While Anheuser-Busch has attempted to downplay Mulvaney's role in its overall strategy, Whitworth confirmed that the company will maintain its partnerships without making any changes. He did not explicitly apologize for the collaboration with Mulvaney, despite some consumers demanding an official acknowledgment of the mistake as a prerequisite for restoring their patronage.
The company's actions have been perceived as a breach of the unspoken "bar rules" that strictly discourage discussions of politics or religion. As long as the company fails to acknowledge or address the concerns, it is anticipated that the boycotts will persist.
Yeah, interesting isn’t it, more afraid of losing those HRC ratings points and therefore lowering the company’s ESG score than a widespread and sustained consumer boycott.
It’s as if the Romans had pled with Spartacus to end his rebellion because the centurions were getting blisters with all the slaves they were having to nail to crosses instead of maybe just offering to make the changes that Spartacus was demanding.
“The consumers are demanding that we no longer talk down to them on political or social issues and stick to making our shitty beer”
“Threaten to make some of our employers and contractors destitute”
“But sir, they just want an apology and an undertaking that we won’t act like they’re a bunch of deplorables because they don’t subscribe to progressive political ideas coming out of the far left”
“Kill a Clydesdale, leave the head in an Elementary School playground and tell them that they made us do that!”
black rock will bail them out so who cares if they sell less beer
“But sir, they just want an apology and an undertaking that we won’t act like they’re a bunch of deplorables because they don’t subscribe to progressive political ideas coming out of the far left”
Toooooooo be faiiiiiiiiiiiiiiir, getting this mad at the company for something that amounts to "a troon was in literally one online commercial, that only boiled down to 'I drink this beer', that would have been long-forgotten about by now if no one said or did anything" is exactly the type of thing a deplorable would do.
It wasn’t just any Troon though. It was literally the worst of all possible troons, a Troon so annoying that people seriously considered the possibility he was a parody or even false flag psy-op.
The only thing worse would have been making an ad with Lia Thomas in a bikini.
It also came at the point when the whole lots of normies had been peaked by Mulvaney, Thomas and the Matt Walsh stuff and Drag Queen Story time etc. it was a really stupid marketing move.
yeah, it's not the LGBT marketing (most companies have that), it's Dylan, a clattering skeletal ghoul with a mouth that could swallow salmon whole, who can't even be bothered to act stereotypically feminine or masculine or even take a woman's name, who visibly brightens at the thought of getting someone who disagrees fired, who's faced absolutely zero difficulties from the "transition" from catty twink to catty twink in a baggy cocktail dress, gets a show, endless puff coverage, a White House visit, a Macy's Thanksgiving balloon (that one's a joke), AND now a literally random beer endorsement like Dylan's some sort of actual PHENOMENON
I could see the "Mulvaney is the worst" part of it, but at least on that part I can accept that as "fame was there". (And I'll give the side point there of "there were perfectly fine trans people, but troons wouldn't accept it unless it was a Troon they chose").
Even then, this would likely fall to the same as "Morgan Wallen becomes the biggest music star of 2023 solely because he said the N-word" for "if you don't like being treated like deplorables, then DON'T FUCKING DO DEPLORABLE SHIT LIKE THIS".
Not that I drink their swill in the first place, but if I did, it wouldn't have been Mulvaney that turned me off. He was just collecting a paycheque and I applaud his grift (though I find him repulsive and insulting to women). It was the smug condescension of their horse faced millennial VP shitting on all their customers that would have driven me away.
I have to agree. It was less about Mulvaney. He’s just a symptom of the disease.
I suspect that for many of the boycotters, it was about basically being told by the VP that she didn’t care for the people who tend to buy their product. It was just insulting. It was the equivalent of the bratty older sister forcing her younger brother to have a tea party with his GI Joes, PRECISELY because she knows he will hate it.
You do that with a billion dollar brand, you’re basically begging to be punished for your arrogance and stupidity. If your job is to sell things to people, probably not a good idea to insult your loyal customers.
They bungled straight into the culture war with a product that is highly competitive for market share. To be fair I don't give a fuck about their online commercial either but I also don't give a fuck about their product.
Way I see it they have a product that is basically associated with what we would call "red necks" or "frat boys", they try to expand their product to the "LGBTQIA+" market who are already likely to be the least likely to buy it. Doing so by choosing the most controversial spokesperson possible who likely is more of an outrage celebrety than anything, and lo and behold they alienate their base customers. It's pretty much a marketing disaster, it is stupid, ultimately, as most culture war stuff is, but that's why it is best as a business to stay out of it because once you go in you are fucked.
yeah it was easy to boycott bud light because not many people like it that much anyway. But one problem I fotrsee is that some time in the future literally all beer companies will do pro trans advertising. Because they'll be forced to buy those who control money, black rock and other bankers. So then conservatives will be in a quandry, it will be hard to just give up beer completely for many.
I suspect once the trans fad has run its course corporate will drop it quick for some other culture war issue. These sorts of things rarely have staying power in the cultural consciousness for very long.
Personally I really don't care if a beer company wishes to target trans people for their product. It's just not something I think is an effective marketing tool for a product that is supposed to be for everyone more or less. Similarly I have no real issues if a wine company decided to market and promote their product as gay, but since I am not gay I don't see much reason why I should buy it over something else.
I think it's more likely that companies will attempt to further use the culture war and divide as a way to consolidate markets and promote a kind of "controversy sales" mindset. Divide et impera so to speak. I've seen a bunch of beer makers try to take advantage of the controversy to market to their more "woke" clientele and it seems to work more or less. Likewise there is a whole conservative shadow economy of sorts marketing obliquely anti-woke products ranging from coffee to cellphone service. I see it more than anything a way to link brand loyalty with personality and morality. You just aren't a good person if you buy xyz product instead of zyx product sort of thing.
this is a slippery slope thing not a fad. Those who warned gay marriage would lead to this were right and there will be things even worse than trans stuff that will be pushed next, like pedo shit.
It is a predictable slippery slope type situation that is all to common with activism when you don't tightly lock down exactly what change it is you are pursuing and instead go with the the kind of extremely broad populist ideals like "love is love" and other such tautological arguments. I'm generally receptive of the idea of giving gay couples the same kind of tax benefits and legal rights heterosexual couples enjoy simply because I don't see much reason to deny them outright. But the populist arguments towards it of simply "they love each other what is the problem" don't really track as they can also be applied towards things like bigamy, polyamory, pedophilia, etc, where there are problems with it.
Something like polyamory, you can't really go around banning such lifestyles outright, since it does go in opposition to the ideal of freedom of association, however I do see problematic issues stemming from the legal recognition of such relationships going from anything to child custody issues to property issues, to the simple issues that most polygamous societies have where the monarch and other powerful people disproportionately control the marriageable candidate market themselves. Not so much a problem in warlike societies where you can simply send your horny young men off to the front lines to be killed leaving you with a relative abundance of women demographically, but not exactly the form of society I think anyone today wants to advocate for.
I've seen a bunch of beer makers try to take advantage of the controversy to market to their more "woke" clientele and it seems to work more or less.
Honestly, considering how InBev owns basically all of beer as a whole, this is why you're right with the culture war leading to marketing- the culture war is such that different brands will ally themselves to certain political groups, knowing the other party will turn away immediately, but the people of that party will be loyal to the brand forever...and also "if you don't choose a side in the culture war, BOTH sides will turn away."
the critical issue of 2025 that tears families apart, has professors chased off campus by screaming mobs of 19yos, and which politicians try to take advantage of: which way to hang the toilet paper
"Transwoman leaves toilet seat up charged with hate crime"
i think it has gotten more serious where we have to boycott because liberals would cancel a repub or they would boycott if say budweiser did a pro trump ad
so now we have to have zero tolerance
And there's the $64,000 question: If they chose Blaire White or another 'based' trans person to do the ad, would you have still boycotted?
If the answer is yes, it's not about 'left vs. right'.
Yes but I've been "boycotting" Bud-Light for about 10 years now since I think it tastes bad. To the point where if the only choices are Bud-Light or water, I'll choose water.
I don't really care if Bud-Light wants to do a promotion with Blaire White but I've got to question why? What is their marketing for? If their target market is gay people, that's fine, but since I'm not gay why should I care? I don't see much reason to celebrate targeted corporate marketing.
It just rings to me as empty platitudes with the ulterior motive of pushing sales. I think the misstep here is they miscalculated Mr. Mulvaney's popularity as being positive, rather than negative popularity, since I've not seen a single person who unironically likes his content but rather I've seen a lot of people reacting to it.
Controversy gets clicks and sells add space but doesn't necessarily push a product. So I think by doing this particular promotion they failed to gain much positive attention for the brand and just got negative attention instead.
Well, the point I was making was based on politics: If Mulvaney's troon-ness was the issue and it's solely leftism, then presumably if Bud Light or them wanted a promotion with a trans person who is not full troon it would be okay, and thus the "it's about zero tolerance for the libs' agenda is fair." If it is NOT okay for that case, then it is down to "trans people exist and that rustles my jimmies!", which is an entirely different problem than just the politics.
As far as the marketing...I agree, I don't see much reason to celebrate targeted corporate marketing, but the point is...who needs to celebrate it? It's advertising. Advertising tries to market to different groups. Ultimately, If gay people, or trans people, or any specific group of people have their own ad campaign, good for them. It doesn't change anything else about the brand or product because companies don't see us as black or white, or red or blue, or gay or straight, or cis or trans, or man or woman, they see us as giant ATMs they can bleed money from.
based trans? not possible
I don't drink beer but as I understand it, there was nothing special about this beer so it seems like people were just buying it because of momentum. Honestly they are lucky that people have been buying it for this long. If people are buying from local breweries now it seems like a win.
They went maximum retard when they did this. Beer is sold almost entirely based on brand, not taste or quality. If you ruin your brand, you have nothing of value left.
Yeah, I remember seeing some research on cigarette brands and how brand loyalty could be ridiculously strong to the point that people no longer care about price - they won’t switch to cheaper brands until a massive change in cost.
I suspect these cheap beers are the same, you buy your favourite brand of bulk beer product and that’s that, you don’t shop around on price and the only reason you’d switch brand is if you cannot get your usual and you’ll make do with another one until your brand is back in stock.
The longer the boycott goes on, the more likely people’s boycott-caused brand switch will become permanent and switching back to BudLight becomes the equivalent of brand switching.
You would have thought that their marketing geniuses would have pointed this out to them, they needed to sort the issue as quickly as possible to avoid that brand loyalty switchover. Now, I think they’re going to find that, even after the “official” boycott ends and people forget, sales will never recover because people will be reluctant to make that switch again.
I remember when there was a shortage of CO2 in the UK due to the CO2 production facilities being bought by a US fertiliser manufacturer and they found it cheaper to turn off production due to high natural gas costs, this led to a shortage of various carbonated drinks. My preferred soft drink, of which I drink far too much, was Diet Pepsi, but supplies dried up and only Coke Zero was available. So I switched to Coke Zero, which never seems to be out of stock anywhere. The CO2 issue was resolved, but I never switched back to Diet Pepsi because, by the time the CO2 issue resolved, I had become accustomed to Coke Zero and that was fine.
BudLight is fucked.
It's funny because marketing has been convincing businesses for decades that their brand is everything. In recent years however, marketers have been handling brands foolishly and recklessly, making their clients look like drug-addled degenerates during a culture war.
Maybe corporate clients will start taking that marketing advice seriously.
More and more power was handed over to the HR departments. There was an old expression "sex sells". It's the reason they had women in bikinis selling beer. Their primary customer is men and the corporation can manipulate men to buy the product by triggering a sexual arousal. Now that's sexist and they actually put out a commercial talking about how shameful it is that they used sexy women to sell beer in the past.
The thing with Dylan Mulveny is pretty stupid though. Bud light didn't actually try to advertise the can. They just custom made a can and said "here show this off on your TikTok". Somehow that got amplified to make it seem like they were blasting it out on TV commercials.
I wonder if it's not even sold on the brand, rather they have it everywhere so people don't have other options.
People aren't drinking less beer.
Their staff can just go an get jobs with their competitors.
If I had been a Bud Light drinker I think the only thing that would make me come back at this point would be if they canceled all relationships/sponsorships with trannies and tranny organizations, fired their entire marketing department, fired their entire HR department, fired and dissolved any ESG/DEI employees and initiatives, and enforced a no-politics policy for the entire company. And did so publicly and transparently. Only then would I even be tempted to start buying their piss water again.
They could dedicate their ad budget toward exposing ESG from the inside. With the right follow-through, that could actually make them more popular than ever.
They could go negative ESG and make that a selling point.
“We’re so anti-woke our ESG score is -50000000 - fuck those whales, land and sea! BudLight because America Fuck Yeah!”
Reverse-ESG score would be an easy way to organize consumer boycotts.
That's actually a great idea. I wonder where we could find a good list of companies and their ESG scores.
A quick search turned up this: https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-ratings
But it doesn't seem very complete.
Tangentially related, try searching "esg consulting" for a list of grifters.
It's a growth industry. For now.
Where's sock to discredit this and to make sure we all know a giant corporation is still just as big?
Probably giving out handjobs in a gas station bathroom somewhere.
Bless his heart. He still doesn't get it. How is he still CEO?
How is he still CEO?
I suspect that he's honestly expecting to ride this out successfully, because things like the Reddit protest have shown that people will cave and submit to the corporate mandates eventually.
The problem is that there's no good reddit alt. There is alt beers.
Not exactly; InBev owns Bud Light/Budweiser, and also owns basically every beer that's not brewed in someone's basement. And if it IS brewed in someone's basement, InBev owns the company that made the ingredients the person bought to brew their home beer.
There's no real alt to beers, either.
There's a lot of craft beer companies that aren't affiliated with InBev. It's the cheap beers where there's not much choice.
Even the craft beer companies are a question, since with craft beer it's "either the craft beer's secretly affiliated with InBev, and if it's not- if it's actually good enough to be in the average liquor store give it about six months and they WILL be."
there is a budweiser trademark dispute, there is another company called budweiser in the czech republic. It's been going on for more than a hundred years. Inbev, the belgian copany that owns budlight, is purposely trying to destroy the budweiser brand to hurt that competition and they'll rebrand and focus on their other beers that they own. They own a lot of other ones like modelo, miller, labatt.
Did it to yourselves. No mercy.
LyingSpirit472 |16 pointswritten 10 months ago ago
Those poor, poor trans 15 year olds who think Bud Light is a good beer.