Law schools. Professorships. Aquatics centers. Amphitheater seats. 

All of these items can be—and have been—bestowed with donors’ names through named giving opportunities at colleges, universities, and schools. Soliciting named gifts isn’t a new practice, but today, institutions’ naming asks are more varied, donors are savvier, and campaign goals are loftier. And tricky situations with naming—snafus with donor agreements or having to remove a donor’s name from a building, for instance—can throw institutions into the headlines. 

But, ultimately, handling naming opportunities smoothly boils down to developing comprehensive policies and building authentic ties with supporters. And taking your time to do each well, says Terry Burton, President of Dig In Research in Windsor, Ontario, Canada.  

Burton first became interested in naming opportunities in the mid-2000s, after he’d been working for many years in prospect research. A former client of his in Calgary called him and asked, “How much should we ask to name our emergency department?” 

Intrigued, Burton looked into naming rights, developing what would become the appraisal process he’s used as a consultant for dozens of institutions since then. He was commissioned by Wiley to write the book Naming Rights: Legacy Gifts and Corporate Money, published in 2007. His website has become an online resource for Americans and Canadians in capital campaigns.

Here, he digs into some of the trends shaping naming rights today, including what teams should know about setting ask amounts, how to navigate sponsorships, and more. 
 

CASE: What are the biggest trends or changes influencing naming rights today?

Terry Burton: Overall, we’re seeing an increasing number of higher education fundraising campaigns that include properties with naming opportunities. Hospitals and healthcare sector organizations have a growing market share of donations with naming rights—second only to higher education. And the sticker price for their ask amounts is really rising.

There are also big shifts happening in strategic choices around naming—both on the institutional side and on the donor side. We’re seeing more gifts shift to limited term versus in perpetuity. (That jumped out at me when I was at the University of Saskatchewan—back in 2014, they were already making the shift to limited term—10 to 15 years, at most.) 

Donors are asking for multiple properties of bestowed naming rights, as well as namesake support for already bestowed gifts. More donors are preferring to make endowments gifts versus gifts for brick-and-mortar projects. And we know mega-gifts of $100 million or above are on the rise.

We’re seeing these trends around the globe—with subtle differences, of course, that reflect local norms.
 

How have donors become savvier about giving and naming opportunities? 

Donors know an awful lot more than major gifts staff give them credit for, in my opinion. One of the things that I've seen is donors asking for multiple naming scenarios when naming rights are bestowed. So, for example, if it’s the Terry Burton and Family Emergency Room, it also may be the Burton Family Lounge or the Burton Family Emergency Services Fund or something like that. It’s not one-dimensional anymore.

A lot of that, I think, has to do with the level of stewardship. There’s what I categorize as two kinds of stewardship: direct stewardship that comes back to me as the donor, but also indirect stewardship that the organization does back to the community as a whole. Wealthy people got to be wealthy by listening to what’s going on in a community, the stories that get told. That indirect stewardship has a great impact down the road that we can’t imagine when that gift is first announced. That’s part of the cool stuff about naming rights—it’s not just the Terry Burton Family Emergency Department, but what comes out of that and who gets served, and paying that forward. 
 

You’ve said it’s important for development teams to gather data when they’re planning naming opportunities. What should they look at?

Sometimes development teams can have a very insular perspective. It’s like they put on these super heavy-duty, dark sunglasses and they only want to see their information. But you’re really missing the boat if you’re not looking both inside and outside the organization. Take a look—especially if you’re at a college or a private school—at what’s going on with community nonprofits, the hospital, rival institutions nearby or in your state. You want to get a sense of the size of the gifts but also what’s getting named in recognition of that gift. And try to put it in perspective.

What’s your best advice for exploring naming opportunities with donors today?

Talk with your staff and major gift prospects to help draft the naming policy and, in implementing it, be open to changes. Allow for namesake support and how that will be recognized.

When you’re having conversations with donors, think of presenting a showroom—and that showroom is your campus, your hospital, your art gallery. You show them the scope and depth of what you’re providing to your community and see what they think. Stop going in with an agenda. Say, “We’re doing this and this; how do you want to be part of it? Do you want to be part of the bricks and mortar side? We need a new library; we need a new emergency room department, etc.” Ask more questions. 
 

When setting their dollar amounts for naming opportunities, what should development teams keep in mind?

You can’t buy naming rights. They’re bestowed in recognition of the financial support from a donor, family, institution, what have you. They’re bestowed by the governing body of that institution. 

So, take your time and really listen. Do not allow the loudest voice in the room to push an agenda to do things quickly. Here’s what I mean by that. There was a story, several years ago, that made front-page news in USA Today. During a capital campaign, a corporate donor came forward and said, “I want to do something big for the university.” A vice president at the university took it upon himself to take control of the situation. He said they could do this and that and struck a verbal agreement. He jumped the chain of command and also the process for how this should get done. The whole thing went south and became very awkward for this donor, who just wanted to help.

Slow down. Don’t let the loudest voice in the room take over. A naming gift—at many schools, that’s a $10 million gift; you don’t get a do-over.

As for setting specific dollar amounts:

• For top-tier properties, give yourself the option to change the ask amount in the future and set out the ground rules.
• For secondary naming opportunities, be creative with the ask amounts that give major gift prospects choices. Stay away from “double up/down approach.” For instance, we’re asking $50,000 for this, and the very next one on the list is $100,000 and then $200,000. When gift prospects look at your inventory, they get it—chances are they’ve bought and sold all kinds of real estate properties. The double up/down approach makes it seem, to me, like someone’s just in a hurry to get that over with. Take your time. Prospects will appreciate that they have choices.
   

Do you have any advice for folks at community colleges or smaller institutions? Are there any different approaches to consider, based on institution type?

I’m a community college graduate and I take pride in coming that route.

For smaller institutions, don’t be so insular to just look at your track record. And understand the context of what’s going on in the community, especially at the community college, the smaller regional hospitals, United Way. Create your own spreadsheet in terms of dollar value but also what the funds were used for. Those wealthy prospects, donors, would-be supporters of your institution—they live right there with you. By having a little better understanding of what they’d like to support, it’s going to save you a lot of time. 
 

Is there anything specific to keep in mind about those naming rights for sports facilities (stadiums, fields) versus other buildings?

One of the big challenges in education is where you draw the line between philanthropy and sponsorship. And if you’re going with sponsorship, I sure hope you’re taking the time to reallocate your staff. It’s not the same as writing a once-a-year report that says, “We did this with the money; we’ve hired this; we decided that.” If it’s sponsorship, they’re coming in with a whole shopping list of expectations to manage. Do you have the staff to manage that kind of relationship and all that activity? Is it worth going with the sponsorship group? 

Again, slow down. Don’t rush into that sponsorship and/or philanthropy. Make sure you have the people and talk about your internal accountability. There are lots of wonderful examples online to look up. Keep the agreement simple—you don’t need three or four pages printed in 10-point font.