As you've probably heard, lately there has been some criticism of failing companies that spend millions of dollars on what might seem the equivalent of vanity license plates. The first quote below is from U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich; the second is from Ray Bednar, who oversees sports marketing at Bank of America:

"When these companies are getting huge amounts of money -- billions of dollars from the federal government -- it's just not right that they pretend it's that somehow it's their money that's putting their name up there. It's not." Bednar's response: "Whatever generates great profits back to help us repay those TARP funds, is a smart business for us to be in to." In fact, Bednar says for every one dollar the bank spends on sports, it generates three in income. Paul Swangard is a sports marketing professor at the University of Oregon. "I can't see why you'd have strong criticism because that's what will get these banks out of the situation they're in," Swangard says. "By engaging the right customers, those who will deliver economic value to the long term. And if it happens to be that it's their loyalty to a sports brand that gets you the opportunity to have that conversation, I see nothing wrong with that."

Perhaps I'm missing something -- I didn't graduate from college, you know -- but upon reading this, two questions immediately sprung to mind: 1. If $1 generates $3, then why stop at one? So many banks are in so much trouble … Shouldn't they take every dollar they've got and turn each of them into $3? Everyone is trying to figure out how to save the economy … Has no one asked Ray Bednar yet? 2. Assuming that Bednar has nailed it … How did he nail it? Bank of America spent $44 million on sports marketing in 2008. How, exactly, could someone prove that $44 million became $132 million? I think that Bednar is just guessing. Wildly guessing, which is pretty much your only option when throwing millions of dollars against the wall. I also think that corporations are attracted to sports because of the perks: the luxury suites, the throwing out of ceremonial first pitches, the occasional meet-and-greet with the athletes … all of it. I'm not saying that Citigroup's spending $400 million to get its name on the Mets' new stadium isn't a solid investment. I'm saying I don't know. And considering just how many mistakes the company has made in recent years, I have a hard time believing that Citigroup knows, either.