Imagine a local bank shelling out over $10 million just to slap its name on a building. Sounds like a hefty price tag, right? Well, that’s exactly what’s happening in Cincinnati, where First Financial Bank is paying $10.1 million for the naming rights to the city’s newly remodeled convention center. But here’s where it gets interesting: this deal isn’t just about branding—it’s a strategic move that could shape the future of downtown development.
According to city records obtained by The Enquirer, First Financial Bank will officially dub the property the “First Financial Center” under a 15-year contract expiring in December 2040. The bank will pay the city the full amount over this period, with both parties having the option to opt out penalty-free after 2032. This deal was announced on Monday by city and county leaders, though the price wasn’t disclosed until the contract surfaced through a public records request.
Now, let’s compare this to the previous naming rights holder, Duke Energy, which also had a $10 million contract with the city—but theirs spanned 28 years, from 2004 to 2032. Last fall, The Enquirer reported that Duke Energy agreed to give up its naming rights early in exchange for $1.6 million from the city. When you adjust for inflation, First Financial’s shorter contract is roughly equivalent in value to Duke’s longer one. But why the switch? And this is the part most people miss: the $10.1 million from First Financial isn’t just lining the city’s pockets—it’s earmarked for the development and construction of the future Marriott convention headquarters hotel in Downtown Cincinnati.
On Wednesday, February 11, Cincinnati’s City Council is expected to pass an emergency ordinance allowing the city and First Financial Bank to finalize the naming rights agreement. This move underscores the city’s commitment to revitalizing its downtown core, but it also raises questions. Is $10.1 million a fair price for naming rights? And what does this deal say about the role of corporate partnerships in public projects?
Here’s where it gets controversial: while some see this as a win-win for both the bank and the city, others might argue that public spaces shouldn’t be branded by private companies. What do you think? Is this a smart investment for Cincinnati’s future, or does it cross a line? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments—this is one debate that’s sure to spark differing opinions.
