We may need to have a talk with Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) ... a talk about tact and smart spending. Remember last week? You know, when President Obama lowered the hammer of shame on banks that were wasting their money? Perhaps BAC doesn't. I was going to avoid writing about the Super Bowl today (mainly because I am a Cincinnati Bengals fan that hates the Steelers), but I found a story questioning the thought process of BAC and its sponsorship of the NFL Experience. This traveling exhibit has been a mainstay at the past 18 Super Bowls and it features sports games and interactive entertainment stretched over 850,000 square feet.
According to this ABCNews.com article, BAC's logo was plastered across the exhibit and there were numerous "marketing calls to sign up for football-themed banking products." I don't question the strategy ... I mean, who hasn't applied for a credit card at a game to get some free team tchachki? Couple free stuff with flowing alcohol, and BAC may have seen thousands of new credit card applicants.
That said, is this wasteful spending by a bank that nearly collapsed and required a $45 billion bailout (paid by the tax-paying citizen)? I think so, although BAC had to follow through in order to fulfill its contract as an NFL sponsor, let's not forget that it was Joe and Jane Taxpayer that helped BAC dish out a figure some have estimated as close to $10 million (in fact, the article notes that the tents alone cost more than $800,000!). Some are arguing that as soon as the bank accepted the bailout funds, it should have backed out of the NFL Experience ... and I won't disagree.
Heck, even General Motors was smart enough to scale back its Super Bowl activities this year; and it is a corporate sponsor. But for BAC, the appearance of not caring about our money might cost in the long run. This was the wrong year to get in on the NFL Experience. Just ask American International Group and Morgan Stanley -- if the public perceives that you are misspending their hard-earned cash, then they will stop giving you said cash.
I hope the credit-card applications that the company got was worth the massive dent they took to its public relations.
Closing Bell: Economic Catapult for Thanksgiving & Black Friday (WMT, TGT, GRMN, GOOG, MSFT)
Deere up on Q4 earnings performance
Reid Hoffman: LinkedIn will go public (at some point)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-02-2009 @ 9:45PM
Donna said...
Hmmmmm, so if B of A had not sponsored the Super Bowl and had not gave 18 Billion in bonuses, they would needed only half of what they receivedIm sure there other hidden frivolous expenditures we havent even heard about yet. Its business as usual at BOA at our expense. I will never forget this as long as I live. I will never use BOA for anything. I wish everyone else would withdraw their funds, refinance their mortgages and loans and get the hades away from this crooked bank. If the government wont allow them to fail, maybe we can.
2-04-2009 @ 5:40PM
Douglas said...
It is disappointing to hear so many attacks on American businesses. The first block of billions was forced on all the major banks. Next, BOA wanted to pull out of the merger, but was pressured by the government to go forward. That accounts for the second block of billions. BOA problems are due to Merrill Lynch. Otherwise they've run a solid business that has provided jobs and profit for shareholders. Why is it that BOA business practices (that have made them successful) must be questioned at every step? I think my fellow Americans have become whiners. I don't like the bailouts of any institutions, but I believe BOA would have stopped the merger had the government not imposed its will on the institution. Why does the government have a say in the first place? Because they shoved the first block of billions down the banks throats last fall.
2-03-2009 @ 9:26AM
Geroge said...
How about Citi's $400 million sponsorship of the Met's new stadium? Two councilmen in New York have suggested that Citi Field be renamed Citi/Tax-Payer Field.
2-03-2009 @ 2:04PM
Bobby said...
Hey I have a thought why doesn’t everyone who thinks the banks are doing a bad job, take all their money out of the banks but those same people have to pay their debt in full. Another thought why don’t we let the government run everything since they are doing a great job.. I figure I will have worked 60 years and I will not get any social security money. Maybe the government is the answer…NOT Just a thought.
2-05-2009 @ 11:44AM
MBOSWELLA said...
I DON'T KNOW WHY I CONTINUE TO READ 'OPINION' ARTICLES. I KNOW I DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE OF THE INNER WORKINGS OF MAJOR CORPORATIONS TO FORM SUCH AN OPINION. AND, I FIGURE WITH THE ENORMITY OF THESE COMPANIES IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME, MAKING A CORPORATE JUDGEMENT BASED ON A SINGLE ACTION, NO MATTER HOW DISTASTEFUL THAT ACTION MAY SEEM. I WISH I HAD ONE OF THOSE GREAT JOBS... AUDITOR, OPINION COLUMNIST AND SUCH. WHERE ALL I HAVE TO DO IS FIND CRITICISM OF WHAT OTHERS DO. THE ECONOMY IS BAD ENOUGH NEWS. WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE STOP TAKING THE EASY ROAD, GET TO WORK DIGGING OUT SOMETHING YOU CAN COMMENT POSITIVELY ABOUT? AND NOT JUST BECAUSE YOU INVEST IN THEIR STOCK!