It’s not a boycott. It’s a perception change.
Young men don’t want to drink what they see as a ‘Trans’ beer. They are afraid people might question their sexuality. So, they drink ‘Straight’ beer instead.
It has been given the moniker: QUEER BEER.......................and it stuck..................
Would agree that it’s not a boycott— a boycott implies that the customers will or might return once some certain change is made. That’s not going to happen here. They broke the trust of their customers, and then pathetically attempted to rebrand themselves to bring them back (the camo cans, western themed ads, etc.) rather than openly fire the woman responsible for the debacle and apologize. This latter approach, though, would have been tough because a.) it wasn’t just the one nut job who thought it was a good idea, and b.) they would ‘alienate’ another segment of the population. They calculated, and decided to keep the whack-jobs (a term all -too appropriate for the trans ‘movement’ people) in their market.
As someone else noted, it's a "repudiation"
Along with Bud Light, Anheuser-Busch stock should swirl down the toilet.
I don't think so....Real men that drink beer are disgusted to be associated with queers or what they attempt to represent.
Yes, that is a major factor for sure and does not bode well for the long-term success of the brand. It will likely never recover from this. Boycott or no boycott, most young men don't want to be seen drinking Bud Light any more than a man wants to be seen smoking a Virginia Slim cigarette.
While a cigarette is a cigarette, you will never see a man smoking a Virginia Slim because the product is associated with women and elegant femininity. Yet the product survives because half the population is made up of women.
Problem with Bud Light is most women don't drink beer.