I was at a bar last week on Thursday. My wife said I’ll take a coors and said - at least it’s not bud light and I said yeah, bummer about a lot of beers now. The bartender stated it really didn’t matter because everything on tap was either owned or distributed by AB inbev. He claimed to work for AB inbev as his main job and stated the controversy is kind of silly because most people don’t realize how big AB inbev is and their global reach (9/10 beers are owned by or at a bare minimum distriburted by AB inbev). On top of that there were other social media influencers that also got promo cans like post malone and numerous other celebs as there was a run of 40 cans made with people’s faces on them and sent as a way to market / outreach to all of these “influencers’” followers.
Bottom line, this was bad timing/decision making on the mulvaney can, but what about all the others you haven’t heard about or seen?
I don’t like bud light, and a boycott to trash a brand that offends is as legit as any other, but in the end AB inbev has plenty of market share to weather this and many other storms and people are likely unwittingly still buying many products that AB inbev is making bank on.
I suppose people could go to local microbreweries and get their beer, but that really isn’t practical for a good deal of people either.
I don’t intentionally drink AB stuff, but I did not know that coors was also distributed by their parent company.
Yeah, but if no one buys Bud Light ever again, they’ll thankfully stop making it. Inbev isn’t going out of business.
“I did not know that coors was also distributed by their parent company”
Molson Coors is Coors parent company.
No one runs a business with the intention of having sales drop 26% (so far). No one builds a successful brand name only to trash it and be forced to create a whole new one to replace it.
As other posters have pointed out, they're seeing an increase in Stella Artois ads because InBev hopes an increase in Stella sales can offset at least some of the lost sales of Bud Light. The finance folks at InBev had to go out, hire an agency, create ads, and run them, all because InBev marketers damaged their own brand.
This is not a boycott; it's a change in behavior. The comparison is not to other boycotts but to an initially successful product that disappeared due to a change in public perception. A good example is another alcoholic drink; Zima.
https://www.mashed.com/197573/the-untold-truth-of-zima/
“I don’t intentionally drink AB stuff, but I did not know that coors was also distributed by their parent company.”
bartender HAD to be lying if he claimed he actually worked for ABI ... probably lying about everything they had on tap was ABI brands ... guaranteed to be lying about the distribution of coors too:
“The U.S. has a three-tier distribution system in which brewers must sell beer to distributors who then sell it to retailers. The bulk of the nation’s beer distribution is handled by distributors with agreements to sell either AB InBev or MillerCoors beers, according to the National Beer Wholesalers Association.”
probably ought to find another bar where the bartender isn’t a flagrant liar ...