THE NATIONAL Cherry Blossom Festival came to a head in Washington, D.C. this weekend with the blooming of the trees surrounding the Tidal Basin. The festival, which commemorates the gift of cherry trees from Tokyo Mayor Yukio Ozaki in 1912, is a symbolic token of peace and friendship between the Japanese and Americans. Every year, the festival packs the streets with tourists who come to ring in the spring. But for the past few years, admirers of the blossoms' beauty haven't been the only thing coming out in full force -- corporate advertising, too, has a huge presence at the festival. While some corporate funding may be necessary to increase the festival's publicity and expand programming, the government should act to balance the interests of its sponsors with its own interest in hosting a neutral event that does not simply allow corporations another way to get consumers' attention.
This year, Target became one of the official sponsors of the National Cherry Blossom Festival, publicizing the festival and funding its entertainment programming. On Target's advertisements for the festival, the blossoms were not pictured at all. Instead, pinkish Target logos took their place. Because the festival has traditionally been a government-publicized event, corporate sponsorship of this type is troublesome and increasingly difficult to ignore. There is a danger of government becoming too sensitive to certain companies' interests by affording them such prominent positions.
The question remains over why exactly it is necessary to have corporate sponsorship for something like the National Cherry Blossom Festival. Having attended the festival myself on numerous occasions, it never appeared to be an event in need of much publicity -- tourists have always swarmed the Tidal Basin. Corporate advertising seems superfluous, simply representing another way that consumerist tendencies have permeated most every aspect of life in the United States. Advertising something so natural seems a little ridiculous on its face. What's next? "Happy Summer," brought to you by Pepsi?
This is not to say that the event should not be hyped or advertised at all. It is important that people know about it, and positive publicity is one of the best ways to spread that information. The federal government could achieve this in any number of ways without allowing the event to become yet another way to target consumers. One such way would be for the government to mount its own publicity campaign, free of corporate sponsorship. Perhaps this could be achieved through publications of the National Park Service, which has a large presence at the event.
But there is also good that comes from corporate sponsorship that the government would not be able to achieve alone. Businesses can provide significantly more money for publicity and events than the government could afford itself. According to the Detroit Free Press, there were over 90 programs this year. Events during the festival, which lasts from late March until mid-April, include numerous concerts, cultural events such as sushi tasting, showcases of American and Japanese art, as well as sporting events, such as a rugby tournament, among others.
Perhaps the absence of such events, which would detract from the grandeur of the festivities, would cause lower turnout among tourists. The festival's Web site reports that about a million people attended the festival last year and that more were expected this year.
There is a strong interest in keeping the festival popular with the public and also with being sensitive to issues of government favoritism towards business. The danger comes when the government offers the role of corporate sponsor to one bidder over another and then moves that corporation into the national spotlight. There might not be a method of reconciling these two interests while keeping all parties involved happy; the incentive of corporate sponsorship comes in the positive publicity that is provided by advertisements.
Perhaps the government could place limits on how much advertising with company logos is allowed, and allow the remainder to advertise events only and not publicize the corporations. This seems the best way to balance conflicting interests, allowing for a highly-publicized event without fear of the emergence of a government-sponsored corporate elite.
Todd Rosenbaum's column appears Thursdays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at trosenbaum@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
GILLIKIN and JOHNSON: U.Va., please rescind your Federal Executive Institute bid
By Steven L. Johnson and Matthew Gillikin | 4 hours agoBy withdrawing its competing bid and endorsing the Charlottesville City Schools’ bid, the University has a high-profile opportunity to strengthen its partnership with Charlottesville City Schools.
GARVIE: Commend the University’s continuous care for the environment
By Adeline Garvie | 2 days agoWe must applaud the University for the efforts they are continuously making to be more sustainable.
CARTER: Did anyone actually want VERVE?
By Nathaniel Carter | April 19, 2025While VERVE may shift student demand closer to Grounds, whether housing market effects will outweigh the harms of the University’s expanding presence is a gamble Charlottesville residents may not wish to take.
