I hoped I was clear in differentiating between brand enhancing events, such as sponsoring golf tournaments, and the ancillary events that surround them. I have no problem with the former if there’s a good business rationale for the sponsorship. I have no problem with the latter if the events are not ostentatious and a reasonable use of shareholder funds.

But what NT did doesn’t meet that standard. You can’t justify flying execs and their spouses around, throwing lavish parties with headliner-level entertainment and Tiffany giftbags, under any standard of reasonableness I adhere to. What’s the rationale? “Because we can,” that’s the rationale.

You do remember the allegations surrounding Tyco, right? How are NT’s actions materially different?

– Tenacious T.

If NT pays back the TARP money then this is a non-issue for me. I have no issues with how they spend their own funds. Hire Earth, Wind, and Fire; hire Sheryl Crow; hire Nancy Sinatra. I couldn’t care less. I’m glad NT chose this path. If, as I’ve heard asserted, they didn’t need the TARP funds in the first place, then giving the money back should be no big deal.

You don’t like the publicity and strings that come with receiving Federal bail-out money? Give it back. Problem solved.

Wouldn’t it be great if all problems had such easy answers?

– Tenacious T.

NT was profitable last year.

Maybe, just maybe – they ARE doing a good job managing at NT? Maybe they are trying to safeguard shareholder value? If the shareholders don’t like it – and/or don’t like what and how management is doing – as always – they can sell and become ex-shareholders.

I would argue that people are getting frustrated by standard business practice. I know it’s a tough sell. Does a golf tournament represent the best use of funds? Should we tell people barely getting by that their tax dollars should be spent on a golf tournament?

My main point is that the ways to safeguard taxpayer money are the same ways you guard shareholder value. You need to make sure interests are aligned. If you tie exec. comp to long term organizational goals, you can effectively align interests. One of those goals should be repaying the federal government.

I hear you, and you make a valid point. Let me rephrase my position for clarity, and then we can agree to disagree.

Are there deals that can only be closed in large groups of people gathered to hear big-name acts? (Or, granted, just before or after.) Are there deals that can only be closed in the presences of spouses? Or, as I maintain, could those same deals (if any) have been closed in smaller, more intimate — and much less ostentacious — environments?

Why am I skeptical? Only because I have seen, over and over, those expensive perks used to entertain top leadership and their spouses (primary purpose) and entertain clients as an afterthought. I have closed deals after such largesse, but never during. And by “after” I mean days or weeks after, not just after. I never experienced a direct linkage between dropping thousands of dollars on a potential client and closing a deal. Such parties & whatnot were never the competition differentiator, or even relationship enhancer, that others claimed them to be. (Unless you had pics. That was always effective.)

I acknowledge, though, that your mileage may vary.

– Tenacious T.