SHARE THIS

This is the 1st of two articles that discusses a way to get some public school funding off the taxpayer teat. The other article can be found here.

The opportunity to fund a school district with supplemental income through advertising is better than ever, but the window for the greatest earning potential is going to close quickly. My prediction is that over the next 5 years the number of schools accepting advertising will increase dramatically. Within 10 years these numbers may well saturate the advertising market. The result of more choices will have corporations picking and choosing which districts in the country they want to advertise with.

Currently, corporations choices are very limited in school district advertising opportunities. It will be the first school districts that build relationships with these corporations that will enable them to retain them as clients, when additional school districts throughout the country join in offering advertising and ultimately lower the cost to advertisers, as competition for corporate sponsorship increases.

Corporate Advertising on Public School Property

Few school districts in our area are taking a serious look at using advertising to generate income. If they do, such as Bethlehem and Easton, it is a haphazard approach without a true business plan in mind. Easton Area School District has previously mentioned advertising banners being placed on the athletic field only, to supplement athletic activities. Bethlehem School District, while creating a policy to address advertising, has yet to implement it.

Both seem to think that local businesses will be the mainstay for providing advertising revenue. Both are wrong. The money is with major corporations, not comparably small local businesses that will be unable or unwilling to pay the price such valued advertising real estate demands.

They also fail to see that advertising space can go further than just small banners along fences of the athletic field and that they should be approaching the giants in various industries as customers. While discounts might be offered to local businesses within the district, it’s the coin fat corporations that should be approached for the heavy contributions toward “sponsoring” a school district.

This means approaching it as a business venture. All areas available for advertising must be identified, given a value, and actively sold as a limited commodity in high demand, to those corporations wanting to find a new niche to advertise in. It must go beyond yearbooks and banners on athletic fields that only local businesses would be interested in. It means the school districts must approach corporations and actively sell available advertising space, rather than waiting for local businesses to come to them.

Consideration of School Approved Advertising Venues For Income

Public school districts throughout the country, while only one locally (Parkland School District), are coming to the realization that methods for creating their own income, rather than relying on the government and taxpayers to keep them fully funded, has now become necessary. They see the need to adopt, at least partially, some methods of funding used by private educational systems and are now monetizing their real estate – both physical and digital properties.

Corporations have the wealth and they are willing to spend a good portion of it to display their logos to students and parents. While the thought of “commercializing” public schools is immediately met with disdain, the allowance of advertising can be controlled and properly managed by the schools to meet the standards of advertising determined by the school districts.

McDonalds, for example, would pay dearly to advertise directly to students. The immediate reaction to the Golden Arches is the thought of sugar laden drinks, pink slime hamburgers, and starch sticks deep fried in oil – all of which they would love to display proudly. However, they would still pay top dollar – many thousands each year – if restricted to advertising only their healthy items, such as salads, with nutritional information and calorie amounts provided on the ad. They display their logo, which is all they really want, and schools promote healthy eating.

Would a banner that has a picture of a salad on a cafeteria wall, that included a McDonalds logo be seen as corrupting our youth, or could it be seen as promoting healthy eating in a fast food world?

Industries other than fast food are more easily accepted and just as willing to pay. Industries such as, exercise & sports equipment, personal computers, educational software, health foods & vitamins, book publishers, institutes of learning, and many retail giants would gladly pay to “sponsor” a school if they were allowed to have their name seen.

Money is available. It’s just a matter of knowing where it is and how to get it, while maintaining control in the form of acceptable guidelines, over those who have it.

Acceptance of Advertising For Income

Considering the current poor economic situation of Pennsylvania, Governor Corbett’s damaging cuts to educational funding, and the looming shortfalls school districts are trying to make up for in their budgets, the opportunity for the general public to see that advertising on school property is of a benefit to them has never been better. While the public may be wary of seeing advertisements on school property, the realization that $150,000 (and potentially millions of dollars) in school funding isn’t coming from their taxes makes a bitter pill easier to swallow. The days of an uproar that occurred due to a 2 minute advertisement every hour on a school feed educational channel are long gone (ref: Channel 1).

Gov. Corbett is no friend to the education system. His initial budget immediately after taking office included cutting a $100 million block grant program for school districts. That money goes to an incredibly important array of services that school districts provide for students, including pre-Kindergarten programs. Some districts use it for full-day K instead of part-time kindergarten. Some use it to support their arts instruction, or technology departments.

The governor’s ‘block grant’ proposal would have created a single line item in the FY 2012–2013 state budget by lumping together line items for employee Social Security payments, school busing, non-public school busing and classroom instruction. Social security payments are mandated, and busing is necessary to keep students safe and attending school regularly. The governor’s ‘block grant’ plan would have erased decades of good policy and leave local taxpayers to cover the costs that his new system would have ignored.

The Pennsylvania Senate, in an unusual bi-partisan unification, rejected Governor Corbett’s proposed budget.

All state aid monies allotted by the final Corbett budget for 2012-2013 were viciously fought for by scores of groups all vying for a piece of the shrinking pie. Among these are the Sierra Club, NAACP and the Pennsylvania Council of Churches, to only name a few with political clout. Money will be fought for, every year.

Both Democrats and Republicans in the Pennsylvania legislature had a significantly different proposal for the state budget than our governor that year. They ended up restoring $50 million for education that had been cut in the 2011-2012 budget. Hardly a windfall when allocated to every school district in the state.

The point is, school districts can no longer rely on state aid and must take a more active role in generating income for themselves.

As we are aware, school districts are attempting to make up for their shortfalls by closing schools, freezing salaries, laying off teachers, reducing support staff, reducing work hours and benefits, increasing class sizes, eliminating programs, and other measures that may save money in the short term, but undoubtedly affect the quality of education. Though these drastic cuts may help lessen the immediate funding crisis, over the long term the results of these cuts will be seen when support staff is reduced to skeleton crews, systems fail, furloughed teachers find paying jobs elsewhere, and more importantly, test scores of students fall ever lower.

While taxpayers see their school districts services decline, they also see administrator salaries rise along with their school taxes and “fees” being imposed, or increasing, for their children to participate in sports, band, and other activities.

As has been the case for most school districts throughout the country, even with drastic cuts, increased school taxes have been required from residents in order to meet school district budgets.

Income from advertising is a viable solution for generating income.

Banners from corporate sponsors being allowed within football stadiums is a start, but allowing a corporate logo to be attached to the scoreboard is worth far more. Also worth more is having the entire athletic field sponsored by a corporation. I don’t think residents of Easton would have a major problem in their athletic field being referred to as, Easton High School Met-Life Stadium, if they saw their taxes reflect the income that type of sponsorship would generate. Newsletters, websites, and special events could also be used as advertising venues or “sponsorship” opportunities.

Advertisements may not necessarily be for the promotion of products, but also for employment opportunities, services offered, or advanced learning opportunities from colleges and universities.

Income from advertising should be used for funding programs, events, or needed equipment without further burdening taxpayers – not for salary increases.

Parkland School District had the foresight to see the earning potential of allowing advertising and generated $150,000 by placing approved advertising inside 46 of their buses when they began. They now allow advertising in all their buses, doubling that revenue. Advertising, both in buses and within certain areas of schools, is a realistic and legitimate means for school districts to make up for shortfalls from public funding.

Parkland School District now has a distinct advantage over other districts in the region and a look at their advertising information webpage shows they have expanded their business model greatly since first allowing advertising only on buses.

However, Parkland erred in only one respect. They are paying 25 percent of their advertising revenue to a business handling their advertising opportunities. Having been in the advertising business (yes, I actually wore a suit and tie at one time), it’s a monstrous fee that Parkland could have negotiated down to far less. Offer me 25 percent to sell advertising on school district properties and I would view it as manna from Heaven. It’s an easy sell.

Parkland School District would have retained far more income by handling their advertising clients in-house.

Resistance To Advertising

Opposition to advertising on school grounds and within buses is to be expected by citizens with legitimate concerns regarding subject matter and relevance of advertising.

Some residents will question whether it’s proper to allow advertising to a “captive” audience on buses and school grounds that is directed at minds still undeveloped enough to form an independent opinion.

Other inquiries may be put forward regarding age appropriate advertising, considering that the same buses not only deliver high school students, but may be used for kindergarten children.

Some may argue that they shouldn’t be subjected to seeing advertising from a company that they are boycotting for personal reasons, or the advertising is for a national chain, rather than a local business within the school district.

Questions may arise as to how the approval process for advertisers will be conducted.

These are all legitimate concerns, but can be overcome with planning and guidelines overseen by a committee consisting of both school administrators and parents.

Examples of income and success by other school districts in Pennsylvania and throughout the country can be gathered by contacting those who have already implemented advertising in their districts. The public being made aware of potential income alleviating their tax contributions to fund schools may have many deciding to protest less vigorously.

School Districts need to begin conducting themselves as a true business. As with any business it must find a way to increase revenue, while reducing costs. The public school system needs an additional revenue stream.

Car washes and PTA bake sales won’t cut it any longer.

Neither will increasing taxes on residents.