A-B responds to Bud Light controversy: ‘One single can’ sent to one influencer

St Louis Post Dispatch ^ | May 3, 2023 | Daniel Neman

[DoodleBob]

In reality, the Bud Light can posted by a social media influencer that sparked all the conversation was provided by an outside agency without Anheuser-Busch management awareness or approval,

Can they get their spin straight, please?

First, they wanted to dispense with the fratty image, and make it more inclusive.

Then they went radio silent for a week.

Then they supported the former marketing head.

Then these heads took a leave of absence.

Then the Clydesdales came back out of retirement in a commercial.

Then their US head sent a non-apology apology letter to the world.

Now it was the fault of an outside agency.

All that's missing now, is the Obama-like "I knew nothing until I saw it in CNN."

[blackdog]

Budweiser was just the single spark in a room full of gasoline soaked rags. Their willingness to please a government of stupid ideas out of an echo chamber just met reality of us “Walmart Stinking Public” (-Peter Strozk)

[Mariner]

It’s our fault we’re offended and outraged.

We are defective. /s

[Reno89519]

One can too many. Sorry, you’ll have to do better. Maybe fire everyone involved, disavow teaming with the mentally ill man pretending to be a women, maybe suggest helping him get mental health treatment or institutionalization?

[joshua c]

well said

i think this boycott has legs

cuz there are so many other choices and

cuz people are just FED UP!

they are saying enough

[CodeToad]

It was obviously an important, a very important can, to produce.

[RinaseaofDs]

1. Shouldn’t have made the can.
2. Shouldn’t have sent the can to the mentally unbalanced man who dresses like a woman.
3. Should have fully apologized and fired everyone from the CEO down through the CMO to the EVP of Marketing down to the VP of Bud Light.
4. Should have announced a new CEO.
5. New CEO should come out and say, “These people were taken out back and run over by a team of Clydsdales. We’re very sorry. Here’s a code for a free sixer of Bud Light on us. Stupid happens everywhere. Even here. We’ll do better next time.”

[Morgana]

It’s too late to apologize.

Once you lose a customer in this business they are gone. They will stay with a new beer company and never go back. The image of Dylan is burned in their heads ever time they look at a Bud Light. I never drank it and I can’t look at it with out seeing his ugly face.

[blackdog]

Their behavior tells me the taxpayer is going to be on the hook for their regulatory compliance caused losses.

Mark my words. The federal government will be backing their losses.

[Morgana]

Is that what happens should they file for bankrupsy?

[Dilbert San Diego]

If all this is true, why did it take over a month for the company to “set the record straight” so to speak?

if there is such a simple explanation for all of this, why didn’t they come out with this on day one of the controversy????

[Hambone 1934]

But they all enjoyed the great omelette later on.....

[FamiliarFace]

Hubby keyed in on this:

*** “In reality, the Bud Light can posted by a social media influencer that sparked all the conversation was provided by an outside agency without Anheuser-Busch management awareness or approval,” Grey Eagle continued in its letter.***

He said THIS is a total fabrication. That’s not how corporate decisions are made.

[lepton]

And that Marketting VP said some pretty obnoxious stuff as well.

[VMI70]

Looks like AHB, once again, overlooked the First Rule of Holes.

[joshua c]

it was estimated to be 50-75k

[lepton]

The can was a prop for a promotion.

[dangus]

So Anheuser Busch hired a bunch of Republican politicians’ advisors to tell them how to fix this PR debacle, and now they’re trying to gaslight us into believing that they never approved the ad. ... but we all saw the VP of the Bud Light brand thank he army of woke politicos for their “victory” in putting woke ideology above profits.

Quit lying, Anheuser Busch! Just shut up and quit lying.

[blackdog]

They have a great argument that they were harmed by SEC required regulatory requirements compliance. They really do. The first thing any company does is argue along with their political lobbyists to recover their compliance losses through legislation or favorable consideration in the tax code. AKA Taxpayer foots the bill.

[L,TOWM]

Yes.

I might not be around to see it, but the Chicoms and muzzies that will be running this place in another 3-0 years WILL stomp on this foolishness (HARD). And yeah, Stanford Biz School will be offering this up as a lesson in marketing failures (up there with the Chevy “Nova” in South America and Spain [Would you buy a car called ‘doesn’t go’?])

Only real good thing about the commies and muzzies — they don’t “celebrate” mental illness, “see me” drama, or changing around what millions do to accommodate hundreds. Of course, if we still had any sane definition of “RIGHTS”, we would not either.