This year’s college bowl season is now over. Did you notice how many bowl sponsors and advertisers were actually recipients of the federal bailout money? According to a recent WSJ article (“The Bailout Bowl: Big-Game Sponsors Scored Billions”) critics of the federal bailouts have been quick to voice their disapproval of those marketing investments. I love marketing and understand the opportunity those companies’s took to present their corporate brands and products during those games. However; as a tax payer I’m leaning towards the critic’s corner. Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.) was quoted in the article stating that the government shouldn’t micromanage those companies. Although he did question why banks – which reportedly aren’t using federal funds to lend to consumers as intended – need to sponsor nationally televised sporting events.
On a personal level I really enjoy college football and watched several bowl games. But I’ve now seen enough Ford F150 and Dodge Ram commercials to last a life time. Market research may show that truck buying personas dominate the football viewing audience. But was it really necessary to run those spots two and three times during every time out? Besides, if the banks really aren’t using federal funds to lend to consumers who is going to finance those trucks?
For me, it was just awkward to see advertisement at that volume from companies who have been holding their hand out for federal help. In my mind it didn’t help build their brand; in fact, the over-the-top approach of blasting commercial after commercial leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Oh well, I guess I’ll wash it down with a beer. At least those guys haven’t been in line for federal help.
What do you think?