It's been a busy time for lager lovers and trans identified influencer Dylan Mulvaney ever since the Bud Light sponsorship caused a backlash. While music stars like Kid Rock and Travis Tritt swore off the brand and banned it from their tour buses and bars, lesser known bars joined in. Countless articles were written about it, here are just a few, about the distributers being "spooked" by the decline in sales, about the $5 billion loss in stock value, and Forbes brought this opinion piece: Why Does The Bud Light Backlash Feel So Desperate?
While Bud Light was initially silent after the controversy ensued, the CEO Brendan Whitworth has now issued a statement addressing the issue.
As the CEO of a company founded in America’s heartland more than 165 years ago, I am responsible for ensuring every consumer feels proud of the beer we brew.
We’re honored to be part of the fabric of this country. Anheuser-Busch employs more than 18,000 people and our independent distributors employ an additional 47,000 valued colleagues. We have thousands of partners, millions of fans and a proud history supporting our communities, military, first responders, sports fans and hard-working Americans everywhere.
We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people. We are in the business of bringing people together over a beer.
My time serving this country taught me the importance of accountability and the values upon which America was founded: freedom, hard work and respect for one another. As CEO of Anheuser-Busch, I am focused on building and protecting our remarkable history and heritage.
I care deeply about this country, this company, our brands and our partners. I spend much of my time traveling across America, listening to and learning from our customers, distributors and others.
Moving forward, I will continue to work tirelessly to bring great beers to consumers across our nation.
So, in short, nothing had really changed. "Listening and learning" seems a bit late now, as the core market clearly revolted to this choice of spokesperson, wouldn't that have been the top priority of the planners and strategists already, to figure out the core consumer and what they like? With shareholders and distributers losing real money over this, the statement seems quite tame as it doesn't address at all how Bud Light, or Anheuser-Busch, will come back from this.
Adland® is a commercial-laden heaven and hell for advertising addicts around the world.
This advertising publication was founded in 1996, built on beer and bravery, Adland® now boasts the largest super bowl commercials collection in the world.
Adland® survives on your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi. Adland® works best in Brave browser
This statement says N O T H I N G at all. So many words, but nothing about preventing this from happening again, about who is responsible, or even addressing the vconcerns of shareholders.
SELL ALL OF YOUR STOCK, NOW.
- reply
PermalinkThey headlines it "Our Responsibility To America" and literally said zero about their responsibility to shareholders in America. What the mealy-mouthed fuck?
- reply
PermalinkTheir responsibility would be to keep shareholders rich and workers employed. With all the boycotts they have affected both negatively.
- reply
PermalinkTranslation: "we see nothing divisive in being proponents of an ideology that is erasing womanhood and women’s spaces."
- reply
PermalinkWas it simply a lack of consideration for the disrespectfulness of having a highly stereotypical gay man referring to himself as a "girl", both towards women and Bud Light's primary consumer base?
- reply
PermalinkThis isn't an apology, it isn't even an attempt of sorting out what went wrong, they're just hoping to kumbaya their way out of any responsibility here.
- reply
PermalinkAds are supposed to sell products, not prompt a massive public backlash that results in billions in losses. This mistake could be for the ages, marking a distinct departure from corporate deference to wackadoodle ideas from the academy and a push for more connection to on-the-ground realities.
The boycotts of Bud Light are but a beginning.
- reply
PermalinkVacuous claptrap. If they didn't want to stir the pot, why chose a controversial influencer?
- reply
PermalinkThey decided to do advocacy instead of shill their swill, they reap what they sowed.
- reply
PermalinkBud light's brand manager opening their emails after the weekend to find they upset soccer moms, hardcore feminists, the gay community and every red blooded male in the deep red states in one fell swoop. Kind of impressive, really.
- reply
PermalinkTypical non-apology that doesn't directly acknowledge the issue at hand.
- reply
Permalink"We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people. We are in the business of bringing people together over a beer."
If you didn't know what the result was going to be, you're really not qualified to helm a brand.
- reply
PermalinkGoing to voice what seems to be a minority perspective in this comment thread.
On the primary point, I fully agree this statement SUCKED. It's meaningless word salad.
Where I'll differ is in my disappointment that they didn't stand by their choice. This isn't something "new" for Bud Light. They just so happened to align with a hot button figure at a hot button moment. Their lack of conviction runs counter to the spirit of "bringing people together" that was core to their message in 2016 with the Bud Light Party spot "Labels" where they explicitly said "men, women, and people of all gender identities," despite explicit representation (perhaps that lack of actual representation is why that resulted in little outrage then by my recollection). This spirit is hardly unique to Bud Light. Heineken invoked the same in 2017 with "Open Your World."
Bud Light is a low-carb staple at gay bars and a persistent sponsor at pride events. The CEO's flakey statement now makes this hyper-focused activation reek only of failed tokenism and performative allyship.
What hurts most is that the outrage isn't even just about their choice in Dylan Mulvaney. It isn't about the merits of said individual (and that's not anything I can speak to, not being a TikToker). No, the outrage is without nuance. It's clear that no trans rep (masc or femme) would be deemed palatable.
Trans women are a popular political punching bag these days. To quote another commenter they represent "an ideology that is erasing womanhood and women’s spaces." That's an easy stance to take when you minimize trans issues to transwomanhood. But the same is not being said of trans men and elimination of men's spaces. This minimization also erases the existence of intersex people, whose sheer existence underscores the complexity of the issues at hand because being intersex isn't limited to physical attributes—and yet the world averts their eyes to the history of surgical sterilization and medical interference of outwardly intersex infants to force fit them into their parents' preferred side of an over-simplistic coin all before they've had the chance to grow as a person and discover how they fit authentically into the world, because it's not actually about biology, it's about enforcing a social order.
I see the antagonism directed at trans femme folks. I see the clumsy, reactionary political machinations sweeping cis women into the line of fire for not being femme enough for superficial purity tests. I see drag queens being swept up in anti-trans surrogacy (which also conveniently ignores the existence of drag kings, drag creatures, and participation of cis-straight performers in the theatrical craft).
As a cis gay man, I can't stand by and not challenge the indelicate nature of the discussion at large and how disheartening it is to see the angry echo in response to a sign of outreach or support to a marginalized demographic or social class as though it is a threat to the comfort of people whose anger over who occupies the neighboring public porcelain throne would be better directed at the power structures that are all too grateful for the distraction over the collusive socio-economic exploitation of the populace at large.
I don't delude myself to changing anyone's view on the matter, but I do hope in offering this, I've provided more for all to chew on as we work through this abject failure of a corporate response within its larger context.
- reply
PermalinkYou hit the nail on the head here, Evan. This is one big distraction. And therein lies the problem with ESG in general. In my opinion it's nothing more than the corporate world at its most cynical. i don't personally know any trans (femme or masculine) well enough to ask but I would be curious if everyday folks look at this and find this empowering or pandering.
- reply
Permalink