No, I won’t let this die. Here’s the latest piece — this time with numbers and smart people analyzing it and everything — explaining why the Citigroup-Mets deal is actually a good thing:
Front Row Analytics, a consultancy that helps sports franchises value sponsorships, says television exposure in New York media market is a $15 million annual value for Citi, 75% of the $20 million the company is paying the Mets. Throw in national television (the Mets are scheduled for at least 10 games on ESPN and Fox, more if they make the postseason), on-site signage exposure, plus the revenue potential from stadium ATMs and suite deals with other sponsors, and Citi is well into the black. The estimated value from hosting an All-Star Game, which is likely in a new park’s early years, is $11 million.
“People see the sign on the building, but it’s much more than that,” says Eric Smallwood, a Front Row Analytics vice president.
I continue to maintain that, were I the CEO of Citigroup, I would not have pursued this deal in the first place, because I tend to be dubious of the value of advertising which isn’t associated with an offer or a call-to-action to begin with. But I also will admit that I really know jack squat about advertising. This article makes an argument that the deal is a good one as far as these things go. No one yet has pointed me to anything suggesting that, perceptions and politics aside, Citigroup’s deal with the Mets is an objectively bad one. Until they do, I’m going to continue to have a hard time getting worked up over this.