BTHE BARATELLI INSTITUTE · Mentoring at Scale
FOR FOUNDATION DIRECTORS · CAMPAIGN CHAIRS · GIFT-ACCEPTANCE COMMITTEES · CFOs

A naming opportunity is priced for two markets — the donor and the institution. Both have to clear.

Underprice the lead and you set the ceiling for every gift below it. Overprice the room-tier opportunities and they sit empty for ten years. Misprice the endowment math — gift required to fund the named position — and you've sold something you can't deliver. This tool builds the naming-rights pricing table from project cost, endowment spending rate, and donor-recognition stack — the way capital-campaign counsel actually does it.

Lead
25–50% of project
Major
10–25%
Endowed
Spend / rate
Recognition
Plaque to lobby
YOUR NAMING PROJECT
1
Project basics
2
Naming asset
3
Naming-rights tradition
4
Endowment math
5
Results
STAGE 1 OF 5

Project basics

Defaults are typical for a new hospital wing project: $80M total cost, $50M campaign goal raising the philanthropic portion, with multiple naming opportunities at varying tiers.

Capital + soft costs + furniture/fixtures/equipment. Includes everything required to open the facility — not just construction.
$
Portion of project cost being raised philanthropically. Hospital projects typically raise 30–60% philanthropically with the balance bonded or paid from reserves.
$
Total count across all tiers (lead + major + standard + small named spaces). Industry: 25–60 named opportunities for a $50M campaign.
Capital cost vs campaign goal — the distinction matters. Naming pricing references one of two anchor numbers: total project cost (for prominence-of-name considerations like "the building bears my name") or campaign goal (for proportionality with the philanthropic ask). Lead naming is conventionally 25–50% of project cost OR 35–50% of campaign goal. Be explicit with the donor which anchor is in play. Industry standard for high-profile naming is to use whichever number is larger — total project cost typically — so the naming is unambiguously commensurate with the scale of the project.
STAGE 2 OF 5

What's being named?

The asset type drives whether the gift is one-time capital or perpetual endowment, and shapes the donor's recognition expectation.

Naming asset type
Building (whole)
Wing / pavilion
Floor / unit
Room / suite
Lab / surgical suite
Endowed position / chair
Endowed scholarship / program
Public space (lobby / atrium)
Typical term-naming: 10–25 years. Common for sponsorship-flavored namings on rooms / labs / programs.
Endowed vs term — the institution's tradeoff. Permanent (endowed) naming is the highest-leverage gift for the institution because the asset bears the donor name forever, BUT it commits the institution to perpetual recognition obligations (signage maintenance, public-record visibility, family-relationship continuity through generations). Term naming gives the institution the option to re-sell the space in 20–25 years — modern best practice for everything except top-tier permanent legacy naming. Hybrid model: building/wing permanent; everything else term.
STAGE 3 OF 5

Naming-rights pricing tradition

Industry rules of thumb based on tier-relationship to total project cost. Adjust the percentage ranges below for your sector — hospitals run slightly higher than higher ed, which runs higher than arts/cultural.

Lead is the headline naming (the building). Industry: 25–50%. Healthcare top-tier: often 40–50%. Below 20% signals undersized lead.
%
Wing/pavilion/major-program tier. Industry: 10–25%. Typically 3–6 major-tier opportunities per project.
%
Floor / unit / lab / surgical-suite tier. Industry: 5–15%. Typically 8–15 standard-tier opportunities.
%
Patient room / treatment bay / consult suite. Industry: 1–5%. Typically 15–40 small-tier opportunities.
%
STAGE 4 OF 5

Endowment math (for endowed positions / scholarships / programs)

Endowed naming requires the gift size that, at the institution's spending rate, generates the annual income required to fund the named position or program in perpetuity.

Annual income needed to fund the named position/program. Endowed chair: $150–300K/yr. Endowed scholarship: $25–75K/yr. Endowed program: $50–500K/yr.
$
Annual % drawn from endowment to fund spending. Industry: 4.0–5.0%. UPMIFA prudent-investor standard. Lower spending rate = higher gift required.
%
The lowest gift size at which the institution permits a permanent endowed naming. Common: $50K (entry endowed fund); $250K–$1M for endowed positions; $2M+ for endowed chairs at major research institutions.
$
Most capital-campaign pledges run 3–5 years; principal-gift commitments often 5–7. Affects when the institution recognizes the gift on the campaign scorecard.
Endowment spending-rate math is unforgiving. If a named scholarship needs to award $50,000/year, the gift required at 4.5% spending = $50,000 / 0.045 = $1,111,111. Selling the naming for less than that is selling something the institution cannot deliver — the spending shortfall comes from operating budget. The single most common naming-policy violation is "minimum endowment for a named scholarship" being set below the spending-rate required amount, then the institution under-funds the named program. Gift-acceptance policy should require: gift size ≥ (target spend ÷ spending rate), not just an arbitrary minimum.
STAGE 5 OF 5

Naming-opportunity pricing results

HERE, TRY THESE. THEY MAY HELP.

Naming pricing is one decision in a longer arc — gift agreement to ribbon-cutting.

The math here gets you to the right asking price. The guides below cover the surrounding architecture: how lead-naming donors actually decide, the gift-agreement language that protects the institution (standards-of-conduct clauses, removal triggers, family successor naming), the planned-gift add-ons that often accompany the capital naming, and the campaign-counting rules for what flows toward goal.

Read the Family Office Guide Read Estate Planning Decoded All free tools
This is not tax, legal, financial, or fundraising advice. Consult counsel and your CPA. Industry benchmarks shown are illustrative — verify against your peer institutions and current IRS/state rules before relying on any number. Naming-rights pricing varies materially by sector, region, and institutional brand strength; comparable-naming review (peer-institution scan) should accompany every naming-policy decision. Gift-agreement drafting (standards-of-conduct, removal-of-name provisions, family successor language) must be performed by qualified counsel — the math here does not address gift-agreement risk. Estimates only.
WANT THE METHODOLOGY BEHIND THIS TOOL?
This calculator pairs with Family Office Guide and Estate Planning Decoded.
The tool gives you the pricing math. The guides give you the surrounding architecture — how lead-naming donor families decide, how gift agreements protect both parties at signing and at estate settlement, the standards-of-conduct provisions that have become non-negotiable, and the planned-gift add-ons that often accompany the capital naming.
Methodology references: FO Guide Ch 9 (Philanthropy operating model) and EPD Ch 7 (Charitable structures & gift-agreement architecture).
Read the Family Office Guide → Browse all guides
PROFESSIONAL DISCLAIMER · PLEASE READ

Educational and informational purposes only. This calculator and any output it produces are intended solely for general educational and decision-support purposes. They do not constitute investment, tax, legal, accounting, fundraising-counsel, appraisal, or any other professional advice, and they do not create a fiduciary, attorney-client, accountant-client, or advisor-client relationship of any kind.

Estimates based on your inputs. Naming-tier pricing percentages, endowment spending-rate math, and donor-recognition stack outputs are estimates derived from the project cost, tier percentages, and endowment-spending assumptions you provide. Industry benchmarks shown are illustrative and vary materially by sector (healthcare, higher education, arts, social services), region, institutional brand strength, and economic environment. Endowment spending policies (UPMIFA, fixed-rate, banded) and gift-acceptance policies are institution-specific; verify against your institutional policies and current IRS/state rules before relying on any number.

Consult your own qualified professionals. Before acting on anything calculated here, consult your campaign counsel, fundraising-counsel firm, gift-acceptance committee, CPA (for endowment-accounting and pledge-receivable treatment), and attorney (for gift-agreement drafting, standards-of-conduct provisions, naming-removal triggers, and pledge enforceability). The Baratelli Institute is a publisher of practitioner reference material. It is not a registered investment adviser, fundraising-counsel firm, law firm, accounting firm, or appraisal firm.

Co-branded versions: If a professional advisor's name and contact information appear on this tool, that advisor has elected to make the tool available to clients as a courtesy. Inclusion of an advisor's name does not constitute the advisor's endorsement of any specific result, nor does it transfer professional responsibility for the underlying methodology to that advisor. The disclaimer above applies regardless of co-branding.

Educational references and tools — not legal, tax, accounting, or investment advice, and not a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Consult a qualified professional about your specific situation. © 2026 The Baratelli Institute.