You are here

Traveler's View: Really, Aren't The National Parks Worth More Than $2.5 Million?

Share

Top National Park Service officials like to tout the $30 billion economic might of the National Park System, but there's a new number that won't get the same bandied about treatment: $2.5 million.

That's the fee the Park Service, through the National Park Foundation, is getting from Budweiser in return for promoting the beermaker's brand across the 407 units of the National Park System for the coming year, allowing them to stage a number of concerts (their Made In America concerts, perhaps, led by Jay Z) with a National Park System backdrop, and agreeing to waive a decades' long prohibition against partnering with an alcoholic beverage manufacturer.

If you were to ask who got the better deal, you'd have to give the edge to Bud.

After all, Anheuser-Busch, Bud's parent, spends $1.5 billion a year on advertising, netted a $46.3 billion profit last year, and probably didn't blink when told a 30-second spot on this year's Super Bowl telecast ran about $4.5 million (though AB probably got a discount for buying more than one commercial.).

When you consider that American Express signed a four-year, $5 million deal to help celebrate the National Park Service's centennial and support volunteerism in the parks, that REI -- a retailer of outdoor clothing and gear that meshes with outdoor adventures in national parks -- without being specific, said it has agreed to a partnership deal that will generate "multi-millions" of dollars for the parks, and that Subaru -- an environmentally sensitive automaker -- already has donated $3 million, you have to wonder how AB's $2.5 million deal was reached. 

Is the funding scenario facing the National Park Service so dire that it needs to scratch out a longstanding prohibition against encouraging the consumption of alcohol?

What is so great about Budweiser -- a brand that, its officials admit, also is struggling to connect with millennials -- that convinced the Park Foundation to agree to such a discount, an incredible one conceded for a coast-to-coast, border-to-border industry -- national parks -- that generates $30 billion a year in economic output?

For an agency, the Park Service, that can point to a higher annual visitation (292.8 million in 2014) than that of the NFL, MLB, and NASCAR combined (94.7 million), shouldn't that centennial sponsorship fee have been higher, much higher?

Perhaps the National Park Foundation should have set a floor of $5 million, or $10 million, for partners who would share in the glow of the National Park Service's centennial. With what we know about the deal with Bud, it seems as if the parks were undersold.

Beyond that, there's the matter of compatability. Is there a strong rationale for this deal, or was income the bottom line?

In OKing the waiver to Director's Order 21, which since the late 1980s prohibited the National Park Service from entering into corporate campaigns with alcohol products, Park Service Director Jon Jarvis agreed that there was value in "aligning the economic and historical legacies of two iconic brands."

But what is that value? How does Budweiser's historical legacy compare with the Park Service's? 

At a time when date rape on college campuses is a serious issue and has spawned the slogan, "No Means No," what value comes to the Park Service from a corporate entity that endorsed an ad campaign that dubbed Bud Light "the perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary for the night.”

The campaign sparked outrage on Social Media channels and endless stories in the media that tried to dissect the thought process that went into the slogan. This from an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the hometown newspaper for AB's U.S. headquarters:

But Jennifer Pozner, executive director of the Brooklyn-based advocacy group Women In Media & News, said the Bud Light message is damaging.

“The idea that any alcohol company ... was this clueless about the role alcohol plays in a large number of sexual assaults is unthinkable in 2015,” Pozner said.

“It’s not a gray area, especially when you are in an industry that is endlessly criticized for the role your product plays in assaults. I think what they’re trying to do is position Bud Light as a beer for bad boys.”

It’s not the only time the campaign has landed Bud Light in hot water.

Last month, A-B issued an apology after it tweeted: “On #StPatricksDay, you can pinch people who don’t wear green. You can also pinch people who aren’t #UpForWhatever,” with a photo of five young women below the message.

Is that the kind of "innovation and ingenuity in advertising and marketing" the Park Service was seeking when Director Jarvis waived DO21 for this partnership? How can we ensure that the same type of insensitive marketing won't happen where parks are concerned ... or that the concerts don't become keggers in our national parks?

Are there no deep-pocketed corporations in America that offer a better fit? What about the airlines that transport visitors to parks? Google, Apple, and Facebook all have extremely deep pockets, and are trendier with millennials than Bud.

And, unlike Bud, likely wouldn't require a waiver of Park Service policies to partner.

 

Featured Article

Comments

One thing I don't get about this is they say the partnership with Budweiser will attract more of the kinds of people they want to come to NPS sites. But as far as I know Budweiser isn't exactly the brand of "millennials" or most minorities.

I agree with you Kurt, the price seems low.  But I find it funny after all the indignation about the arrangement in the first place, now we are talking price.   Reminds me of a joke that ends with the women asking "what do you think I am" and the man responds, "we have already established that, now we are just negotiating the price". 


Well said Kurt. This partnership with Budweiser is just not right for the NPS. The whole deal cries out for a congressional investigation. Even if the amount of money was $25 million it would still  be wrong. Dan Wenk and Jarvis need to face reality. They made a mistake and just say no to Budweiser. 


I don't think "price" is the point being made here at all. Sometimes, a writer has to resort to irony or sarcasm before anyone can see the point. And the point is: The government, having presented the national parks as a gold mine, turns around and sells them as if they were tin.

Again, it's happening all across our public lands. Who's minding the store here? If the national parks are worth $30 billion to the economy, I expect a commensurate return to the taxpayers. If that is going to be the standard from now on, I expect the standard to pay its way. More likely, the Park Service will be right back in Congress next year pleading they haven't got any money.

This is the problem with every privatization argument. Those who want the parks to be privatized don't want to pay. They still want the taxpayers to pay, and know how to get them to pay. They keep the government suspended between morality and immorality, knowing that immorality is always the stronger "sale." Why? Becomes it comes with a price--something that everyone can "understand."

The National Park Foundation is supposed to know this and never let money into it. You want to contribute to the parks? Fine. But you get NOTHING in return. That is philanthropy. Everything else is a sellout. When I contribute to Jerry's kids, I don't expect to see them working in my yard. When I give to St. Jude's Hospital, I expect them to be treating cancer without any "banners." A credit? Sure. We all want people to know what we're doing. An awards dinner and a formal thank you? Yes again. People who give deserve to be honored, and in honoring them we honor the cause. But that's it, if you are a true philanthropist. That is the point Kurt is making.

Fortunately, and wonderfully, the history of our national parks is full of philanthropy of the kind I am defining here. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., gave and gave. So did Lawrence Rockefeller and the late L. W. "Bill" Lane, Jr. I remember when Bill Lane told me, in Yosemite Valley, that Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt had just "hit him up" for $200,000 to help make repairs after the 1997 floods. "And you were glad to do it, Bill, weren't you?" I replied. "Glad, Al? I was thrilled. As you know, Jean and I absolutely love this place."

Does Budweiser love the national parks? We'll see. That history has yet to evolve. However, if they do, they will express their love as Bill expressed it--quietly and honorably behind the scenes. So far, now that the Clydesdales have left the starting gate, I think the horses are still smarter than their owners. But as I said, we'll have to wait for the end of the race.

 


Dr. Runte, this is one of your finest posts, exactly the issue here. Thank you. I also appreciated the post of M. Kellett and yourself on "addressing the backlog". It is stretch to me that we cannot find common ground on "man" contributing to  climate change. From deforestation, fossil feuls, yes giant wind and solar farms, well the list is quite lengthly, the evidence is building that we are having an influence.  An issue on population as simple as not having enough respect for women to stay out of the conversation regarding their personal reproductive health care decisions is quite troubling.  Thanks again


Alfred,

AB is not (and should not be) giving money to the Parks to be philonthropic, they are giving it for publicity. 


As I read this, EC, I am listening to Peter, Paul, and Mary from a concert in 1965. Man, have we "lost it" when we say that our major corporations "should not be philanthropic." Bring on the "publicity," then, but what does it matter when you no longer have a country that you can sing about with pride? "This land is your land; This land is my land." It most certainly was never about our beer.


Thinking of the posts above from Michael Kellett and Alfred, when I first started working in the Park on the trail crews, we worked 6 days a week.  Often times later in the season, we would be working on the trails close to the passes on the park boundary and the trail supervisor would take us out into the surrounding forests to show us where the original  Yosemite Park Boundary's were and to increase our knowledge of the visitor access.   It was easy to follow as the USFS trails there would be marked with the Army T-Blazes along with more recent i blazes.  You can still find some of them on trees more than a 100 years later.  In hindsight, it was a mistake to reduce the boundaries in places like Yosemite, as, in most cases, it eliminated much important winter habitat for migrating wildlife which, with increasing development in the Sierra foothills, is a growing concern. 

On philanthropic efforts, and perhaps idealistic on my part, I must agree with Dr. Runte. There are some informative articles on the pro and cons of the global corporate economy. One point that was interesting to me is the suggestion that one of the cons of current global corporate thinking with all its interlocking boards, etc., is that a sense of national identity by the corporate business models is being lost. That is, it is about international profits and shareholders. For every donation, an investment is being made and a return is expected. One example is Bud, now owned by a Belgium Company. I do not think that was always the case, as Alfred points out. 


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.