… and puts its money where its mouth is.
Well done!
Sad thing is it wasn’t even the U.S. brewers’ fault, it was the UK ad agency they hired to promote the joint event.
Although they (by which I mean Scofflaw, the US-based brewers) should, nevertheless, be boycotted. For other reasons.
Which makes Brewdog’s “Good heavens, how terrible, I don’t know how this could have happened” response somewhat suspect. Ad/PR agencies do not have carte blanche to run whatever the hell kind of campaign they feel like, nor does the client only find out about the latest effort when it goes public. Ask anyone in the industry and they’ll give you a cherished list of the great campaigns that never saw the light of day because the clients wouldn’t sign off on it. Client sign off is a fundamental mechanic of the ad industry; it’s not a whim, it’s not a service that some provide and some don’t, it’s basic practice.
So maybe, maybe, this was the one time that something slipped through the net and a campaign launched without anyone at the client knowing it was happening. But given Brewdog’s lovingly earned reputation as a “non-PC” “edgy” brand - these are guys that have complained about their own beer just so they could agitate about it being destocked - it’s vastly more likely that they were trying their usual edgelord antics and only realised once the uproar began that they’d gone too far and pissed off their actual customer base this time.
The signoff on that particular aspect, if it happened, would have been by Scofflaw, not Brewdog, if I’m reading the article correctly. Frank PR were their agency, not Brewdog’s. Brewdog did approve an earlier release, though, that* did not *have the Trump stuff. Cite.
Ah, fair enough then.