Bills would allow outdoor ads on stadium, convention center

Dan Nakaso, The Honolulu Star-Advertiser
·4 min read

Feb. 14—Naming rights for the Hawai 'i Convention Center would be allowed despite Hawaii's general ban on outdoor advertising after a key Senate committee approved a bill Tuesday despite concerns.

Naming rights for the Hawai 'i Convention Center would be allowed despite Hawaii's general ban on outdoor advertising after a key Senate committee approved a bill Tuesday despite concerns.

The Senate Committee on Energy, Economic Development and Tourism approved Senate Bill 3006, which would allow a corporation or other entity to pay to place its name or logo on the convention center, located on the edge of Waikiki at Kalakaua Avenue and Atkinson Drive.

The committee Tuesday also approved SB 3197, which would allow advertisements on a new Aloha Stadium as long as they face inward and would not include moving images.

SB 3197 and SB 3006 both were deferred from last week to Tuesday to make amendments in response to initial pushback.

Committee member Sen. Carol Fukunaga (D, Manoa ­-Tantalus-Makiki ) continued to have concerns over allowing advertising on both the convention center and a future Aloha Stadium.

"For the general public—both in the convention center area as well as in the stadium area—I think any image tends to be distracting, " Fuku ­naga said. "Because of the scale and the number of people who travel the areas, it's something that I can't support."

SB 3006 would allow the convention center "to sell advertising and marketing on and in the Hawai 'i Convention Center Facility."

The state owns the 1.1 million-square-foot convention center, and the Hawaii Tourism Authority has oversight of the center's management contract with ASM Global, which was recently acquired by Legends.

On Jan. 25 the HTA board heard a presentation that naming rights could generate up to $500, 000 in the first year of a long-term contract that ultimately could be worth $13.5 million for a potential 20-year contract, said Meg Little, vice president of marketing solutions for ASM Global.

"We have a wonderful story to tell about the convention center, " Little said.

Potential companies that might be interested in placing their names or logos on the convention center include Alaska Airlines, Central Pacific Bank, Dole, American Savings Bank, First Hawaiian Bank, Bank of Hawaii, Foodland, HMSA, Hawaiian Telcom, Hawaii Pacific Health and Times Supermarket, among others, Little said.

"Airlines, financial institutions ... are two of the prime categories that we would go after, " she said, as long as their values aligned with the state's.

Local institutions would be the initial desired partner, but Little said even international corporations could be possibilities.

The marketing campaign to find a naming rights partner would be titled "Where Business and Aloha Meet, " she told the HTA board.

HTA Chair Mufi Hannemann mentioned SB 3006 following the presentation and told the board that there are "many more miles to go on this."

Daniel Naho 'opi 'i, HTA's interim president and CEO, wrote in support of SB 3006 to the Senate Committee on Energy, Economic Development and Tourism and said, "Many prestigious venues across the U.S. have sold naming rights. ... This measure opens additional possibilities for funding to address the center's repair and maintenance needs into the future, and HTA appreciates the availability of these possibilities."

But Unite Here Local 5—which represents 10, 000 unionized hotel, food service and health care employees—opposes SB 3006 because it "would allow the State to lease out concessions at the Hawaii Convention Center without competitive bidding, " according to the union's written testimony.

"The list of public properties exempt from competitive bidding continues to grow, but it is unclear if or how such exemptions have ever benefited the State. It certainly is not clear why the Convention Center should be added to that list.

"We feel this, like all measures to get around State procurement laws, is not in the public interest.

"It would remove transparency from the process by which our public facilities and lands are leased to corporations. It would remove the public from the process. Further, it is anti-competitive, and we do not understand how it would serve the best interests of the State to not analyze competing proposals—especially if concessions are meant to generate revenue for the State."