Sponsorship of London Underground linesBack to Forum
AnonymousGuest4 Feb 2013
Today I noticed on the London underground map “Emirates Air Line”.
Whilst not exactly an underground line, it never the less does beg the question whether a company should be allowed to buy advertising space on an iconic London “landmark” in such a manner.
If its considered fair, why not extend the idea to all the underground lines on the map and allow companies to buy long term interests in each of the lines. Its a sure way for London Underground (or TFL) to raise funds.
If this were to be allowed, what companies do you think would be interested or indeed could afford to have an Underground line named after them..?4 Feb 2013
Interestingly… When Arsenal FC play at home in the Champions league… Guess at what stadium they officially play at ?
Hint . It is not the Emirates stadium…… Such branding is not allowed under champions league sponsorship rules.
The world really has gone crazy.4 Feb 2013
I think private sponsorship is an excellent idea.
We already have Emirates Air Line, Barclays Cycle Hire, Virgin Media providing WiFi and many firms paying for advertising on the bus and tube network helping reduce fares and delivering much needed funds to invest into network improvements.
We’re already seeing dramatically improved train interiors, air conditioning on some lines and the introduction of the terrific new double-decker as examples of where the money is improving the customer experience, and I’m sure there are many other unseen ways in which the infrastructure has been improved in ways we cannot see.
I am looking forward to the Shell Circle Line, the BP District Line, Ty-phoo Central Line and the Loo-Blu Piccadilly Line.
A certain ferris wheel even began life as the British Airways London Eye……!4 Feb 2013
What worries me about the sponsorship is that may not be enough to reduce the cost of ticket prices. The underground is plagued with adverts all over the place and still costs are high.
SwissExPat are you an Arsenal fan?4 Feb 2013
Becky….. No, am not a Gooner, although I respect their heritage and culture (Am thinking of the greats such as Brady, O’Leary, Stapleton) Am a man U fan since 1974…. And before you ask…. yes, I have pictures to prove it!4 Feb 2013
There is nothing wrong with sponsorship providing it doesn’t detract from the overall product. In this case it is a selling point, in the same way as it was the BA London Eye as VK says.
Emirates have plenty of cash to use as sponsorship as in football and the cable car, they used to sponsor the Gatwick Express. Sponsorship or advertising does make a valuable contribution to the running costs of services.4 Feb 2013
The question that needs to be asked of the rail services in the UK, is with the captive audience and fares that have risen about 300% compared to inflation, since privatisation, why is sponsorship needed as a contribution to running costs.
I would counter propose that lines should be named ‘The Gouged Commuter Line.’5 Feb 2013
@ MartynSinclair – 04/02/2013 20:35 GMT
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with advertising of lines/services but what is wrong is when Boris Johnson fails to derive the kind of income from this that he claimed he would. It subsequently became clear that the sponsorship deal with Barclays for the London bike hire scheme could have delivered far more if he’d gone further afield. Barclays pay, in the scheme of things, peanuts for massive London wide advertising.
The Emirates airline is, rather than covering its costs, now requiring a taxpayer subsidy of between £5-10million per annum whereas it was sold/promoted on the basis that it would at least cover its costs each year. An utterly ridiculous vanity project from a clown with a cheap pudding basin haircut.
Send the “village idiot” back to Henley I say!5 Feb 2013
What a ridiculous statement.
A Mayor brings in an innovative cost-sharing initiative which enables a service to be delivered for a significantly reduced cost than would otherwise have been the case, and all you do is criticise.
I could not see Red Ken delivering either the Air Line or the Bike scheme for less money (once the pockets of his cronies were nicely padded) without private sector assistance, and I doubt he’d have rushed to involve them.
Once again, short term focus rather than long term vision, and cheap political shots which do little to further the argument. What an earth has a “pudding bowl haircut” got to do with business travel…?5 Feb 2013
Has service on the Northern Line improved? I only remember it from 10+ years ago when it was haphazard to say the least especially in bad weather – therefore BA should sponsor that one.5 Feb 2013
@ VintageKrug – 05/02/2013 08:13 GMT
Welcome back VK, your pithy remarks have been missed – by some.
Yes, what an utterly ridiculous remark you have just made – completely ignoring the background:
The idea that a Tory could award a public contract for five years WITHOUT going to competitive tendering…. Err, you what?!
There is little argument about sponsorship deals that remove part of the funding burden from taxpayers. There is very definitely an argument when those deals fail to benefit as much as they ought to owing to a failure to go out to competition and deliver value for money. I cannot think of a more obvious example of “croneyism”.
Johnson encountered his ability ceiling when concocting stories about EU bent banana rules whilst the Torygraph’s Brussels correspondent. It’s a shame he didn’t recognise this at that point.5 Feb 2013