Well, all you Gi'nts fans that call it Pac Bell Park may have to change your tune:
[quote]Pacific Bell, long a stalwart California name, now is just one more discarded logo for trivia buffs after its parent company scrapped the names of all its operating units Tuesday in favor of initials: SBC. SBC Communications Inc., the country's largest local phone company, made the change to present one brand to compete better against rivals moving into California and SBC's 12 other states.

"Adopting a single, unified SBC brand underscores our transformation from a collection of regional companies with separate identities into a national telecommunications leader with a single identity," said Chairman Edward E. Whitacre Jr. The San Antonio company is awaiting approval to offer long- distance service in California, the nation's biggest market.

The company would not say what would happen to Pacific Bell Park, home of the San Francisco Giants. Pacific Bell agreed in 1996 to pay $50 million for naming rights to the new park for 24 years. The ball field opened in April 2000. "It's going to be a big issue for us and the Giants," said SBC Senior Vice President David Nichols. "We're going to sit down and talk with them about that."

Larry Baer, Giants chief operating officer, said SBC had agreed for now not to change the park's name, though it has the right by contract. "It's our home," Baer said. "It's where we clinched the National League pennant this year, where Barry Bonds hit his 73rd home run in 2001.... That all happened in Pacific Bell Park."

Pacific Bell will remain the legal entity for regulatory purposes. The name also will remain on existing pay phones and equipment, such as service trucks, expected to be replaced next year. Otherwise, the company will take much of 2003 to replace the Pacific Bell logo.

Branding experts said SBC needed to consolidate the name to compete better against AT&T Corp., WorldCom Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. They said SBC has a strong presence and is well-respected.

SBC shares rose 1 cent to $25.70 on the New York Stock Exchange.

---

The naming rights thing is just absurd. There's the Enron Field, example, of course but there's talk that Edison is under pressure by shareholders--the people that truly run this world--to stop spending money on naming rights. Their rationale: buying electricity is not really a choice, it's dependent on where you live, so why waste money on something like putting your name on a ballpark.

Please, SBC, I beg of you. Leave the name alone. Slather the inside of the park with SBC signage, I don't care, just don't take down those classy looking neon Pacific Bell Park signs on the outside of the stadium. Besides, "Pacific Bell Park" sounds fairly classy and at least sounds like it has something to do with the Bay Area. SBC sounds like an acronym I forgot from sophomore geometry.

In downtown Los Angeles, the Pacific Bell building still has the Pac Bell logo on the side. Some of their other buildings in SoCal made the switch already, but the city of LA has blocked SBC from changing it.

Apparently the nimnods that run this city had decreed that various city agencies (i.e. LA Police helicopters) were accustomed to the old PacBell logo, and used it as a recognizable marker on their frequent flights down the 110 freeway.

But...since when does a city have the right to block a company from changing its own damned logo? Seems rather undemocratic to me.

As for Pac Bell Park, I think that the Giants should either allow SBC to change the logo, or they should give SBC back the pro-rated monies left under contract. The Giants can then find a new sponsor. IMHO, that seems the most fair solution.

SBC has the naming right for many many years and can do anything they want. They are currently negotiating with the Giants as to the timing of the name change. It will happen, but I think they're thinking of a way to gradually phase the new name in. It'll all be okay, San Francisco always seems to handle these things. Like, even though they officially named Candlestick Park 3Com Park, nobody cared and still referred to it as Candlestick. People in SF just don't care about this shit, why should anybody else?

I agree, billsf. I suspect Giants fans will keep calling the place Pac Bell Park long after it is named SBC Park.
But I think that will be more a remnant of the fact that Californians will continue to refer to SBC as Pacific Bell.
Pac Bell had strong name recognition here in Cal. Certainly alot better than Verizon (blech!).

For those conspiracy theorists out there, SBC is based in San Antonio, Texas. Word has it Dubya listens to their CEO on telecom matters. I smell doom in California.

Thought I'd dig this thread up as another corporate ballpark name bites the dust. Goodbye Edison Field of Anaheim, hello Angel Stadium of Anaheim. The reason was in an LA Times article: Hmmmm...so the energy company disaster that happened in California (I wasn't affected as I get my power/gas/water from the city owned DWP) had a positive after all. But what a dumb name they chose instead: it should be AngelS Park of Anaheim, for one thing. If the city is so insistent on "Anaheim" being part of the name, why not call it what a lot of people still do, Anaheim Stadium? At least the AngelS have taken to calling it The Big A again.

What is interesting is that they signed (I think) a 20-year deal but opted out after 6. Perhaps, just perhaps, corporations will begin to see that the names on these buildings are really worth much less than the money they're paying teams.

I was just looking at artists renderings of the new St. Louis Cardinals stadium, which is plastered everywhere with \"Cardinals Field\". We'll see how long that name lasts. I would be somewhat surprised if Anheuser Busch doesn't step up to the plate and help pay for the stadium with their name. Check out this picture, where the jumbotron and the scoreboard are right next to each other, each with "Cardinals Field" above it. You know at least one of those will change to a major sponsor. And why oh why did they have to design a Camden Yards/Coors Field clone???

Aren't they all Camden Yards clones now? I could think of worse blueprints, like, say, a round multi-purpose stadium. I was wondering if the Cardinals were ever going to get their ballpark built. Although the state is kicking in some transportation funds, they're mostly doing the financing themselves. But this doesn't make sense: If you look at the first image at the top of the page of images, it clearly shows that the new ballpark will be built on a portion of Busch Stadium, in right field. How do they propose to build the new stadium but not tear down any part of Busch until after the new stadium is built?

When are the Twins going to get a new ballpark?

I was down in SF over Christmas and went to see Pac Bell..I had heard it was a great park and wanted to compare it to Safeco Field. Went the whole tourist hog and took the tour. Hope to see a few games there next year. I must say I liked Safeco better but then again I am biased. The Giants employee told us all the signs including the big Pac Bell sign will be changed by Jan. 1

Saw the new park in San Diego as well....damn it looks ugly from the outside.

Of course, SBC could do something classy like naming the stadium "Willie Mayes Park", or "George Moscone Memorial Park" or even better "Harvey Milk Memorial Stadium", which would get them tons and tons of publicity, they could plaster their ads all over the park, and everyone would be happy. But this is a corporate decision, not a sports decision, and so every few years a new corporation will change the name. Yuk!

BTW, I love love love watching a game in PacBellSBC. Of course the last one I went to was a night game that went 11 innings, I sat in the upper deck, and about froze my ass off, (in July!) but the sunset over the bay, the ships going by, the good food and nice fans, it was a great experience.

Based on how the SBC takeover of Ameritech (the Midwest "Baby Bell") has played out, I agree. Dubya aside (they'd do the same if he'd never existed), SBC is a bunch of arrogant monopolists-in-training, exploiting the Bell history in ads while buying off pols (which isn't difficult in Illinois) and screwing the customer.

Petco--or is it PETCO?--Park is the new Padres stadium. Here's a picture taken on Halloween, 2003. It does look a bit Stalinist, but that area of San Diego is pretty grim already, so it can only be an improvement. Once the landscaping is in, it'll look better.

Well, a quick check of the Twins website shows this article. The Twins are going to present ideas to the governor in February about ways to go forward. Even if they get approval in 2004, the park is still a good 3-4 years away after that.

Here's a rendering from the great Ballparks.com site:

So is the talking sock pet their new mascot?

Rather ironic that San Fran has this thing about keeping a name on their sports venues....at the moment 3-Com is in limbo and not really "3-Com" even though that's what everyone calls it; and NOW Pac Bell is having an indentity crisis...

I don't know if people in The City ever called it 3-Com much (see Billsf's post above). I think it's always been Candlestick Park or The Stick. During the last few 49ers home games, the graphic would say "49ers Stadium".

It's only announcers and PR people that HAVE to call it 3-Com or PETCO Park or whatever.

[ December 31, 2003, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

That was pets.com, not PETCO. Besides, the sock puppet is working for somebody else these days...