The Half Time Show Reminded Me Of Either An Opening Or Closing Ceremony At The Olympics.....

[global1]

I wonder how much money Pepsi spent on that show. It couldn't have been cheap. Then I got to thinking - instead of these corporations spending money on a show like that - wouldn't it be interesting if a company said we're not going to do a SuperBowl commercial (at $5 million a pop) or sponsor a half time show - we're going to put that money into infrastructure of this country. We're going to help rebuild American.

Why don't we let corporations/companies/businesses sponsor a section in the rebuilding of an Interstate Highway or a rebuilding of a bridge. We'd call that section of highway or the bridge - the Pepsi Bridge or the Pepsi Interstate. Think of all the exposure a company would get if it did something like that.

I know - I guess I had one too many during the game and I'm hallucinating. Just a thought!!!!!

[Initech]

1. Yeah I thought exactly the same thing.

It could have easily been in the Olympics and no one would be able to tell the difference.

[uppityperson]

2. I was to thinking the same thing, nice to know it wasn't just me

[dhol82]

3. Yuppers

Was on the phone with my friend and said, 'holy shit! Was that an opening for the Olympics?'.

Also, not sure about anybody else but, was the sound weird for the half time show? Seemed like it was playing in the stadium but not on the teevee.

[msongs]

4. the ads are probably a tax deduction so the rich can spend their $$ then get it back nt

[MohRokTah]

5. That's actually a damned good idea.

There are only so many stadiums in the country, but roads, etc. are far more visible to more people.

[JI7]

6. because they are about making money, and i don't want to be dependent on private industry for things

like infrastructure which should be funded by tax money which the wealthy/corporations are not paying .

[global1]

7. If They Fund Infrastructure - It Would Be Like They Are Being Taxed......

Maybe they can get a tax break for doing that and it would be the best of both worlds for all involved. We'd get good roads and bridges and they would get the bragging rights (like Univ of Phoenix stadium) and possibly a tax break.

I'm just thinking out of the box.

It's not really giving them control over the road or the bridge - just the ability to tout that they did it. The roads and bridges would still be the property of the government/taxpayers.

Look this is just dealing with them on a level they understand. How much money is spent in this country by corps/companies/businesses to market themselves and their name. They would understand something like this.

Look how much exposure the Univ of Phoenix got these last two weeks with their name being on the stadium. I don't think they own that stadium - but they pay a hefty sum to advertise on it.

[JI7]

8. no, because infrastructure should not be based on how much large corporations can profit from it

and that's how it would be if they paid for it.

what it comes down to is just them needing to pay their fair share of taxes.

[global1]

9. You Know They'll Always Find A Way To Wiggle Out Of Paying Their Fair Share Of Taxes.....

This however, is really a round about way to get them to kick up some bucks for this country. Right now they put billboards up on highways - so what's the difference if they have a section of highway named after them. As added incentive - on the section of highway that they paid for they can keep out other companies from putting up billboards.