Corporations could soon be advertising in our (U.S.) National Parks

[DireWolfSpirit]

Article today in Huffington Post- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donald-cohen/corporations-could-soon-a_b_10146528.html

From the article:

The Grand Canyon, brought to you by Budweiser. Verizon signs throughout Yellowstone. The thought of advertising in our national parks is nauseating. But it could happen.

Earlier this month, the National Park Service released a proposed plan to begin aggressively seeking private sponsorship for park projects to make up for dwindling public funding. Park leaders would be encouraged to spend official time soliciting donations from individuals and corporations. Anything from sponsoring a bench to designing, building, and even operating a park building would be allowed.

 

I'm sure someone will defend this with some argument of finances needed or something similar. But I agree with the articles description of it as a nauseating idea. For me it falls under the auspices of "Just because you can do something, does NOT automatically make it a good idea."

I would much prefer the Parks focus on efforts to get by with the means they have then resort to maximizing revenues in natural scenic areas. First do know harm, how do billboards belong in these places? I do not like it at all !

 

 

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Article today in Huffington Post- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donald-cohen/corporations-could-soon-a_b_10146528.html

From the article:

The Grand Canyon, brought to you by Budweiser. Verizon signs throughout Yellowstone. The thought of advertising in our national parks is nauseating. But it could happen.

Earlier this month, the National Park Service released a proposed plan to begin aggressively seeking private sponsorship for park projects to make up for dwindling public funding. Park leaders would be encouraged to spend official time soliciting donations from individuals and corporations. Anything from sponsoring a bench to designing, building, and even operating a park building would be allowed.

 

I'm sure someone will defend this with some argument of finances needed or something similar. But I agree with the articles description of it as a nauseating idea. For me it falls under the auspices of "Just because you can do something, does NOT automatically make it a good idea."

I would much prefer the Parks focus on efforts to get by with the means they have then resort to maximizing revenues in natural scenic areas. First do know harm, how do billboards belong in these places? I do not like it at all !

 

 

There is no mention of billboards in that article.

[DireWolfSpirit]

10 hours ago, Swordfish said:

There is no mention of billboards in that article.

Critics are concerned about what creeping commercialization could lead to though. Also there's concern over the potential for donors and advertisors attempting to gain priviledges or influence park policy as we saw with the 2011 Coca Cola case.

But the new brand of philanthropy is drawing fierce criticism from watchdogs and park advocates who accuse Jarvis of embracing a creeping commercialization they say has no place in the park system.

“You could use Old Faithful to pitch Viagra,” said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a watchdog group that’s trying to rally the park community to fight the plan. “Or the Lincoln Memorial to plug hemorrhoid cream. Or Victoria’s Secret to plug the Statue of Liberty,”

“Every developed area in a park could become a venue for product placement,” Ruch said. Or, he added, access: “A telecom company could say, ‘Nice mountain. We’ll make a generous donations for the right of way.’ ”

Critics worry that corporations will now see openings to demand privileges or influence park policy the way Coca-Cola, already a major donor, did in 2011. After Jarvis started encouraging parks in 2011 to ban the sale of bottled water to save on recycling expenses, Coca-Cola, which owns Dasani Water, balked — and Jarvis stalled the ban at the Grand Canyon. It eventually went into effect.

[Swordfish]

So its a slippery slope argument.  Gotcha.