Despite a near collapse that required $45 billion in federal taxpayer bailout funds, Bank of America sponsored a five day carnival-like affair just outside the Super Bowl stadium this past week as President Obama decried wasteful spending on Wall St. The event – known as the NFL Experience – was 850,000 square feet of sports games and interactive entertainment attractions for football fans and was blanketed in Bank of America logos and marketing calls to sign up for football-themed banking products.
The bank staunchly defended its sponsorship, saying it was a “business proposition” and part of its “growth strategy.”
Critics blasted the spending as a serious abuse of taxpayer money. “The prominent sponsorship of the Super Bowl says to the American people we’ll take your money and then we’re going to go waste it,” Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group, told ABC News. Leading Congressional critic, Congressman Elijah Cummings, (D-MD), said, “They should know better, but obviously they don’t.” According to the Bank of America, the official bank of the NFL, its NFL partnerships and product tie-tins “generate significant revenue streams.” The bank said it was legally required to fulfill its contract to be an NFL sponsor and that its NFL product sales had already increased since the Experience began Jan. 24. The bank refused to tell ABC News how much it is spending as an NFL corporate sponsor, but insiders have put the figure at close to $10 million. The NFL Experience was on top of that and was inked last summer, according to the bank.
Just when will these knuckleheads wake up?
Not even a drop in the corporate excess bucket. Glad BoA is giving their credit card holders a break on interest rates to help with the struggling economy…not! Greedy Sons of Unwed Muthahs.
You know, I just don’t have much of a problem with this.
The junkets and the jets, not to mention executive pay, I do have serious problems with, but this was a *business-generating marketing event.*
If they are signing up customers and providing quality services, I’m all for it. They have to market their business and the Super Bowl has become one of the premiere events to do that.
Contractual obligations aside, this money was probably spent many months ago. And as far I’ve read, BofA is only in trouble recently because they agreed to scoop up Merrill Lynch to keep them from going bankrupt.
Yeah, I dunno. This doesn’t really scream “corporate excess” to me. It was an advertisement event meant to generate new customers, open to the public. This wasn’t an example of “Me first” or corporate shilling. This was just a company doing what it can to entice new customers. Which is what we hope companies do to generate more income and keep the economy flowing.
#2 – I don’t have too much of a problem with this, either. Listen, BoA has gotten a lot of bad press lately due to the bailout. They absolutely NEED to get their name out there to tell people “hey, we’re still here, we didn’t fade away.”
Otherwise, you tell me how they’re supposed to get new customers. You tell me how else they’re supposed to generate revenue to keep from flopping. The Super Bowl is a huge chunk of money, but it’s also MASSIVE publicity.
It worked. I will never use B of A as my bank.
Is defenestration too good?
Chances are good that BoA’s marketing budget has been hacked to bits. This was a commitment they honored. They were probably on the hook for 75% of the expense anyway.
I’m not fan of BoA and their their generally misleading/predatory marketing to naive consumers. But like the others, this one doesn’t strike me much.
Banks to me are just a necessary evil, waiting to scam as much of your hard-earned money as they can, and reluctant to pay the meager interest rates they do.
With some intelligence and diligence, it is possible to beat them at their own game. For example, my wife and I use a single credit card to purchase darned near everything every month, and we pay the whole bill each month. On top of that, we receive “reward points”, which every 3 months we redeem for credit at stores and restaurants. Last 3 months, we received $250 in “reward points.” Used every single dollar. There’s just nuthin’ like free money.
That bank just hates us. No interest payments, they pay us. Tough.
Fifteen years ago I opened a checking account at a local bank called “NorthStar”, which several years later became “Fleet Bank”, and then several years after that became “Bank of America”, which it remains today. What do I know of these people and their continuing financial metamorphoses? Nothing. I bet if you asked them to explain all this churning around in their various identities etc, they wouldn’t know either.
Last Fall I thought about taking it all out of their hands and buying gold or something…but then, gold turns out to be just another commodity that goes up and down like wheat futures.
If you’re lucky to still have any extra resources to spare, spend it on something that has real lasting value…actual improvements on your house or property or whatever that will retain intrinsic ‘quality’ no matter what the friggin market does.
Yeah, I don’t see this as corporate excess either. I see at as a legitimate promotion to increase their customer base. It’s not like it was for employees or management only. Although, $3,000,000 for an ad during the Super Bowl might have garnered a larger increase in their customer base for less outlay.
There really is just nothing to say. Those that justify this, and it seems to be the majority, mystify me.
No real problem here for me either. They probably signed this contract last summer before any of the bailouts began. What should they do, break the contract and be held liable for most of the money and get no promotional considerations or bite their lip and do it?
#10 I knew them back when they were NCNB (North Carolina National Bank). They were crosstown rivals with First Union in Charlotte, NC. One bank would build a downtown office tower which would prompt the other to build a taller tower. It also carried over into giving to the arts and charities. First Union bought Wachovia and took its name, and now is being bought by Wells Fargo. I believe NCNB bought BofA and also took their name, to get away from their regional moniker.
#12. Wow….I’m with you. But hey its your (the taxpayers) Money, so if these people are good with it, OK. I am not.
Yes, it’s just scandalous that a bank would run an event to pull in new customers. Horrible. Those damned car companies had better not try that.
This behavior is par for the course.
By the time it was finished in 1998, Raymond James Stadium in Tampa was entirely funded by public tax dollars ($168 million). If voters don’t concede to fund these projects through taxes, a team will eventually threaten to leave town (extortion). After the people pay for this stadium, what does it end up being named after? Raymond James Investment Services. Insult, meet injury.
It is with disgust that I read about the utter contempt these corrupt bankers have for their benefactors after their free handouts.
Guess what? Nothing is a free handout. We *bought* them out. Now their ass belongs to the government and indirectly the tax-payers. They’d better start behaving that way.
Why are we putting up with this?
As many others have said, spending money on promotions to lure new customers is great. BUT, there is something called “value for money”. If spending nearly $10,000,000 garners 150 customers with total deposits of $1,000,000 then this can’t be justified.
Feel good spending by anyone that required our money to stay afloat is wrong. That money would have been much better spent in new loans. This does not rise to the same level as $18 billion in “bonuses” or allowing someone to use the corporate jet to fly to a foreign resort.
Let me ask…
HOW big of a party COULD YOU HOLD, and probably sell MORE CC cards then THOSE folks did??
I could of setup a BEER fest, wine tasting, Hobby craft show, gun show ALL IN 1, with RIDES and a petting zoo, and probably BEAT there numbers over a 3 day EVENT..
I agree that $10 million is a drop in the bucket compared to other excesses but that doesn’t negate the fact that BOA bought Merrill Lynch at 70% more than their share value in Sept of 2008 at a time when M. L lost $50 billion and the government was already interceding with other failing financial institutions. Was it a coincidence that soon after BOA got $45 billion of taxpayers money to bail them out? I have made my feelings known by canceling my BOA credit card and will not do business with them again. Hit them where it hurts by boycotting them.