Is the real Bud Light problem that the right is now insulted because they have been identified as having 'the gay'?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Continuing the discussion from Where does (did?) the conservative identification with light beer come from?:

Though a bit enough off topic that I felt it safer to start a new thread.

With all the progress we have made towards acceptance of those who identify as LGBQ+, the right is a holdout of non-acceptance. One of the largest insults I remember as a kid was being called a fag, my son confirms that is still a high insult that kids will wield at other kids.

I was thinking that many on the right may feel that Bud Light commercial was actually insulting them, calling them gay on some level. And it’s more that they felt insulted in that way that they have put so much energy into the boycott then what they claim that Bud should stay out of politics.

Also I saw it more that Bud was trying to expand its customer base, but the right made it political.

2

They are much more than that. They are a source of aggressive push-back to every inch of that progress, and more. Like they did with abortion, they are attacking anywhere they see a chink in the defenses, mostly with “protecting children” as the excuse. That new outfit “Moms for Liberty” or whatever they’re called is all of that on steroids.

I think that is enough motivation for the boycott. Having any “all-American” product in any way identified with the LGBTQ+ community is anathema. Anything that seems to normalize non-standard people and their lives must be erased and eradicated. They’re not going to give up just because of some pansy-ass laws and judicial decisions, they are defending their children! Nothing is too much! ::panting::

Pardon me, I got carried away.

3

Yeah, they will go kicking and screaming into the future. Why shouldn’t the LGBTQ community have crappy beer marketed to them? The conservatives are always on the wrong side of history, and they know it, and this is the latest line in the sand that will eventually be obliterated by the feet of progress. <b-urp!>

4

I feel that some people need to feel superior to other people. And if they can’t feel superior based on any actual accomplishments, they’ll seek an artificial sense of superiority by pushing other people down to a lower status.

5

It basically comes down to anger that “now the woke are coming for our beer!”.

Though Bud Light never struck me as much of a manly man’s beer.

6

Which Bud Light “commercial” are you talking about? My understanding of the situation is that there were all kinds of fake commercials made by other creators on youtube following the company’s one single beer can they made with the woman’s image on it. That was it.

The company made a single, promotional beer can with her face on it, not sold anywhere, not available to the public, and sent it to her. She then made a tiktok about receiving the can. The company didn’t advertise this at all. The privately made tiktok video went viral and that’s when this all started. At least, that’s my understanding.

AFAIK there was no transgender commercial made by the company.

7

This one:
’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2tujRTMHU0&ab_channel=CommentOnCommercials

8

It’s not a commercial but just a video made by the influencer. Although the whole point of sending something to an influencer is for them to promote or suggest your product.

9

None of these commercials made it to Canada. The New York Post seemed to have a daily article on this subject for weeks. I don’t think the real Bud Light problem is as described.

Surely some people were turned off because they disagreed with a non-traditional spokesperson. This might be for political reasons, discriminatory ones or peer pressure. But there are legitimate reasons not to have corporations push views on consumers. It often comes across as insincere and pushy. Though I think people should have progressive views, companies are not people. I don’t want Big Soda, for example, telling me what to think or how to vote. I don’t have a personal problem with companies making pink or rainbow products and support equality. But I don’t want every mundane purchase to make any statement.

Modelo is a much better beer, particularly the dark version, and I was pleased they took the number one spot. But this is a temporary thing. Both the company and its critics are virtue-signalling, with maybe more signal than virtue.

Look at it this way. I love women. They should have equal rights, fair pay and opportunity. I am appalled at recent events concerning access to abortion in the US which should be, in my view, up to the affected woman. But I don’t want to buy pink coloured beer to show my support. Nor have this conversation every time I go to a pub or drink beer with my friends. More so, it would be stupid for yahoos to make YouTube videos shooting cases of pink beer or throwing it into Boston Harbour.

10

Gillette caught some heat for lecturing its razor customers about “toxic masculinity”, but I don’t recall as intense a fuss as what has occurred with Bud Light.

Ironically, Modelo is owned by Anheuser-Busch, maker of Bud Light.

Just as long as you don’t broadcast this opinion on street corners. :grinning:

11

Except this completely ignores everything they actually say about the topic. Their slogan is, “Go woke, go broke”. It’s them explicitly saying that everyone else has to choose a side here - you’re with the bigots, or the LGBTQ+. And if you don’t pick, they’ll pick for you. They’re trying to weaponize capitalism to force people back into the closet, and to force others to help them marginalize the people they hate.

12

Modelo is owned by Grupo Modelo in Mexico, and Constellation Brands in the US (who brews it in Mexico). This is because of a merger and the sale of US rights was mandated under competition laws. Constellation (which have done great things with the brand) have been involved in litigation with Anheuser-Busch recently, so I don’t think it is the same company.

There is nothing wrong with Light beer, but I don’t drink it nor think it hits the high notes of the masculine archetype.

“Just as long as you don’t broadcast this opinion on street corners. :grinning:”

No. I prefer to scream my views from my mufferless Camaro as I drive it down the main drag on Saturday nights.

13

Will they?

I mean, yes, the folks at Bud Light apparently picked this approach, and, yes, boycotters then responded accordingly — granted. But are they also calling for boycotts against beers that don’t, uh, “pick” one way or the other? Against beers where nothing really gets said on the subject, and who so reach out to no such influencers, and thus and such?

14

More to the point then is why Bud and why has this one been epically and uniquely targeted? I think something about this commercial got their panties in a wad like nothing has before, and evident to the rights response was like nothing that came before or after to today. And to my OP point, that basically they feel they were called a fag which got their anger up to the point of action.

15

Maybe not explicitly, but their calls to boycott every product that does acknowledge the queer portion of the population sends a message.

Let’s say you market a beer, Pepper’s Pots O’Beer. And then you decide, "We want to be know as The Beer of Winners! So you come up with a marketing plan to feature gold medal Olympic athletes on your Pots O’Beer.

Then someone points out that some of the athletes are Known Homosexuals. And that using them in this promotion will generate demands for a boycott.

So what do you do?

Go ahead with the plan, knowing it will cost you sales?

Modify the plan to not use these particular athletes, and hope no one notices? Spoiler alert: Someone will notice.

Scour the Earth for some kind of sport that no homosexual has ever won, and use that sport instead? And then it turns out that Mongolian Yak Tossing is also problematic.

Or just drop the whole thing?

Except they haven’t been “uniquely” targeted. My point is, they’ve called for so many boycotts against any company that even dares to acknowledge diversity that they even have a slogan for it. Just because this is the only one you might have heard about doesn’t make it unique.

16

I guess I was looking at a different way (and I was figuring that non-Bud-Light beer brands are, as well):

  1. Market it with openly gay and/or openly trans product-endorsement types or spokespeople or whatever who advocate, loudly and proudly, for LGBTQ+ causes; or

  2. Market it with spokespeople or endorsers or whatever who loudly announce that they’re against LGBTQ+ causes: maybe even the exact individuals who are right now looking into the camera and calling for a Bud Light boycott; or

  3. Market it with folks who, y’know, aren’t gay and aren’t transgender, and who, uh, don’t really talk much about LGBTQ+ stuff.

Can a brand do #3?

17

People are just getting tired of being meddled with. The left is meddlesome. They are in their heads, and in their homes, and they haven’t the right. People are mad, so now they aim to misbehave. The lockdowns and other restrictions during Covid may have been a catalyst.

As an analogy, imagine a world where Christians were persecuted. Let’s say ‘Christian Rights’ became a movement. They want to be left alone, allowed to be Christian, don’t want to be discriminated against in the work force, etc. You aren’t Christian and don’t want to be, but you are a tolerant person so you support them.

Then Christians start demanding not just tolerance, but acceptance and approval. They want you to wear a cross to show support. Crosses start getting drawn on sidewalks, etc. Still, you’re glad that so many people are showing support for an oppressed group.

Suddently everyone is sporting crosses, If you don’t, you are a bigot. Suddenly everyone who isn’t Christian is called ‘Non-Cris’. You go to work, and there’s a new requirement that you must attend a bible study, and sign an oath of fealty to Christian principles.

To get away from that, you go to watch some TV. But now every show has an overtly Christian character who is a Mary Sue for the writers, and every show hits you with a Christian message. So you turn on sports to get away from the constant messaging, and all the players are bowed in prayer. Some have crosses on their socks or other Christian symbols on their Jerseys. If you criticise this, you get called a bigot and a hater.

Then you find out that your kid’s teachers have been teaching the bible in class and baptizing kids surreptitiously, telling them not to inform their parents. You find this out when your kid comes home and starts demanding to know why you don’t go to church on Sundays, and calls you a hater when you explain that you don’t believe in God.

Well, at least you can have a beer and forget about it. Oh, Jesus is on the can…

At some point, people just feel that they’ve had enough and lash out against the constant manipulation and demands. I think Bud Light got it worst because your beer can is the last place you expect to get a political message, and people are tired of being manipulated. Also because Bud Lite is generic bilge water with no advantages over any other beer, so it was easy to switch. Target is getting boycotted as well for their LGBTQ clothing for kids.

It will only get worse from here. Read the room. Time to stop getting in people’s faces so much, or the backlash will undo years or even decades of gains by the LGBTQ community. It’s a real risk.

18

How are they to advertise at all, if they’re not allowed to show anyone using their products?

And if they show straight couples, or individuals known to be straight, using their products, how does that “push views on consumers” any more than showing LGBTQ+ couples, or individuals known to be LGBTQ+, does?

What you’re asking for is for the view that such people don’t, or shouldn’t, exist to be pushed on consumers.

As near as I can tell, the only people trying to have this conversation any time somebody goes to a pub or drinks beer with their friends are the people objecting to having anybody who’s not straight portrayed in any form of advertising.

Showing only straight couples in one’s advertising is picking one way or the other.

Just as much as if all of their advertising showed only men, or only white people.

You’ve got your complaint entirely backwards.

Showing an occasional gay, trans, or whatever person in an ad is in no way equivalent to any of that.

What’s equivalent to that is insisting that everybody who isn’t straight must not be shown in public.

19

I haven’t seen the commercials nor was this a thing in Canada. So I am somewhat unaware of how much fuss it caused.

Lots of companies here, mainly in the last year or two, have commercials including many diverse groups (and sometimes in humourous ways defying stereotypes) or two dudes or dames banking or driving cars. I don’t see transgender as different or unworthy of fair and equal treatment. I think these changes are positive, better reflect modern society, and speak to my personal values. But surely companies do this because of both virtue-signalling and since they think it will help sales.

It is untrue I think or said any group should not be pushed on consumers. But some people will perceive it that way. This may be more true of Americans who drink Bud Light. I think advertising to a huge variety of groups is good business. I can’t think of that many brands that have any spokesperson. Presumably this choice was made to show the brand supported progressive views. Would they make the same choice again? I’m not sure what Spuds McKenzie says about a brand either.

Even when I fully agree with views, that doesn’t mean I want to always think about them or have them reflected in any purchase.

20

Your own link supports my contention that Bud Light is uniquely targeted:

though the decline in Bud Light sales suggests, in that particular case, the boycott has notable support.