Trending Topic: Corporate Branding in Our National Parks

Exploding geysers, winding trails and breathtaking views: these are just a few of the things that come to mind when you think of our nation’s 58 national parks. This year marks the 100th anniversary of our national park system, celebrating ten decades of beauty, history and nature in the United States. But what if, on your next trip to Yosemite National Park, you were to sit on a bench with a Starbucks logo? Or go into a history center named after Coca-Cola? It’s now possible, according to a recent article in The Washington Post.

For years, the parks have relied on philanthropy to pay for renovations, updates and other projects left out of their operating budgets. And in return, donors get inconspicuous recognition for their contributions, such as a small plaque or engraved stone. The United States also currently has strict rules when it comes to commercial signage in the over 400 units administered by the National Park Service.

But now, Jonathan Jarvis, director of Yosemite, wants to open the gates for all the national parks, monuments and conservation areas to draw in more money. According to this proposed new policy, bricks, paving stones, walls, video screens, educational, interpretive, research, recreation and youth programs will all get naming rights. And a donor will even be able to design a park building and operate it long term.

But what does this mean for our economy? Will adding logos to buildings and park benches help or hurt brands? Some park advocates are speaking out.

“Every developed area in a park could become a venue for product placement, Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, tells The Washington Post.

But others are worried about the parks’ needs. “Our needs are astronomic,” says Will Shafroth, president and chief executive of the National Park Foundation. For example, at Yellowstone National Park, companies like Toyota and ConocoPhillips donated crucial funds for restoration initiatives and reconstructed trails that the park could not afford. Some may argue that this shows these brands have a strong interest in sustainability efforts, strengthening their public image.

You can check out the proposed policy for yourself here. What do you think? Are our National Parks too sacred for brands? Or should we embrace this philanthropic partnership as a PR move profitable for both parties?