In the age of the brand many of us have simply come to expect the corporate sponsorship of our cultural institutions and heroes - in many ways the money supplied to sports persons, art exhibitions, concerts, and of course football clubs provides a source of revenue that would otherwise be denied them, or worse made available to the competition. We have come to accept, if not be implicit in, the association between brand and culture. Marketing not only looks to reflect our culture but to shape it - corporations no longer produce things but an image, lifestyle, or feeling that seeks to embed itself in our all-to-willing psyches. But it hasn't always been this way, the brand-as-image concept is quite modern, however it is so pervasive that we have either become so immune to it that we cannot imagine a different world, or numb to its effects.
The name Anfield is a kind of brand - it is one of the iconic symbols of the sporting world, and the feelings, memories, experiences, and all the other associations we conjure in our minds are enormously powerful. But Anfield pre-dates the modern marketing era, it is a Methuselah that endures and continues to fend off the swords and knives that seek to take a piece of it for corporate gain, or false culture. Anfield is more than a brand, more than a name, it is a piece of us. It is our Mecca.
What price are we willing to pay for success? Just how much of this part of ourselves are we willing to sell off and become walking advertisements for Adidas, Reebok, or Coke? Will the hearts and minds of future reds in fifty years from now be rapt with joy at the incantation of "Sun Microsystems Stadium".
Can we live with ourselves if we accept the corporate branding of the "new Anfield", is one superstar player a year worth the price? Do we want to win so badly that we mortgage our traditions and fall at the feet of corporatisation? We must think carefully before allowing our great traditions to be spoiled for future fans - Pepsi to become their soma, and Adidas Arena their Brave New World. When it comes to such important things, erring on the side of caution is always the right path.
Saying NO to the corporate branding of New Anfield is necessary and essential.
I will leave you with a quote:
"While elevating the corporate, sponsorship simultaneously devalues what it sponsors. ... The sporting event, the play, the concert and the public television program become subordinate to promotion because, in the sponsor's mind and in the symbolism of the event, they exist to promote. It is not Art for Art's Sake as much as Art for Ad's Sake. In the public's eye, art is yanked from its own separate and theoretically autonomous domain and squarely placed in the commercial... Every time the commercial intrudes on the cultural, the integrity of the public sphere is weakened because of the obvious encroachment of corporate promotion."
- Matthew McAllister, The Commercialisation of American Culture.
Poll