BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Should world landmarks be sponsored?

11:40 UK time, Sunday, 5 September 2010

 
The Italian government is inviting private companies to sponsor the Colosseum in Rome to help fund repairs. Is this the best way to preserve world monuments?
 

Companies will be asked to offer at least $25 million for restoration in return for being allowed to use the Colosseum for advertising.

However, some critics fear the building could be covered in advertising hoardings in a clash between culture and commercialism.

Do you agree with the Italian government's plans? Are you based in Italy? Could commerce be a corrupting force for heritage? What other world landmarks would you like to see sponsored?

Thank you for your comments. This debate is now closed.

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    They could give it a go and see what happens.

    I would hold fire on nailing advertising hoardings to it though.

  • Comment number 2.

    And so what the Italian government is saying is everything is dominated by a business model? It is sad place to which we have travelled, a very sad place.

  • Comment number 3.

    "Should world landmarks be sponsored?"

    no, unless the sponsor is a 'not for profit' organisation, trust fund or, indeed, an individual.

    "..inviting private companies to sponsor ... Is this the best way to preserve world monuments?"

    I think not (and not only because of the possibility of "Could adverts appear on the Colosseum?"), maintenance ought to come out of the defense budget of the respective country -- too much gets spent on destroying people and infrastructure.

  • Comment number 4.

    I've got no problem with work being funded by sponsorship, but come on - covering & ruining the sight of an ancient building in advertising hoardings defeats the object of the work in the first place.

  • Comment number 5.

    Funding from any source is welcome to maintain our ancient sites and world heritage, but it is important that such funding does not bestow on the donor any special rights over the heritage being preserved. Such heritage must remain public property held in trust by governments or recognised national organisations on their behalf. I believe the 'National Trust' model is shown as a successful way to proceed.

  • Comment number 6.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 7.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 8.

    Don't taxpayers pay for upkeep of the nation's historical landmarks and infrastructure repair? I'd be looking into where all the money is dissapearing and who's pockets it's lining. If politicians stopped using public funds as their private piggy bank there'd be enough money to repair everything, including schools. This is a graft problem. Citizens should be scrutinizing every purchase their government makes and budgeting just like they have to do with their household account. Why do citizens have to scrimp, save and cut back but governments don't?
    Citizens around the world UNITE! Watch and scrutinize every dime, nickel and penny your government spends! Don't let them buy bombs. Make them fill every pothole and clean every landmark.

  • Comment number 9.

    Should world landmarks be sponsored? Absolutely not!

  • Comment number 10.

    Demolish it and build a new one, after all it's looking a bit tatty now. They could then run new games in it, and there are plenty of people who could do with a good session with the lions.

  • Comment number 11.

    Why not if someone is rich or daft enough. I bet Mrs Thatcher, Mr Blair and Dave are kicking themselves for not having thought of that one !! We sponsored & privatised just about everything but the Italians have gone one better to shows us really clever. How much to take on the Tower of London or something , if I can have my name up in flashing lights over the towers. I'll get my cheque book out.

  • Comment number 12.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 13.


    As for advertising - billboard type is not the way to go. Like many ancient cities, that are tourist attractions, - it's curious where all the tourist money earned in Rome has gone? Why is it not ploughed back into it's heritage? That's another debate.

    However, as Rome comes to life at night - it would make sense to use light as a medium for advertisers to fund repairs and conservation. Music and sound could be harnessed as a source of revenue during the day?



  • Comment number 14.

    Should world landmarks be sponsored?
    This may create more problems than it solves.
    When a country allows a corporation to sponsor a landmark, what does it say; it says we support this corporation (and what it does).
    I believe a country that allowed this without a high degree of vetting, would get more backlash than benefit.
    And then of course there’s the advertising itself. This problem might be avoided by not allowing posters or adverts directly onto the site (e.g. the walls), but rather at key locations around the site.
    What about vandalism caused by those those persons who do not support that corporation or what it does? Who pays for the damage?
    Lastly, advertising could make the site a target, dending on whether the corporation is popular or not.
    I know this is slightly off target, but what a country sponsors (or permits to be sponsored) can create serious problem for the Government. E.g. The US State Department is planning to sponsor the imam of that controversial mosque on his upcoming trip to the Middle East. The State Department confirmed Tuesday that the administration is sponsoring Feisal Abdul Rauf's trip to Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Supposedly this is part of a program to send Muslims abroad to educate other countries about the role of religion in the United States.
    RAUF MADE TRIPS LIKE THIS DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
    State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley: "He is a distinguished Muslim cleric. We do have a program whereby, through our Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau here at the State Department, we send people from Muslim communities here in this country around the world to help people overseas understand our society and the role of religion within our society."

  • Comment number 15.

    Berlisconi could probably pay for the restoration by simply missing one luxury holiday or giving a few less presents to young supermodels.

  • Comment number 16.

    Italy's government is almost exclusively comprised of idiots. Nothing they do is worth pursuing on a global scale.

  • Comment number 17.

    It's the sort of thing that I'd rather not see happening, but if the appropriate official body doesn't have the money to do the job properly, then why not? Just so long as the inevitable advertising is done in keeping with nature of the monument, landmark or whatever. I bet the Romans had an eye for the main chance and that adverts for the private sector sponsors were stuck on the Colosseum when it was engaged in the business it was presumably built for - chariot racing and the killing of animals, unwanted people, etc.

  • Comment number 18.

    The Italian government is inviting private companies to sponsor the Colosseum in Rome to help fund repairs. Is this the best way to preserve world monuments?


    Whynot, maybe one day Chernobyl will also be a tourist attraction, worthy of paying to maintain, a legacy of todays generations. Maybe advertising could have the added benefit of free glow in the dark advertising hoards.

  • Comment number 19.

    Governments should be stumping up the money to restore and repair national monuments. If the money isn't forthcoming and the public are so disinterested as to not force a change, then advertising should be allowed. It might shame the public into making a change.

  • Comment number 20.

    As a general prnciple I do not like the idea but we have to be realistic and if the alternative is to just let these historical sites decay its worth considering. Some countries have a massive financial burden to preserve history, and the costs of preservation are higher than those faced by relatively new nations. It can only be funded by four ways: taxation raised by the government of that nation, revenue from tourists; private donations and sponsorship.

    The question is can it be done sensitively. I would not have a problem with a few signs on the concourse outside saying " The Colosseum is sponsored by say MacDonalds", having their logo on the tickets and guide'e uniforms, but I would not like to see a huge McDonalds sign fixed to the structure or the site advertised as the Big Mac Arena with the historic name banned.

  • Comment number 21.

    6. At 12:40pm on 05 Sep 2010, MrWonderfulReality wrote:
    The price for maintaining the past is very expensive, as future generations will experience.

    In 20/30/50/100 years time, the children in nations of nuclear powerstations will be FORCED to ENDURE much much much GREATER costs of maintaining MASSIVE levels of nuclear waste left by present generations, than the costs of maintaining Roman legacy.

    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////
    The costs of maintaining history are expensive I agree but to compare the Roman legacy with the nuclear legacy is absurd. Nuclear waste will be expensive to maintain and needs to be done carefully in a safe location but to compare these costs to the problems of preserving old buildings is absurd in my view. Do you have any evidence to support the relative costs?

  • Comment number 22.

    Why not...

    If it results in a slowing of our curtural heritage loss as a planet then it can only be a good thing.

    Having said that, if they are planning on hanging banners from the monuments then its sort of self defeating. Whats the point of saving something if we don't get to appreciate it...

  • Comment number 23.

    No. Significant historical landmarks still belong to the powerful landowners. Any sponsorship would simply be paying the rich and powerful to keep their ornaments. Its a con alongside the National Trust.

  • Comment number 24.

    Initially I thought no, how crass. But on second thoughts, it'd be highly amusing to see condom adverts projected all over the Colosseum, considering its topical location.

  • Comment number 25.

    I fear that if the Colosseum was used for its original purpose, then sponsorship would hardly be required. As for other world landmarks, the mind boggles. Sacrifices at Stonehenge? Visits to the Vestals? The imagination runs wild at the seemingly endless list. Perhaps advertising would be the lesser of a very large number of evils. As for a clash between culture and commercialism, isn't commercialism a form of modern culture? What do others think?

  • Comment number 26.

    Disgusting. If this ever happens, I will actively boycott any company that advertises itself on a world-heritage site.

  • Comment number 27.

    National monuments are national treasures and it would be only a fitting contributions by the corporations who have earned grown out of the wealth geenrated in the nation can suatain these national treasures for posterity.

  • Comment number 28.

    Yes, I think all famous landmarks need to be sponsored by businesses so that adequate repairs and maintenances may be carried out and they can be enjoyed for generations to come.

    A commemorative plaque or flag of the business, at the site, should be the maximum commendation offered as appreciation by the mayor or PM of the country.

    If landmarks are preserved this will bring in tourists and in turn be good for the business of that city and country. It’s a win-win scenario.

  • Comment number 29.

    I say let them crumble...nothing lasts forever.

  • Comment number 30.

    Just look at those arches. Two afjacent painted yellow would be a marketing mans dream. Its as if the Romans built the ultimate MaccieD's.

  • Comment number 31.

    They are going too far!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Comment number 32.

    If the Italian government need a sponsor for the coliseum then I would suggest that they look no further than

    The Catholic Church just down the road in the Vatican

  • Comment number 33.

    Interested benefactors be they individuals or companies often donate to projects like this but they need not and often do not request any tangible benefit from the donation like advertising rights but personally i think that certain forms of 'subtle' advertising are fine (obviously not billboards on the side of it).

    More generally I'm doubtful that all things of value are necessarily preserved via the brute force of balance sheets and consumer demand, and sometimes it seems this approach can even subvert human consciousness away from doing what's for the better or from seeing alternatives and their comparative justifications. It seems to me that some 'mainstreamers' who pull the strings have a notion of best outcome that they believe is best served by 'keeping it simple', which leaves some of us feeling rather cold and unconvinced.

  • Comment number 34.

    It can be done in a discrete way without defacing the exhibit in question eg. a TV screen naming the list of Sponsors, allowing the Sponsors to use their sponsorship in their business advertisements, etc. But more importantly, this should not mean that the government cease its responsibilities.

  • Comment number 35.

    If government cannot fund maintaining them, then the people either have to be assessed a special tax, or the site should not be maintained, and should be redeveloped to modern use.

    Historical monuments and sites, have value to the history of the people, and the people must foot the bill, or loose them. Their choice.

  • Comment number 36.

    This is NOT a 'world' landmatk - this is part of our *european* heritage,and as such should be sponsored and maintained by the EU. Time for them to start spending their money on Europe and its resplendent heritage rather than squandering tax payers' money on foreign undertakings.

  • Comment number 37.

    I will suggest a very good way the Italian Government can repair her national monuments without any headaches or borrowing. They should make the Catholic Church pay for it. They are very, very rich and have nothing much to do with their wealth.

  • Comment number 38.

    How long will it take exactly, before places such as the Colosseum will resemble Piccadilly Circus?

    Flashing pink neon hoardings hanging off the arches advertising marital aids, McLardy Burgers, and chatlines, all in glorious technicolour.

    What next, flogging off parts of the Eiffel Tower as part of a 'free binder with part one'. Delicious.

  • Comment number 39.

    To keep such things available perhaps we have to sell our souls. It is a sad day though.

  • Comment number 40.

    NO. I would like a breakdown of what taxes are currently spent on.

  • Comment number 41.

    It seems sensible - especially at a time when governments are unable to afford to meet their obligations to their citizens, never mind pay for anything else - to encourage cash-rich organisations to contribute to the ongoing survival of monuments.

    Care does need to be taken about how it is done, however. Certainly the organisation would earn plenty of bragging rights, which could well be reflected in its advertising on TV and other media. A glowing mention in guidebooks sold at the monument would be appropriate. A plaque expressing gratitude for their support could be placed discreetly... but advertising hoardings? That's not conservation, that's defacement.

    (It was bad enough when I visited Venice in the early 1980s that someone had hung a large banner over the Rialto bridge to advertise a forthcoming arts festival. Quite obscured the bridge's lines, no point in taking a photograph of it as it would have been unrecognisable!)

  • Comment number 42.

    How about FIAT sponsoring the Colosseum - after all, FIAT allegedly stands for 'Fix It Again Tomorrow'....

  • Comment number 43.

    Who needs a colosseum for commemorating death matches? The funds for this restoration could buy food and medicine for people in need throughout the world.

  • Comment number 44.

    No, else before long you'd have the likes of "Nelsons Column Sponsored by Durex" & "Osborne House sponsored by GoCompare.com".

  • Comment number 45.

    Why not? Extra money from private business/individuals to maintain the cultural symbols of the country which are so important to it's tourism industries and identity.
    If these symbols are so unimportant to the nation that as a whole they cannot be bothered to repair and maintain them from general resources, then why not treat them as just another advertising commodity.

    As everything seems to be for sale in the modern world selling off a nations cultural identity to the highest bidders seems entirely in keeping with our western bankrupt societies desires.

  • Comment number 46.

    If properly managed so that the sponsors cannot plaster hideous signage all over them then why not? It's far better than allowing ours to be the generation that allows them to crumble beyond repair and disappear forever.

  • Comment number 47.

    Erect a mosque there. It would attract bags of money from many sources.

  • Comment number 48.

    Colosseum sponsorship concepts:

    X-Factor hosting (thumbs down and a gladiator stabs you)

    Sexually abusive Roman Catholic priests v wild animals

    Overspending Italian politicians crushed by marauding elephants

    Chariot races (FIAT and Ferrari made chariots)

    Sacrificial Christians torn apart (sponsored by McDonalds burgers)

  • Comment number 49.

    Good heavens no! The thought of McDonalds sponsoring a much loved building , I can almost see the golden arches now, and the St Pauls Burger...mmmmmm Not loving it.

  • Comment number 50.

    Maybe the Colosseum should be sponsored by the TV show Gladiators?

  • Comment number 51.

    The Italian government's plans to invite private companies to sponsor the colosseum in order to fund repairs must be welcomed in terms of modernisation and provided of course any advertising is discrete. Stonehenge would undoubtedly benefit from such discrete marketing.

  • Comment number 52.

    "
    43. At 4:42pm on 05 Sep 2010, Dustin83v wrote:

    Who needs a colosseum for commemorating death matches? The funds for this restoration could buy food and medicine for people in need throughout the world.
    "

    Nah, the funds would end up going to the varies groups to fund their Guns, Bombs & Ammunition.

  • Comment number 53.

    I'm sure a firearms company would love to be able to sponsor Birmingham.

  • Comment number 54.

    10. At 1:20pm on 05 Sep 2010, kaybraes wrote:

    Demolish it and build a new one, after all it's looking a bit tatty now. They could then run new games in it, and there are plenty of people who could do with a good session with the lions.
    ==================================================================

    Best. Comment. Ever.

  • Comment number 55.

    It depends on the economics. If the Italian government can no longer raise the required funds through taxation or printing money, then it has got to raise the money through private means like using the colloseum for advertising. That is a far better choice than letting it go to ruins.

  • Comment number 56.

    Its up to the people of the country concerned-not governments!The people OWN their own countries and something as inportant as this should be put to the vote.

  • Comment number 57.

    I haven't a problem with this as long as we don't have coompany logos plastered all over the place. It's very much like an individual sponsoring an Affrican Child through School.

  • Comment number 58.

    I think we'd have to be clear on the sponsors idea of "preservation". I imagine "repair it with billboards" would crop up a lot in their minds.

    I don't think the admission fee should exclude a profit. Market forces would dictate it's price. Considering their admission fees, I don't think the National Trust or Cadw are "non-profit" organisations either.

  • Comment number 59.

    No company is going to sponsor something without making a profit somewhere. So no.

  • Comment number 60.

    I do hope the authorities are going to show sensitivity in this venture.
    Large hoardings of Joe Bloggs and Sons building demolition on the coliseum or Steptoe and Son scrap metal recyclers on the London Armouries might be a bit awkward. As for the hoardings nailed to the walls?? dont we have projectors that can display an image now a days. Id sooner they didnt bother though theyve lasted all this time with out advertising maybe its time the advertising gurus gave it a rest and let society find its own decent level

  • Comment number 61.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 62.

    Well the BBC is more than happy to be sponsored (by some really annoying sponsors ads) so why not do it for old building! Just think what a good ad for Buckingham Palace could be .... Condoms!

  • Comment number 63.

    Yes but it should be time limited, tasteful and should have some sort of agreed benefit to the struture and the general public.

    I imagine the money will be paid in sponsorship, and being Italy it will go 'somewhere' but not on the structure and so the public will eventually pick up an even bigger bill to put the damage right.

  • Comment number 64.

    I Absolutely agree with private enterprise sponsoring these valuable icons - they will fall into disrepair if left to the taxpayer. And in this case there is an ideal fit. Just look at the many arches, a bright yellow "M" with a red border would fit a pair of arches perfectly, now to calculate the number of "Ms" required, just divide to total number of arches by two - simples.

  • Comment number 65.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 66.

    It would seem to me that restoring or protecting ancient landmarks by any means is good. I do not see any reason why private investors should not get involved. They should be restricted as far as capitalizing on such ventures, but money is money and if it goes for a good cause why not?

  • Comment number 67.

    It depends what landmarks are involved. Definitely not those that have or had some holy significance in the past such as St. Paul’s Cathedral, the Parthenon or Notre Dame. However, I see no possible objection for advertising on various other landmarks , some associated with appalling cruelty such as the Tower of London, the Coliseum and banal landmarks like New York’s Statue of Liberty, the Dome, Buckingham Palace or the Louvre and the British Museum

  • Comment number 68.

    Presumably they're going to allow advertising images to be projected onto the face of the colosseum. What's the latin for "Bail us out please"?

  • Comment number 69.

    Why should we worry about a Private company 'sponsoring' ancient buildings, we have allowed Private companies to take over our schools.

  • Comment number 70.

    I'm not a patriot but I love the idea of having buildings and landmarks part of the British National Heritage, it makes me culturally proud and lucky to be born here, and makes me feel like I'm part of something special when somebody from another part of the world sees places like London or Bath for the first time and marvels in it's unique history and persona. I have a feeling many Roman residents feel the same as I do about their city, to lose those landmarks to a private company or investor would be a shame in my view...

  • Comment number 71.

    I remember from childhood the old english saying "Rome was not built in a day."

    Lets see how long it takes now!

  • Comment number 72.

    I was going to say that it doesn't bother me, but then it does. The answer is definitely no. The upkeep of nationally important monuments should come out of taxation - or the lottery. If pennies are hard to come by, then some other funding should be cut instead, eg child support. After all there are enough kids around these days, and these monuments are here for the longterm.

  • Comment number 73.

    most abbeys in wales are still in ruins,the state has never had the notion to rebuild these historical monuments.
    Protestant ambition has denied the funding of such wonders to catch up with modern times,such a pity to have to cover up so much history by ignorance,which perhaps is one of the reasons why the Italians are calling for financial help to rebuild the colluseum in Rome.
    When in Rome build a colluseum and do what the Romans did, fantastic!

  • Comment number 74.

    Excellent idea, we could have York Minster sponsored by the Agnostic Society...

  • Comment number 75.

    why not, we lose so much of our heritage to budget. if the business sector is willing to finance the past let our goverments finance the future.

  • Comment number 76.

    We could certainly try it at Holyrood - it is such a eyesore that I don't think even the addition of advertising hoardings would make much difference.

    Good ide for town cemtres provided the money was used to create 'Shambles as in York' type shop frontages to give the streets some character.

  • Comment number 77.

    Noooooo!!! One of the things that draws people to Rome are the ancient monuments, people go for the history.
    I wouldn't go if advertising hoardings were all over the place, completely ruins the atmosphere of a place of interest world wide!

  • Comment number 78.

    Why not have sponsors to pay for repairs and wash and brush up before the olympics after all we are selling London as a Tourist destination?
    You could have a watch company sponsor Big Ben, a firework company sponsor the Houses of Parliament and a beefburger manufacture sponsoring the Beefeaters. Ok so I jest but with so much being spent sprucing up East London, Weymouth etc by the government why can't there be sponsors for the famous visitor attractions.

  • Comment number 79.

    !All landmarks belong to the government of the country" But all private listed buildings' should NOT have any taxpayer money, spend on them unless they are open to the public.

  • Comment number 80.

    Yes; But, only if those private companies (the sponsors) don't later ask for any undue or covert favours from the government. In any case, the companies stand to gain a lot from the Ad-value of the restoration work, even as they sponsor in the national interest; which will be quite enough and justifiably appropriate.

  • Comment number 81.

    Good idea, companies around the world will be happy to touch and manage worlds historical place.

    I think some company looking for to get popularity.

    And Italy has many old historical places which need to be refurnished.

    good job

  • Comment number 82.

    We should accept anything that keeps these buildings and ediffices open, provided that we do not have adverts all over them. It was public money, mostly from rich philanthropists, that built most of them anyway.

    Don't let idealists waste the idea because of their hatred for big business as they would let the places rot to make a political point.

  • Comment number 83.

    The Italians may want to try one of these ideas...Sell advertising space on Silvio Berlesconis' forehead. Secondly. make tourists pay cash for all the air they breathe. Finally...have the Pope evicted from Vatican city sell all his gowns at the local flea market...that should help Italy balance the books...lol...peace.

  • Comment number 84.

    Yes. I strongly believe that all the world heritage sites should be preserved. Secondly, maybe everyone in the world can give some money, pool it together and preserve every heritage site. It'll do us good.

    Check out my blog at http://zeworldmatters.wordpress.com/. It'll keep you all updated on stuff.

  • Comment number 85.

    If this is the only way of saving the monument then yes.

    I personally would like to know how we in the UK have privatised everything EXCEPT the Royal Family ? I think we should privatise them, float them on the stock market so people can buy shares and let them run themselves. It's time they took no more money from the UK taxpayer. The Royals could then make money from public appearances etc and people who actually want to see them can pay to do so - like "pay per view" which is what everyone else is doing. The royal buildings would be given back to the government who would maintain them and open them up to the public to raise revenue and the Royals can buy their own houses. It's a win-win situation.

  • Comment number 86.

    79. At 11:36pm on 05 Sep 2010, Lewis Fitzroy wrote:

    !All landmarks belong to the government of the country" But all private listed buildings' should NOT have any taxpayer money, spend on them unless they are open to the public.

    Lewis you make an EXCELLENT point - any buildings using taxpayer's money should be open to the public.

  • Comment number 87.

    I'm just waiting for someone to post a message blaming Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for Italy's decaying buildings. It seems they are blamed for absolutely everything else these days !

  • Comment number 88.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 89.

    Considering the alternative is to allow them to 'Crumble and Disappear', leaves only one sensible option.

    Govts are quite happy to tout these Historical Landmarks for Tourism $$$, but always delinquent in forking-over for Maintenance.

    Diverting Revenues to create a Quagmire has to be Deliberate. Tallying Revenues is readily available anytime of the year, yet World's best econimists and Accountants are incapable of tracing Where it all goes.

  • Comment number 90.

    Keep any advertising 70 m away from the sites (distance might vary depending on the site). Companies are free to advertise their participation on their own websites and billboards; people might be motivated to support companies that support "the arts" in this fashion.

  • Comment number 91.

    The last thing I want to see is the "Taco Bell Grand Canyon" or the "McDonalds Big Ben." It's bad enough to see dozens of ads in most public places, stadiums and on sport jerseys. But I do not want to see a massive Microsoft ad hanging off the Colosseum.

  • Comment number 92.

    Well, I for one am looking forward to the day the Golden Arches are placed on the roof top of Buckingham Palace! Fries with that please! ;-)

  • Comment number 93.

    Why not hang a Big Mac`s sign on Stonehenge , or Westminster Abbey !! Why do these companies come up with these offensive ideas .. it puts me off buying their goods . the only way that it could work ....was if like the Queens Jubilee at Buck house they laser beam the adverts at night maybe or for a very limited time each day . but it should be nothing physical.

  • Comment number 94.

    As long as the advertising was tasteful and discreet, without detracting from the impressive beauty of the Colosseum, then I don't see a problem. What would be more of an issue, would be to allow some of these wonderful testimonies to man's past to fall into ruin and, ultimately, to disappear. Funding must come from somewhere.
    The English Heritage Society and National Trust do wonderful work in maintaining the integrity of some of our most famous landmarks. But it costs.
    I feel that my membership fees go to a fantastic cause in UK, and would support some form of "world" trust, which would identify and maintain worldwide landmarks.
    The Palace of Versailles would receive my vote.

  • Comment number 95.

    Why not have sponsored building, roads and or anything else business would sponsor.

    Business is happy to sponsor the folly of the UK Olympics so why not other things. Lets go for it and al save ourselves some money.

    Hope Cameron and "the boy" Osborne have picked up this as an idea for the UK.

  • Comment number 96.

    Inviting big business to sponsor important world heritage sites is also a clear invitation to vandalism by anti-capitalist protest groups.
    Let's hope that this Government thinks things through, with a greater thoroughness than its predecessor.

  • Comment number 97.

    No
    The point of government supporting these places is that they are more impartial.
    Patronage support of arts and heritage depends on it being liked by the patron. There are loads of arts and heritage that would not get sponsorship because they do not attract the level of interest needed, but need to be looked after for the nation anyway.

  • Comment number 98.

    It's much simpler, predictable and probably more even-handed to pay for public projects through taxation - particularly of the most profitable commercial organisations. If an organisation wishes to make a donation towards a project it should be just that, with no advertising or other favours atttached.

  • Comment number 99.

    "Welcome to the Barclays Bank Stonehenge"? No thank you. I'd prefer to pay the tax to keep the sticky fingers of big business out of public services.

  • Comment number 100.

    Theme Park World.

    We are spending all our efforts in sanitising and extolling past glories.

    We should be trying to build a better and fairer world instead.

    If knocking down all these ruins would stop slavery and starvation, it would get my vote.

 

Page 1 of 2

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.