A group opposed to corporate advertising in national parks has presented the National Park Service with a petition signed by more than 200,000 people who say they are against proposed changes pertaining to how commercial entities can be recognized in the parks.
At issue under changes proposed to Director's Order 21 (DO21) is to what extent the National Park Service would permit corporations that donate to the parks to be recognized inside national parks. Some of the proposed changes included:
- Continued allowance of entering into partnerships with alcoholic beverage companies and accepting donations from them;
- Letting individual parks decide how to recognize donations, with restrictions against no implication of NPS endorsement, official sponsorship of the park, or naming rights. Whereas the existing guidelines prohibit donor recognition on vehicles, bricks, benches, or other park furnishings or buildings, the proposed revisions would allow recognition on vehicles if the vehicle was the donation, and would allow recognition on bricks, walkways, benches, and landscaped areas.
The petition drive was led by Public Citizen, a nonprofit organization that views itself as "the people’s voice in the nation’s capital. ...our work on each issue shares an overarching goal: To ensure that all citizens are represented in the halls of power." The signatures were gathered by CREDO Action, Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert program and the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC).
Among the groups' concerns is that the proposed changes, if made permanent, would "inevitably result in corporate-influenced park policy. Disproportionate attention will be devoted to resources and assets attractive to corporate sponsors, at the expense of investment, maintenance and promotion of other National Park assets."
"To read Director’s Order #21 is to see the inevitable perils that arise from corporate entanglements. The order identifies certain businesses with which NPS will not partner, though troublingly states that it will partner with alcohol companies. Just to read the acknowledgement of potential problems with potential natural resource company sponsors is to see that those problems are inescapable and not open to satisfactory resolution," Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, wrote in a letter to the Park Service.
National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis has gone on record saying that naming rights in the parks will not be allowed. During an appearance before the National Press Club last month he pointed out that, "we have always had relationships with corporate America. From the very beginning of the national parks. It was the railroads that built most of the major lodges, the old historic lodges, like the El Tovar (at Grand Canyon). And throughout my 40 years we’ve had long-term relationships with corporate America without selling out. Without renaming, or, 'This park brought to you by...' We just don’t do that. We sit down with corporate America and say, 'What are your goals? These are our goals. This is an area you can’t go, and we’re not going to allow that.'
“I think you should trust us that we are protecting these assets from branding and labeling," he added. "It is not the direction we’re headed. What we’re trying to do is sort of modernize our philanthropic capability for the Service, for the National Park Foundation, and all of the friends groups that raise money for us.”
Will Shafroth, president and CEO of the National Park Foundation, also told the Traveler last week that naming rights were not under consideration.
“We get people all the time who say what kind of recognition. And we say, well, if you want to get naming rightrs then you’re barking up the wrong tree, that just doesn’t happen," he said. “And, basically there are very, very few opportunities to have your name on a plaque. So you just have to be willing to do this because it’s the right thing to do. We can put it in our press releases, we can acknowledge you on our website, and there are other forms of recognition, but they are not what people are used to getting at a university, or museum, or hospital, something like that. It's just the way it is.”
Mr. Shafroth went on to say that, "In my view, the Park Service is very conservative in this area, and they’re appropriately careful and respectful of the responsibility that they’ve been given and they’re not inclined to sell anything out. I understand people draw a line in a different place. But I would say that the work that we’re doing with the Park Service is trying to be as respectful of the parks, and the big responsibility that we collectively have to preseve their legacy.
"I don’t think any of us would want to soil that by putting up big corporate banners and things like that, and I don’t think corporations want that either, at least the ones we’re working with anyway.”
Some corporations already are greatly visible in the parks when one considers the delivery trucks and semis emblazoned with such brands as Coca-Cola, Budweiser, Sysco, and others, as well as vending machines. At Public Citizen, campaign coordinator Kristen Strader maintained that the changes envisioned for DO21 would go beyond those examples of corporation marketing in the parks.
"Sure, there are already examples of commercialism in our parks like on delivery trucks and with some of the bans that have been lifted for the centennial celebration. Namely, the partnership with Budweiser," she said. "The revision of DO21 would accelerate the existing commercialism and allow room for logos to be attached not only to delivery trucks, but park property like busses and vehicles that remain within the parks. It could also open the door for co-branding outside of the park."
Comments
I agree with one thing ecbuck says here: this headline IS misleading. "Donor Recognition" is NOT advertising.
One problem in a political campaign of misstating what you oppose is, you actually undermine the possibility for success of your campaign. In this case, all the NPS has to do is restate things to clearly outlaw advertising, and it will STILL be able to do Donor Recognition.
The big problem with the campaign opposing the draft Directors Order 21 is there is very little accuracy (or is it honesty?) in these attacks. Some of the attacks are actually against policies that have been in place for YEARS. Some attacks are actually against program elements designed to REDUCE commercialization of parks, and allow superintendents to step in and show how a program that might be right-sized for Yosemite could overwhelm a small park elsewhere.
Donors are already recognized. NPS allows a simple statement of what the contribution was. No promotion of the donor. The statement must be on a temporary place: not the wall outside of a structure or entrance. the rules, unlike today, specifically require a decision of how long the donor recognition will be in place.
The change here is: in addition to the written statement, permit a corporate logo OF THE SAME SIZE on the statement. The argument the National Park Foundation made to the NPS on this is that corporate names sometimes mean little, but the public DOES is able to identify the logo. Plus, the Foundation which wants to raise the money, thinks their job would be easier.
I have mixed feelings about logos, but logos on a temporary sign in an unobtrusive place chosed by the superintendent is NOT advertising. No corporate message would be there: this would be much less than what you already get every day on Public Radio, where the Donor is able to identify what they do, but short of an actual advertising pitch. (but i think Public Radio NOW is much closer to advertising than what the NPS draft DO 21 would do. In honesty, despite the hype in these statements.
But i am concerned that if large logos are on the side of donated, for example, Suburus, then it probably is advertising. If it is a bilboard on the side of car that is too much. If it is a small statement with a logo, that is not advertising. I think the draft DO 21 should make this clarification.
But i think ecbuck goes too far in a cheap personal swipe, but i think ecbuck is RIGHT to raise the alternative view about getting the money to the NPS that it needs. I think i have impeccable creds on this, because i campaigned against fees and even wrote legislative language that is now law outlawing "entrace fees" in some parks. But i was outsmarted when they simply called them activity fees, etc. I have also spent dozens of years fighting for money for parks, especially appropriations and matching grants and expansion of federal transportation authorizations for parks. Altogether, that amounts to many hundreds of millions of dollars of clean money.
But the real point is ecbuck is right, unless you do not believe in the Mission, and unless you do not agree there is not enough money now to protect the resource and serve the visitor, the critics of this DO 21 policy, specifically some of the park advocacy groups who have written opposed to this policy, need to do a damn sight better than they are doing now, in working to boost NPS appropriations. It is cheap and easy to sit back when people are making desperate efforts to get the parks and programs the money they need, take another swollow from your beer and condemn this effort by the NP Foundation and other partner groups to enable more donations.
What must happen FIRST is for park supporters to ORGANIZE and get the Congress to fund the parks. Don't remove from the Mission needed money until you stand up and get the funds.
I do think that Ron is doing all any one person can or should do, and ecbuck should learn when to lay off.
But i think the comments of groups like PEER or the Coalition mix legitimate criticism with outright untruths about what the policy really would change. Chaotic and reckless comments like these and the petition are not helpful. What is so terrible about accurately characterizing what REALLY is being requested, distinguishing between what is already allowed -- with a real-world evaluation of the good and bad effects of what is happening NOW -- and specifically what CHANGES this proposal contains.
It specifically opposes advertising. It does NOT permit naming a structure or a park after any donor. Even a non-contributing facility building that is not a protected resource, even that would be PROHIBITED by this policy proposal. NPS has been receiving donations from the beginning, including recognizing donations, without EVER going along with naming a park or a building after a donor.
Until we get the congressional appropriations, park supporters should be decent enough to acknowledge what a donation is. And for you who hate corporations and more hate "green washing," know this: it means something when Parks are so valued that even a sleezeball knows supporting parks is something important to America. Plus, i do not know about you, but when i see a wonderful museum exhibit or cultural performance "brought to you by XXX Corporation" it never in the slightest would make me ignore any of the sins of that corporation. But i am glad they or smart enough to know what matters to Americans. Other corporations could not care less.
There are things i don't like about this proposed policy.
No car should be used as a billboard and drive around the park like that. I don't like the extent to which it was written by "friends" groups with little input from the NPS technical experts. It was not the Director who managed this program, but an official who has now left the NPS.
But there are many good things in the proposal, and many things distorted by the critics.
I would prefer accuracy to hype and scare tactics.
d-2 - I am sorry you think I am taking "swipes" at people. As I said, I am sure Ron has made contributions to the parks. I am merely pointing out the hypcracy of those that lament the lack of funds for the parks but rise up to fight a funding mechanism that in no way inhibits ones ability to enjoy the parks or the NPS to fill their mission. The opposition is just a knee jerk reaction against anything corporate. I am happy you take a much more balanced view.
Spot on. Branding has been in the parks from the beginning, DO21 dates back to 1998. I have a "temporary" sign with a logo on it that dates prior to 1998. Spot on.
No sweat EC, your point is well taken and is true with some managers but not all. d-2 thank you for the post, you make many excellent points. My own limited experience matches yours but only in one iconic park, not the breath of your efforts. Donations, philanthropy, are often generous and well meaning, small temporary logos at the site recognizing their effort is appropriate, small plaques in some cases also OK. Driving a suburu with its logos and govt. license plates in a park by NPS employees a stretch, at least in my view. Philanthropy has a dark side also. I have witnessed well meaning donations to rehab an area, millions of dollars involved, that violated all sound ecological planing requirements in more than instance. I also have sat in the backroom and witnessed the give and take, it can be tough. An extremely interesting book on this subject of philanthropy in general, the trusts, politics, etc. behind it, is "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer. An in depth study of how money can be used to circumvent so many of the issues like paying inheritance taxes, or founding political advocacy groups, etc. One aspect of donor recognition and the drive to tap private sources of funding is the effect on the management positions and the wheeling and dealing it takes to be successful. Its not just the NPS, its our Universities, and other public institutions as well. One California State University President I was invited to attend a dinner with, made no bones about it, his job was to raise money from private sources, the more the better. It takes a special type of person to be an effective fund raiser and requires a firm set of guidelines so as not to fall into the money trap. It was saddening to see this happen on occasion, and I was told once by a high ranking NPS official that raising money was their one critical factor in their performance evaluation. Sad indeed. d-2, many citizens, as you know better than I, are working hard to get Congress to rethink some of our spending priorities. In this last 30 years of anti government political discourse, it is a tough sell. In any case I am no expert, but I do feel the NPS is on a slippery slope. The corrections you suggest will certainly help.
Good points Ron, but the key point is that the "evil" is not in the corporate contribution but in the failure to use the monies appropriately and allowing the quid pro quos. And your are right, its an issue for the NPS, univerisities, charities and even one of our Presidential candidates. But I'm guessing that's not going to keep you from voting for her.