Recently news.com published an article about how a Corporate Deal Sees War Memorial Last Post Ceremony Sponsored. The article seems to be somewhat negative about the idea of companies supporting the War Memorial Last Post ceremony - favouring instead Federal Government funding. It seems to assume that the sponsors will "festoon the Australian War Memorial with logos". This seems a very narrow view that assumes a lack of consideration and respect by sponsors. Surely it would be logical to believe that a sponsor will publise its support of these kind of institutions in a manner that will not offend (otherwise it negates the purpose of the sponsorship).
I would suggest that the author of this article is living in the past and still believes that the national government will not only fund war memorials but also his pension. I'm here to tell you that times have changed and the goverment does not have endless funding. It is imperative that organisations wanting to secure their long term future look to private funding initiatives such as sponsorship.
What I also found interesting is that the article states that more than 87 companies including Qantas, Coles Myer, Commonwealth Bank, ANZ, News Limited, BHP, Boeing, Rio Tinto, Fosters and Telstra sponsor galleries and other displays at the national memorial in Canberra. They even quoted that the eternal flame is brought to visitors by the Australian Gas Association under a $50,000 deal. This suggests that there are still sponsorship funds to support these kind of institutions - but as always these will only be acquired and retained by those organisations who can provide value to their sponsors.
Immediate Actions For An Economic Meltdown
8 years ago