Printable View
Just saw this on the second page of the WSJ.
The Bailout Bowl: Big-Game Sponsors Scored Billions - WSJ.com
What it talks about is how the sponsors of the bowl games are the same companies that are getting billions of dollars from the government. Maybe I should sponsor a bowl game?
I remember hearing on the motor city bowl the announcers were talking about this being the last year that ford and GM will be able to sponser that bowl. The money given to these bowls was probably done well before the financial crisis. I don't think we'll see the affects on bowls until next year. I'm guessing there will be quite a few bowls stop due to lack of funding.
I don't know about stop so much as change hands. There is probably a long line of companies out there that would like to have their 'very own' bowl game, but just hasn't been able to get one yet.
No where in it does it mention how much companies like Capital One or Citibank are paying annually to sponsor bowl games to provide a reference point against the billions they are receiving in TARP payments. Bowl sponsorship is a small % of these companies ad budgets.
Sponsoring bowl games is advertising. Is the author pushing for financial entities and car companies to discontinue advertising in tough times? Why focus on the bowl games? What about NASCAR? How about advertising during TV shows?
Poor article. Similar to the DSM Register writer who questioned what Paul Rhodes was paid during a time when the state budget is a disaster. At the same time made no mention of Ferentz making $3M annually.
In the auto bailout they were restricted from "frivoless spending". I understand that this could be seen as advertising but with all of the perks that come with sponsoring a bowl I can also see it as a executive vacation. Maybe they can just put some TV ads on instead.