Posts
Two things hit me over and over with Bud Light's chosen brand representative.
The first is they managed to expand their market to new beer consumers many times without offending their core demographic.
The second is when courting a new demographic you have to be certain that it will increase business.
I suspect it's willful ignorance that led to what's going on.
But they did it in the manner which would most offend the people who were literally their core market.
Now they have to figure out how to keep the lights on without it.
I doubt that the trans community is going to step up and buy that much beer.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletethe people like her, they don't care what you think...they are going to push their agenda down your throat...it's a movement and they could care 2 shits what you think...they have to stick to the agenda as long as they have pudding brains in office...seriously, they are going for broke...if bud fires her, she will get a job for some other libtard progressive company doing exactly the same thing...panzer guy
ReplyDeleteThis is not the first time the "bright young things" in marketing did something for clout on Twitter that pissed off the people who actually bought the product, it won't be the last unless the marketers find themselves "learning to code"
ReplyDeleteThey listened to the wrong people. This might be as bad for Bud as "New Coke" was for Coca-Cola.
ReplyDeleteThe "New Coke" thing actually worked in their favor in the long run... it generated huge publicity... and even bad publicity is good publicity. It also generated a huge demand for "Original" Coke when they "brought it back"... But what not a whole lot of people know or remember is what the real reason for "New Coke" was... switching from real sugar to high fructose corn syrup, which is cheap and government subsidized. Pepsi and most of their other competitors had switched years ago. Code was at a competitive disadvantage because beet or cane sugar is more expensive. Coke's testing was just switching sweeteners people could tell the difference and didn't like it. Mostly mouth feel and other factors. So they had to get all the "old Coke" out of the system so people wouldn't be able to compare it to the new formulation side by side... Once they had that they could introduce the "Original" with corn syrup and most people weren't the wiser... it was better than "New Coke" and that was enough.
DeleteHowever... back on topic... AB isn't changing formulas for Bud Light or anything but marketing here... So no ulterior motive that I know of to explain this lunacy like the Coke example...
But you know just about ever ad on TV these days is pandering to every supposedly "marginalized" group. So AB and their ad agencies are just trying to play the game today I suppose. If you watch TV these days you'd think that the US was 60% black, and 90% of couples under 40 were inter-racial or LGBT-whatever. Instead of reality where the US is about 12-14% black and multi-racial couples are a smaller portion than that. The hyper-woke are trying to force it down everyone's throat and so many companies are trying to be more-woke-than-thou.
For a company that used to be known for really great marketing (more than product really), this whole thing really seems like someone dropped the ball. There is a way they could court the LGBT-whatever market without offending their traditional core markets.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing it seems dangerous to try something potential controversial with one of your flagship brands. Bud Light has been the core of their product volume for a long time. It would have been less risky to push into new markets with some other brand like Ultra or maybe Natural Light, which already appeal to fru-fru and hipster markets that are more likely to be receptive to this kind of push.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete