The Bud Light Fiasco

[secretman]

It's so tiresome reading the dishonest takes about "I'm not against LGBTQ people, I'm against big companies pushing an agenda"

No, you aren't.

Nobody making that claim cared when Bud Light was "pushing an agenda" of "promoting heterosexuality" by having hot girls drinking beer in commercials for the appeal of cisgender heterosexual guys. Nobody making that claim cared when Budweiser was promoting the agenda of certain people being "real, red-blooded Americans" as opposed to anyone who didn't belong to those groups.

Those ads were every bit as "political", but to anyone who agreed with the politics being promoted, it's easy to act like it's just normal. 

But that's how ideology works - acting like you're "normal" and other groups are "political" is the definition of trying to draw a line excluding them and privileging yourself.

If a group of people simply existing and being visible is a "political issue", then you're explicitly saying that group's continued existence is up for debate. 

This debate is only happening because bigots started to care when Budweiser had a single ad with a single transgender woman. None of them cared about big companies "promoting an agenda" before, because they agreed with the agenda up until that point. The only issue is being offended by the existence of transgender people. And they aren't "pushing" anything, they're following behind years after the fact, after people have spent decades working tirelessly to help trans people be visible and accepted. 

Edited May 6 by secretman

[Chawsee]

53 minutes ago, nicoleS39 said:

My take on this has nothing to do with whether I am in support of LBGTQ or not. I see this decision by Budweiser as either a marketing miscue or a commitment to support the LBGTQ community.  

As I understand it...if reports are "accurate"...from purely a business and short term marketing perspective, the company seems to have made a bad call in terms of adding sales. I think just the opposite took place. I read somewhere sales went down 26%? So...here's the question then...will Budweiser continue to use an ad campaign using an LBGTQ affirming strategy...or will they back off because the sales numbers and profit/loss numbers have diminished by doing so.  

I guess only time will tell. My husband and I are watching with curiosity...as I think how Budweiser goes on that will reveal their real intent in using LBGTQ...was it more about the perceived financial benefit or more about genuinely offering support for the LBGTQ community? At least for now...it "appears" to more about the money than the cause. They have stockholders to report to.

Lol...this has been an interesting situation for my husband and me to watch and consider. This "take" on this has been informed by my husband's business mind...lol.... I never thought of looking at this like that. I barely drink beer at all...only on special occasions mostly. My husband drinks beer sparingly...and then mostly micro brews or imports when dining out. 

Chawsee...you are amazing to bring this up and express your views. And...those opposing are amazing too. But...it seems any question of how LBGQT is expressed or promoted in our culture is met with an "auto-response" stating that such is "anti" LBGTQ. I think such is inaccurate and makes that assumption based on an attitude intolerant of diversity among us.  For many...it seems diversity only means acceptance of those LBGTQ, but not of those otherwise. That is where the "perception" that the LBGQT community is forcing their lifestyle onto others has come from...in my opinion. And...hitting people where their beer is...lol...is apparently...is a very sensitive nerve...lol.

Nicole, you have a gift for expressing yourself graciously, no matter the topic. Thank you for joining in with a viewpoint that was unbiased, and also free of malice.  🙏

[Spanknutt]

3 hours ago, Chawsee said:

This whole topic is not about being inclusive. It's an agenda that goes far beyond that. If people feel drawn to the trans movement, to each their own. Do what you want to do. It's your life and your choice. But don't cram it down everyone else's throat at every turn. That is what the Budweiser pushback is really all about.

I think there is more to it than that. I think corporations (who may have a diverse employee demographic) are starting to join athletes and other celebrities who have been pushing back against religious zealots, far-right extremists, bigots and other haters who have been picking on minority populations for a while now. There are two sides to most stories and if everyone would just back off and worry about their own issues (everyone has them), this country would be a better place for everyone. Having said that, do I think it was a terrible marketing strategy? Yep.

 

[StrictGent]

5 minutes ago, secretman said:

It's so tiresome reading the dishonest takes about "I'm not against LGBTQ people, I'm against big companies pushing an agenda"

No, you aren't.

Nobody making that claim cared when Bud Light was "pushing an agenda" of "promoting heterosexuality" by having hot girls drinking beer in commercials for the appeal of cisgender heterosexual guys. Nobody making that claim cared when Budweiser was promoting the agenda of certain people being "real, red-blooded Americans" as opposed to anyone who didn't belong to those groups.

Those ads were every bit as "political", but to anyone who agreed with the politics being promoted, it's easy to act like it's just normal. 

But that's how ideology works - acting like you're "normal" and other groups are "political" is the definition of trying to draw a line excluding them and privileging yourself.

If a group of people simply existing and being visible is a "political issue", then you're explicitly saying that group's continued existence is up for debate. 

This debate is only happening because bigots started to care when Budweiser had a single ad with a single transgender woman. None of them cared about big companies "promoting an agenda" before, because they agreed with the agenda up until that point. The only issue is being offended by the existence of transgender people. 

I don't think I've read anything you've posted before. I will now read everything you post.

Sure Budweiser did this is a marketing gimmick, but I'm failing to see how it actively hurt anyone. Well, their feelings, maybe, but you're right in that no one cared about Bud's political ideology or bent until it went against their beliefs. I'm not even sure why I'm posting, I guess I'm wanting someone to tell me why this somewhat crass Budweiser marketing strategy is any worse than... well, anyone else's crass marketing strategy. Or, as Secretman points out, Bud's crass marketing strategy prior to this.

[Chawsee]

1 minute ago, Spanknutt said:

I think there is more to it than that. I think corporations (who may have a diverse employee demographic) are starting to join athletes and other celebrities who have been pushing back against religious zealots, far-right extremists, bigots and other haters who have been picking on minority populations for a while now. There are two sides to most stories and if everyone would just back off and worry about their own issues (everyone has them), this country would be a better place for everyone.  

And that's a good point, too.

[Scorrect]

Count me among your allies. My hat’s off to you &, given the chance, my pants, too (bent over your knee for a spanking to long remember 😊).

Seriously,  as I read this thread, I noted with interest how carefully you selected your words and how frequently folks with axes to grind on this highly controversial subject ignored them. Ironically, in response to your well measured, respectful comment, they are highly disrespectful to you, while demanding unconditional acceptance of their “woke” agenda.

In my view, there is nothing contradictory about objecting to Budweiser’s cynical and objectionable ad campaign, while simultaneously supporting people’s rights to be trans or any other gender preference that might float a person’s boat.  

But, sadly, we’re now living in a world where so-called activists spread insults , hate, and terror. In the name of tolerance and understanding, they leap to unfounded conclusions, engage in viscous name calling, show contempt for any one who opposes their viewpoint (however rational), and do incalculable damage to the spirit and reality of freedom of speech.

I doubt even someone with your apparently extraordinary disciplinary skill will be able to whip them  into shape. Please try!!!!! 

[DaChief]

5 hours ago, alissaK said:

It was strange that one beer can (because there was only one) on a subscriber only platform (you had to seek out the video to see it before it exploded) caused all kinds of hell from people who, generally, have bigger problems to worry about... like why they constantly vote against their own interests. The future is inclusive, generally speaking. How inclusive is a more in depth conversation. At the end of the day, the Bud Light can didn't actually hurt anyone aside from some fragile feelings, which was strange coming from people who constantly call others "snowflakes".

At the end of the day, we would all do well to be kinder to everyone. Life on this planet is hard enough without adding to the problems. We're all staring down the barrel of death with no hope of avoiding it and the reality that it's all pointless in the end. Love, happiness, and companionship all help to make life a little more tolerable and help us ignore our onrushing demise. We should be searching out and creating more of that... and not more hate, anger, and division. Whether you're a left wing progressive or a right wing regressive, you should have all the happiness in your life you can muster as long as it doesn't harm others. And that little beer can? That didn't actually hurt anyone. A lot of the manufactured outrage that followed DID cause harm, however.

So, be nicer. Try to be happy. And try not to cause anguish for others.

My respect for you just multiplied tenfold. 

[Chawsee]

53 minutes ago, Scorrect said:

Count me among your allies. My hat’s off to you &, given the chance, my pants, too (bent over your knee for a spanking to long remember 😊).

Seriously,  as I read this thread, I noted with interest how carefully you selected your words and how frequently folks with axes to grind on this highly controversial subject ignored them. Ironically, in response to your well measured, respectful comment, they are highly disrespectful to you, while demanding unconditional acceptance of their “woke” agenda.

In my view, there is nothing contradictory about objecting to Budweiser’s cynical and objectionable ad campaign, while simultaneously supporting people’s rights to be trans or any other gender preference that might float a person’s boat.  

But, sadly, we’re now living in a world where so-called activists spread insults , hate, and terror. In the name of tolerance and understanding, they leap to unfounded conclusions, engage in viscous name calling, show contempt for any one who opposes their viewpoint (however rational), and do incalculable damage to the spirit and reality of freedom of speech.

I doubt even someone with your apparently extraordinary disciplinary skill will be able to whip them  into shape. Please try!!!!! 

Wow-- thank you! Tremendous respect for you. 🙏

[FlowJohnson]

5 hours ago, secretman said:

It's so tiresome reading the dishonest takes about "I'm not against LGBTQ people, I'm against big companies pushing an agenda"

No, you aren't.

Nobody making that claim cared when Bud Light was "pushing an agenda" of "promoting heterosexuality" by having hot girls drinking beer in commercials for the appeal of cisgender heterosexual guys. Nobody making that claim cared when Budweiser was promoting the agenda of certain people being "real, red-blooded Americans" as opposed to anyone who didn't belong to those groups.

Those ads were every bit as "political", but to anyone who agreed with the politics being promoted, it's easy to act like it's just normal. 

But that's how ideology works - acting like you're "normal" and other groups are "political" is the definition of trying to draw a line excluding them and privileging yourself.

If a group of people simply existing and being visible is a "political issue", then you're explicitly saying that group's continued existence is up for debate. 

This debate is only happening because bigots started to care when Budweiser had a single ad with a single transgender woman. None of them cared about big companies "promoting an agenda" before, because they agreed with the agenda up until that point. The only issue is being offended by the existence of transgender people. And they aren't "pushing" anything, they're following behind years after the fact, after people have spent decades working tirelessly to help trans people be visible and accepted. 

I don't particularly care  bout bud light and I think refusing to drink something just because they had a transgender person do an ad for them is silly, but your take is really uncharitable. For any person with more traditional/conservative views especially on social/gender stuff, it's obviously going to uncomfortable and weird to see someone flagrantly breaking those norms used as a spokesperson for what is sort of a mainstay beer of american culture. Western progressive types have a super weird thing where they're able to understand/empathize with people except when it matters, which is fucking dumb. Do you think people would be surprised if a company that made a popular traditional arabic beverage pulled the same marketing got backlash? Probably not, because people inherently understand that certain cultures have certain norms, and that you flaunt those norms at your own risk. If you want to argue that attacking the more traditional gender norms of conservative america like this as a marketing strategy is a good thing- you're free to think that. But don't pretend like this is just a neutral action- it's not. You're deliberately bringing something that you know breaks the normative bounds of a specific culture (and most cultures around the world, mind you). 

The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not you're willing to be tolerant and accepting of people with different cultural values than your own. Because that's ultimately what's at play here.

Edited May 7 by FlowJohnson

[Spanakopita]

One significant of the problem is that it’s Dylan Mulvaney.  Multiple XXs that I know are offended by Bud Light because that’s like saying to be a woman is to flit around like a preschool girl.  Caitlyn Jenner would have been a much less problematic transpokesperson in this respect

[Chawsee]

14 minutes ago, FlowJohnson said:

I don't particularly care  bout bud light and I think refusing to drink something just because they had a transgender person do an ad for them is silly, but your take is really uncharitable. For any person with more traditional/conservative views especially on social/gender stuff, it's obviously going to uncomfortable and weird to see someone flagrantly breaking those norms used as a spokesperson for what is sort of a mainstay beer of american culture. Western progressive types have a super weird thing where they're able to understand/empathize with people except when it matters, which is fucking dumb. Do you think people would be surprised if a company that made a popular traditional arabic beverage pulled the same marketing got backlash? Probably not, because people inherently understand that certain cultures have certain norms, and that you flaunt those norms at your own risk. If you want to argue that attacking the more traditional gender norms of conservative america like this as a marketing strategy is a good thing- you're free to think that. But don't pretend like this is just a neutral action- it's not. You're deliberately bringing something that you know breaks the normative bounds of a specific culture (and most cultures around the world, mind you). 

The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not you're willing to be tolerant and accepting of people with different cultural values than your own. Because that's ultimately what's at play here.

Kudos, FlowJohnson! Very well said. You made some points that no one else has.

[secretman]

It says a lot that "when empathy matters" is when right-wing conservatives are offended by seeing that transgender people exist, not empathizing with actual transgender people facing being kicked out of homes, fired from jobs, denied healthcare, physically beaten, murdered or any of the other innumerable acts of hate and discrimination they suffer on a daily basis.

It happens that I do empathize with cisgender people though - I am one.

Which is why I know how incredibly easy it is to simply not be bigoted towards people who are different than you. It takes zero effort at all, in fact. 

Yes, some people are used to the stuff they're used to being the norm, and even legally enforced on everyone whether those people like it or not. They can learn to put up with other kinds of people existing, like other kinds of people have had to do since time immemorial.

"Tolerance of bigots" is intolerance to the targets of bigotry. Tolerance is a social contract - when bigots don't abide by it, they aren't protected by it. If they want to be tolerated, they can stop being bigoted at any time. Meanwhile transgender people can't stop being transgender people no matter what kind of discrimination and hatred they face. 

Edited May 7 by secretman

[RossCaliban]

This particular culture war flashpoint baffles me. Bud Light, in a less-than-subtle attempt to court young drinkers, makes an online ad featuring an annoying social media celebrity (Mulvaney's trans? I'd assumed this person was a drag performer, my bad). I have this right? 

Perhaps it's been published, perhaps not, but there seems to be this rule that is followed when marketing to the under-25 crowd: "Gen Z will be loyal to your brand... if you echo their values". Considering that my generation still isn't known for its brand loyalty, that's got to be a boon for the advertisers - and yet, their efforts to gain new customers often seem to tick off their established ones.

[Spanakopita]

10 minutes ago, RossCaliban said:

makes an online ad featuring an annoying social media celebrity

This validates me.  Emphasis on the word annoying

[Lotsapappa]

AB is a good company and makes good to great products. It is not about comparing BL to other beers but the global consistency of their products. Sam Adams can’t be compared to BL. Not same thing although product are beer. 

Consistency is the key and AB makes consistent products globally. Which is hard.

 If AB decides to support LGBT great, but then support your employees involved in campaign and ride it out not bail when going gets tough. And understanding America as AB does, leadership still does not understand Social Media and Influencers. 

Almost all major beer manufacturers have advertised inclusively but quietly. Now the dots are connected.

@allisaK is right. Shareholder value and making money. 1 step forward then two steps back for AB.

But millions of individual Americans are not okay with people being put down for who they are. Lesson of the civil war. A small majority of Americans are due to self interest or hate, but that group is getting smaller has nowhere to hide. 
 

Watch Clint in Gran Torino. 

[brittygirl]

Mannnn this is just disappointing. So many people showing their true colors. @secretmanis right on the money— if this ad had been anything to do with the cis-crowd, this wouldn’t be a topic. It ain’t about the corporation. That’s very obvious. We all know companies will do whatever they want to make money. AB knew they’d take a hit with the conservative crowd on this one and did it anyway. But now I see, personally, who are not safe people to converse with on this site. 
 

We have trans members on SN. They see this too. 

[normalguy]

23 hours ago, Chawsee said:

I'm posting this in the debate section, to keep it corralled as a "touchy" topic. First, let me say that it's not my intention to offend. The fact is, this subject has brought me a lot of good talks with like-minded folks. It has been bonding, actually. But we all know that being "offended" is the new power trip these days, so if this gets deleted, that's okay.

Early this morning I was at the local coffee shop, chatting with a small group of truckers and heavy equipment operators. These blue-color hard workers, the kind of folks who make up a sizable percentage of Budwiser's customers, had a lot to say. We discussed Anheuser-Busch's marketing strategy and laughed until our sides hurt. Tonight I watched some Buddy Brown videos about it on YouTube. What a relief to see so many red-blooded Americans coming forward to show that they aren't ever going to sell out to this "agenda." 

Whether anyone here on SN stands up and agrees or not really doesn't matter. It's okay either way. Someone will likely read this and nod their approval. Feel free to shoot me a PM, if you like. Or just know that you're in good company. 😉

Yup.  These companies, usually one or a handful of people, go rogue and express their activism through perceived power.  Or, in short, they go woke.  Wokeness is destroying western civilization.  Companies should just do what they were created to do, sell good products to consumers.  I’m a capitalist but not a crony capitalist.  People are sick of it. 

[Chawsee]

47 minutes ago, brittygirl said:

Mannnn this is just disappointing. So many people showing their true colors.... Now I see, personally, who are not safe people to converse with on this site. 

Some of us were having this same discussion earlier tonight via PM threads. I don't think it has been disappointing at all-- in fact, quite the opposite. Viewpoints from both sides have been shared openly, and that has been enlightening. Naturally, people have different values, different reasons for feeling the way they do. That's human nature and something I expected from the outset. It's understandable that some folks will see opposing viewpoints like these as a disappointment. For others, though, it has been a "Eureka!" day. Some of us like to study and observe, and we really appreciate getting to see people's true colors. 

[RossCaliban]

7 hours ago, Spanakopita said:

This validates me.  Emphasis on the word annoying

Eh, a lot of things that people in their 20s like is seen as annoying by the older generation. So this has been, so it will be. The question that sticks with me is why this is seen as so threatening.

Anhauser-Busch is no more "woke" than Disney, but they're trying to market an existing product to a "young, gender-neutral, politically active" demographic. In the late 1990s, Bud Light was targeting the "twenty-something male edge lord" demo with their "Wasssup?" campaign, which was far more irritating than a grown-up theatre kid with a YouTube channel, but that wasn't seen as damaging the social order.

[Spanakopita]

4 hours ago, RossCaliban said:

In the late 1990s, Bud Light was targeting the "twenty-something male edge lord" demo with their "Wasssup?" campaign, which was far more irritating than a grown-up theatre kid with a YouTube channel, but that wasn't seen as damaging the social order.

In terms of sheer annoyingness, wasssap was clearly the lesser of two evils in my eyes

[DaChief]

5 hours ago, RossCaliban said:

Eh, a lot of things that people in their 20s like is seen as annoying by the older generation. So this has been, so it will be. The question that sticks with me is why this is seen as so threatening.

Anhauser-Busch is no more "woke" than Disney, but they're trying to market an existing product to a "young, gender-neutral, politically active" demographic. In the late 1990s, Bud Light was targeting the "twenty-something male edge lord" demo with their "Wasssup?" campaign, which was far more irritating than a grown-up theatre kid with a YouTube channel, but that wasn't seen as damaging the social order.

"Wassup" was annoying, but I'd argue those damn frogs were more annoying. I acknowledge that's a personal preference thing though. 

My deeper concern is if people truly understand the difference between "acceptance" and "exploitation." The whole reason my generation rejected OK Soda wasn't because of the soda, it was because Coc-Cola tried to gaslight us with the advertising campaign and we in turn told them not to blow smoke in our faces and tell us it's a rainbow. 

Bud Light put a transwoman in their ads. Great. Do they really accept the trans community, or are they just exploiting a transwoman? If it's acceptance, true acceptance, then that's wonderful because it builds a bridge to a better future. But if it's exploitation, then AB can potentially do more damage to the trans community in the long run. 

[normalguy]

35 minutes ago, DaChief said:

"Wassup" was annoying, but I'd argue those damn frogs were more annoying. I acknowledge that's a personal preference thing though. 

My deeper concern is if people truly understand the difference between "acceptance" and "exploitation." The whole reason my generation rejected OK Soda wasn't because of the soda, it was because Coc-Cola tried to gaslight us with the advertising campaign and we in turn told them not to blow smoke in our faces and tell us it's a rainbow. 

Bud Light put a transwoman in their ads. Great. Do they really accept the trans community, or are they just exploiting a transwoman? If it's acceptance, true acceptance, then that's wonderful because it builds a bridge to a better future. But if it's exploitation, then AB can potentially do more damage to the trans community in the long run. 

I forgot about the frogs. Ha thanks for reminding me. 😝

[Spanakopita]

2 hours ago, DaChief said:

"Wassup" was annoying, but I'd argue those damn frogs were more annoying. I acknowledge that's a personal preference thing though. 

Admittedly, it is infinitely arguable.

 

2 hours ago, DaChief said:

My deeper concern is if people truly understand the difference between "acceptance" and "exploitation."

The world may never know.  I’m tapped out on this one.  Props to Ms. Chawsee for getting a successful thread going

Edited May 7 by Spanakopita
World not word

[FlowJohnson]

17 hours ago, secretman said:

It says a lot that "when empathy matters" is when right-wing conservatives are offended by seeing that transgender people exist, not empathizing with actual transgender people facing being kicked out of homes, fired from jobs, denied healthcare, physically beaten, murdered or any of the other innumerable acts of hate and discrimination they suffer on a daily basis.

It happens that I do empathize with cisgender people though - I am one.

Which is why I know how incredibly easy it is to simply not be bigoted towards people who are different than you. It takes zero effort at all, in fact. 

Yes, some people are used to the stuff they're used to being the norm, and even legally enforced on everyone whether those people like it or not. They can learn to put up with other kinds of people existing, like other kinds of people have had to do since time immemorial.

"Tolerance of bigots" is intolerance to the targets of bigotry. Tolerance is a social contract - when bigots don't abide by it, they aren't protected by it. If they want to be tolerated, they can stop being bigoted at any time. Meanwhile transgender people can't stop being transgender people no matter what kind of discrimination and hatred they face. 

Guess what? Just as people were "born" transgender by no fault of their own, nobody actively chose to develop/grow up with conservative or traditional values. The principle of having empathy even for people whose actions and beliefs we might find uncomfortable does extend to conservatives. It extends to everyone (so long as they aren't actually physically causing harm) 

So once again- you have to actually figure out what your real principles are. Is empathy and understanding of people who are different than us important? If it is, then find some empathy and understanding in your heart who have conservative/traditional cultural values. If you can't do that, then you are actually no different from the bigots you rail against.

[brittygirl]

3 minutes ago, FlowJohnson said:

Guess what? Just as people were "born" transgender by no fault of their own, nobody actively chose to develop/grow up with conservative or traditional values. The principle of having empathy even for people whose actions and beliefs we might find uncomfortable does extend to conservatives. It extends to everyone (so long as they aren't actually physically causing harm) 

So once again- you have to actually figure out what your real principles are. Is empathy and understanding of people who are different than us important? If it is, then find some empathy and understanding in your heart who have conservative/traditional cultural values. If you can't do that, then you are actually no different from the bigots you rail against.

Nah. You choose to be conservative. You don’t choose to be LBGT. 🙃