reading "October 1964."
One of the things I thought humorous was that when Auggie Busch bought the Cardinals, he wanted to name the new ballpark (built with his own money) after Budweiser, but his advisers talked him out of it because they thought naming a stadium after a brand name was tacky. Oh how far we’ve come.
Support local music.
by Aaron Campeau on Apr 23, 2008 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Liberty Mutial
sounds like it has more flags and the singing of GBA during every 7th inning stretch.
that song...
i think the whole God Bless America thing was just way too much. i could see it happening the first week or so after baseball returned, but seriously, there is no reason for it to last that long. it seemed more of an awkward gesture (made more awkward when it was obvious they had no idea when to stop) than something meaningful
by Karma Police on Apr 23, 2008 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Not to venture into ZOMG NO POLITICS terriotry
but I loathe what it stands for and we’ll leave it at that.
It's not supriing that this was the ultimate Corco-bait.
What? Are they also gonna serve ham salad at the concession stands?
Don’t let them get too close, they might flag 69.
by Jordan of Boise on Apr 23, 2008 10:07 PM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
