Let’s be clear; there was not a conventional commercial that aired anywhere on television. The influencer in question, Dylan Mulvaney, posted a video of less than a minute on Instagram showing the custom Bud Light can that was sent to her and promoting a cash giveaway that the company was doing. So call it a promotion if you like, but it’s not a commercial in the traditional sense.
As near as I can tell, the only reason anybody who wasn’t already following Mulvaney ever heard about this was because some people threw a fit about it. The objections were what hit the general news.
So I suppose somebody was specifically hunting for something they could throw a fit about; because if one just didn’t want to see references to LGBTQ+ people, why else would one have been watching Mulvaney’s videos?
I can agree with that.
Sure, somebody was. But then, once that somebody relays it to other folks, said folks can have it brought to their attention without so seeking it out, right?
How about on your water bill? There is the question of why Bud L is the straw that broke the camel’s back? And I guess it was a refuge of sorts (and alcohol itself is often used as a refuge), and perhaps it was seen as an invasion of that. It was very personal at that point, which I think at least hits on a very close personal insult.
I really don’t see the same staying power, though Target’s stock was hit harder, actually Bud’s stock hardly got a hit looking at it in historical perspective, last time I checked it was close to and slightly up for the year. So I’m not seeing the Bud Boycott as all that effective on those who really make the decisions, but more on the workers.
The sensible thing for a brand to do is show a wide variety of people enjoying their products. They can be subtle about it and not underemphasize nor overemphasize any specific group.
TIL that Anheuser-Busch is “the left.”
I’m curious (in a morbid fashion) about how you think the left could have been less “in your face” in this situation. It’s not like there was a big push from LGBT activists for Budweiser to put a trans person on a beer can. AFAIK, that plan was entirely hatched by Bud’s marketing team, to try to get queer people to buy more of their product. Can you give me some insight in how I can convince billion dollar companies to not try to sell things to me? That sounds like a really neat trick.
“Get back in the closet so my political allies can keep killing you without anyone noticing!”
No thanks.
Let me see if we’re on the same page.
Imagine you and I work for a beer company, and someone pitches us an idea: let’s show a wide variety of people, including Dylan Mulvaney, enjoying our products; let’s not overemphasize any specific group, but let’s make clear that Dylan — like a number of other people — enjoys our products, and is someone we want to feature even more prominently in our marketing than Bud Light ever did.
Would you automatically default to replying that, yep, that’s a sensible thing for us to do? Or: the question is: will this make us more money, or lose us money?
Or: something else entirely?
I would enjoy watching the sport of Yak Tossing.
Especially when combined with caber tossing. It would make a good biathlete event.
What brands need to do is relearn that getting involved in politics is a terrible, terrible idea. You instantly piss off half the country, and then if you try to unwind what you did you piss off the other half. Target was boycotted by the right, and then when they pulled the clothing they got boycotted by the left for caving to the right.
Just say no. I want to know why your beer is better tasting than the other guy’s beer. I don’t give a shit about your politics, and I don’t want my beer used to push political ideas - even ones I agree with. The next company to immolate a product this way could face a shareholder lawsuit for fiduciary violation because it’s getting obviou that this stuff only hurts you.
Gilette tried shaming its own customer base, and lost a decade of market share gains. Bud Lite sales have dropped at least 28%, and show no signs of recovery. In markets where people claw for a percent or two of market share, that’s astounding. Target has lost money. Disney and Pixar, once guaranteed money makers, have lost something like $900 million on the last five movies they put out. They all featured changes like an African-American Mermaid, swapping male leads for female leads, woke messaging in the movies, major characters who are LGBTQ, etc.
I personally don’t care about that stuff, but it appears that in their zeal to insert politics into their movies they forgot to tell good stories. ‘Lightyear’ is apparently a disaster in this regard. But it doesn’t help when half of America has been so sensitized to ‘woke’ lecturing that even a tiny bit of it is enough to keep audiences away.
Bud light has a problem Gilette didn’t have: Gilette actually makes good products that people really like, so eventually even the boycotters drift back. But Bud Lite is all brand and marketing. The actual product is garbage. There are a hundred ‘lite’ beers that are indistinguishable or demonstrably better than Bud Lite. Budweiser spent decades and huge amounts of marketing making Bud Lite the ‘default’ American beer, and it was #1.
But I’m guessing the first response of many ex-Bud Lite drinkers when they switched to something else was, “Why was I drinking Bud Lite in the first place”? Those customers will never go back. Anheiser-Busch screwed the pooch royally, which is why the people involved were fired.
But who made it political (for Bud too)? Wanting to sell to a market segment that actually exists, does not seem to be political, but it is the right that made it political, only by the right being political by nature. So it seems like it is the right, who is political, and who made it political then complained that it is political.
How the hell is it “getting involved in politics” to show people enjoying your product?
Apparently some people would only be happy if everyone not straight were to be made invisible. And that most certainly would be “getting involved in politics”.
I am not really interested in what kinds of things “you” do with your intimate partner. “Your” soul hygiene is on an equal footing to that, or, say, ass-wiping technique. In that sense, your analogy is fitting. If you want to blather on about religion, you open yourself up to hearing about my disgusting habits as well.
The biggest difference is that believers want you to do what they do, think like them, and tithe. LGBT are not promoting anything or asking you to adhere to their way of life.
But forcing people to take DEI classes and sign DEI statements as a condition of employment certainly is, and people on the right see it all as part of the same big push by the left to subsume American life into the progressive world view.
This is ridiculous. Americans are widely supportive of gay rights. 70-74% of Americans support gay marriage. But keep pushing people, and you might get there. Social Conservatism has risen from 32% of the public to 40% in the past couple of years. There is a backlash brewing, and it will get worse unless everyone just calms down and learns to live and let live, on both the left and the right. Unfortunately, we are at the point where everyone seems to want to escalate.
I’ve been warning my family of a coming backlash for several years. We’ve had a pride flag in our window for years, and in the last few months we’ve started getting vandalism and pranking because of it. That never used to happen. I was shocked when it did.
That was not kid’s clothing.
Exactly. Having a white couple in your ad is fine. Having an interracial couple in your ad is: getting involved in politics, catering to the left, virtue signaling, etc.
“Gay people existing” is a political idea now? Advertisers should ignore that gay people exist, or they’re going to get a deserved boycott?
Oh, cool - not just “no gay people in commercials.” No gay people in film or TV, either. Just full on, “Get the fuck back in the closet,” is your advice? Or else we get the backlash we deserve?
Again, no thanks. I don’t consider myself a brave man by most standards, but not even I can stomach the cowardice you’re advocating here.
I don’t know who Dylan is, literally nothing except identity. So this is a very hypothetical discussion. I don’t know (nor necessarily care) if our views coincide.
But having decided this is a good and profitable idea, I would hypothetically have included Dylan in regular commercials, but not as a spokesperson. As prominently as other audiences but not more so. My objective would be to show everybody is human and similar, and so deserving of equal respect, but not to strongly make any further political point. These commercials might also include mixed groups enjoying beer on a beach, after work or while doing some hobby reflective of the target audience. Having made that decision, I would defend it. I think advertising to many groups is smart. I still do. But speaking softly.
But I also think there is a reason Freemasons are said never to discuss politics or religion at their meetings. It is unfortunate how some things I consider social are politicized, but this is outside my balliwick.
Yes. Brands should market themselves exclusively to, and display in their advertising, straight white people. This is a completely non-political stance.
/sarcasm