Budweiser hires trans spokesperson and the right loses their mind

[West]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

Actually it is and for some reason it makes you fearful. The only constant in this world is change.

I'm not fearful as I know this wierdo shit isn't going to be accepted. 

[CdnFox]

47 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Bit this is marketing its mot about “the most qualified” it’s about appealing to different market demographics

No, it's about selling beer.  IF the person is there because they'll sell beer then great.    If they're there because someone is making a political statement then people tend to get pissed. They don't want to have to deal with politics in EVERY aspect of their lives.

47 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

What if they deliberately hired someone from Texas BECAUSE they were from Texas where they are trying to grow their brand?

Is coming from texas a political statement? Probably not.

47 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

What if they deliberately hired someone under 35 (or over 50) BECAUSE they are in the age demographic where they were trying to grow their brand?

Is being young a political statement? Probably not.

47 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

What if they deliberately hired someone from a professional sports league BECAUSE their fans are in a market segment where they are trying to grow their brand?

Is being a professional sports player a political statement? Probably not.

Now - what if they hired a sports player who recently went public with his support for nazi's. And was a big nazi fan.  And bud noted that they were just hiring him to be inclusive.  You think there'd be a bit of a backlash possibly? You see the difference?

47 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Conservatives wouldn’t bat an eye at any of  those, they understand thats how marketing works:  identify consumer market segments and attempt to exploit them .

Sure - and each of those were only about the market segment.  But - this was about a political statement to look 'woke' and it was pointed at people OUTSIDE the target market specifically for that purpose. So guess what.

47 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

But anything  ... (rant snipped).

Blah blah blah blah leftie bullshit leftie bullshit whine whine... yeah whatever. Lie to yourself if you like.  I doubt bud will be anymore.

When you try to make simple non political things about politics,  ESPECIALLY identity politics, then you stand a very good chance at facing a backlash. 

And the damage done is too much for it to be some hard core conservatives only - you can bet a lot of centrists and even left of center types decided they had enough. NOBODY likes it.  It was a DUMB move which cost them billions and they will certainly learn - get woke go broke. 

Keep politics out of it, and sell beer. It's pretty simple

 

[West]

My Saturday ritual is to normally crush a 12 pack of budweiser. Today I went with Coors

Edited April 16, 2023 by West

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, West said:

It's a matter of them not knowing their target audience. These trans liberal types are wine drinkers or those fruity drinks. You know what sissys drink

So now the new story is you’re outraged and boycotting them because they tried to market their product to a new audience and think it might not catch on?

LMAO Let the lame excuses continue 

[BeaverFever]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

it's about selling beer.  IF the person is there because they'll sell beer then great.    If they're there because someone is making a political statement then people tend to get pissed. They don't want to have to deal with politics in EVERY aspect of their lives.

Is it a political statement though?  Or is the right just making it political?

The problem with your argument is that it suggests banning and blacklisting trans people is  normal and non-political but the opposite is political  

 Would it have been a political statement if a business owner never had a ‘whites only’ policy during the Jim Crow era?

Edited April 16, 2023 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

So now the new story is you’re outraged and boycotting them because they tried to market their product to a new audience and think it might not catch on?

LMAO Let the lame excuses continue 

I dont' think they did though did they.

Do you have some evidence that the point of this was to get trans people drinking bud light? Kinda sounds like you're just making that up. In which case that would make you the one with the lame excuses. 

Bud and bud light have sponsored tonnes of gay and lesbian and lgbq things in the past but people are just fed up with having their noses rubbed into things like transgenderism and now there's a backlash.

Oh - and for the record - she admitted she doesn't drink beer. Likes one of those previously mentioned fruity drinks.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Is it a political statement though?  Or is the right just making it political?

It was absolutely a political type statement. She's a well known influencer who just did her year of 'transitioning' and they had her pose with the beer and drinking specifically to celebrate her one year anniversary of 'girlhood' and posted it everywhere basically saying 'look how woke we are'.

So of course it's going to be political. She was selected specifically because she's transgender to show how friendly bud is to that community in a very public way.

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

The problem with your argument is that it suggests banning and blacklisting trans people is  normal and non-political but the opposite is political  

Well make up your mind - you can't have it both ways.  And no- my argument suggests no such thing. My argument isn't that it's non political, it's that they're fed up of politics especially identity politics being thrust on them everywhere they turn. People are fed up.

 

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 Would it have been a political statement if a business owner never had a ‘whites only’ policy during the Jim Crape era?

The who era?  Did you mean Jim Crow? And frankly the rest of the sentance doesn't make sense either way, i have no idea what you're asking me there?

[reason10]

Boys and girls, today's ass fcked pop culture took a REAL BLACK WOMAN off a syrup bottle and put a FAKE WOMAN on a beer can.

[reason10]

[OftenWrong]

19 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Sure it is, but the fact remains it still lost 6 bil, and I'm sure they are discussing the future add campaigns, and who it features, and maybe they stick with their spokesperson for the long run... one has to ask just how big this trans market is, and how much are they willing to risk by chasing it.  6 bil dollars thats a lot of beer, can the trans community make that up. 

It's because they want to market to young people, so are just jumping on the latest fad among youth. Of course they don't give a rat about trannies. What do they have to do with beer anyway.

[BeaverFever]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I dont' think they did though did they.

Do you have some evidence that the point of this was to get trans people drinking bud light? Kinda sounds like you're just making that up. In which case that would make you the one with the lame excuses. 

Bud and bud light have sponsored tonnes of gay and lesbian and lgbq things in the past but people are just fed up with having their noses rubbed into things like transgenderism and now there's a backlash.

Oh - and for the record - she admitted she doesn't drink beer. Likes one of those previously mentioned fruity drinks.

You’re asking me if I have any evidence that the purpose of their advertising to a certain group was to advertise to a certain group?  While you suggest without evidence that they had some other purpose? The purpose of advertising is to create a positive brand impression amongst a targeted community which will lead to sales. 
 

Your nose isn’t being rubbed in anything. How is this brand attempting to make inroads in this community rubbing your nose in anything? It’s such a ridiculous claim on so many levels.  As I said you never would have even heard of this deal if conservatives hadn’t tried to gin up a controversy over it  You don’t follow trans social media do you?

 

Advertising your product to people who don’t already consume it is a standard marketing practice to grow the customer base.  Companies don’t just steal their competitor’s customers they cultivate completely new customers amd grow the market. Thats high school marketing 101 so the claim that trans people don’t drink beer is a dumb argument. 

Edited April 16, 2023 by BeaverFever

[Michael Hardner]

I have the perfect solution for this very very critical problem of how life can continue with a trans woman drinking a Budweiser.

 

I mean we have to find a way forward because our entire collective sense of who we are will simply end if we don't.

 

Budweiser needs to create two new brands: Budweiser Heartland, and Budweiser Fabulous marketed to different groups.

 

The beer will be identical.

[BeaverFever]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It was absolutely a political type statement. She's a well known influencer who just did her year of 'transitioning' and they had her pose with the beer and drinking specifically to celebrate her one year anniversary of 'girlhood' and posted it everywhere basically saying 'look how woke we are'.

So of course it's going to be political. She was selected specifically because she's transgender to show how friendly bud is to that community in a very public way.

Well make up your mind - you can't have it both ways.  And no- my argument suggests no such thing. My argument isn't that it's non political, it's that they're fed up of politics especially identity politics being thrust on them everywhere they turn. People are fed up.

 

The who era?  Did you mean Jim Crow? And frankly the rest of the sentance doesn't make sense either way, i have no idea what you're asking me there?

Typo. Jim Crow. Basically the anti-trans crowd wants trans people to be treated like Blacks during Jim Crow.  And the arguments made by the anti-trans group are the same that’s segregationists made back then, including the suggestion that fighting to maintain JimCrow is not political whereas people who don’t segregate are political “How dare you not have a whites only sign don’t you know how insulting that is to me? You’re trying to be political!”

 

And so they want everyone to basically have a blanket ban on working with trans people otherwise they will attack them for being political.  But of course forcing companies have an unofficial trans-ban to avoid political controversy is itself political. 

[sharkman]

3 hours ago, reason10 said:

Boys and girls, today's ass fcked pop culture took a REAL BLACK WOMAN off a syrup bottle and put a FAKE WOMAN on a beer can.

The pancake mix, I ate that my whole life(whenever I ate pancakes).  I swear they changed the recipe when they changed the brand name.  I haven’t bought it since.

You can tell who the brainwashed people are in this thread by their response to these woke issues.  It’s probably 2/3 of the general population.

Will anything wake them up?  Because we are headed for 15 minute cities and a cashless economy.  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

You’re asking me if I have any evidence that the purpose of their advertising to a certain group was to advertise to a certain group? 

No, i'm asking if you have any evidence that their intended target market was to get trans people to drink their product. As it turns out most of this 'influencers' audience isnt' trans. Nor was this published in any trans magazines or the like.

So when YOU Make a  claim that the target was to get more trans people to drink their beer, where's your evidence? In fact the evidence seems to indicate they were virtue signalling to people who approve of the Letter People, not the trans community itself.

And the fact you deliberately chose to 'misunderstand' my question pretty much tells me you don't.

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Your nose isn’t being rubbed in anything. How is this brand attempting to make inroads in this community rubbing your nose in anything?

When you do something for political reasons rather than product reasons, you're rubbing people's nose in the politics. And people don't like that. I've got about 6 billion bits of evidence for ya to prove that

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

 

It’s such a ridiculous claim on so many levels.  As I said you never would have even heard of this deal if conservatives hadn’t tried to gin up a controversy over it  You don’t follow trans social media do you?

So you know i'm right and cant' articulate a response, so you're just going to have a hissy fit. Noted.

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Advertising your product to people who don’t already consume it is a standard marketing practice to grow the customer base.  

But they didn't. As i noted this was not published in any trans mags, the influencer's followers are almost entirely non trans, the target is people who were not trans at all but who approve politically of that group.

So it's political.  And turning beer into a political issue cost them 6 billion dollars and counting.

Get woke go broke.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I have the perfect solution for this very very critical problem of how life can continue with a trans woman drinking a Budweiser.

 

I mean we have to find a way forward because our entire collective sense of who we are will simply end if we don't.

 

Budweiser needs to create two new brands: Budweiser Heartland, and Budweiser Fabulous marketed to different groups.

 

The beer will be identical.

You trivialize how this strikes at the very heart of our culture.

To paraphrase PET, "Canadians are satisfied with just a few basic things. A hockey game, a bottle of beer."

[CrakHoBarbie]

11 hours ago, West said:

It's a matter of them not knowing their target audience. These trans liberal types are wine drinkers or those fruity drinks. You know what sissys drink

This is choice.

You're contending that InBev, the World's largest beer supplier, are inept at marketing?

As I already posted, this was a tiny blip for InBev as is evident by the fact that their stock has already recovered and Ms. Mulvaney is still a spokesperson for InBev.

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/bud

[CrakHoBarbie]

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

Get woke go broke.

InBev is wide awake.

And their stock is doing great.

Snooze you lose.

[BeaverFever]

GOP Quietly Backs Off Attacking Bud Light—Its Own Major Donor

 

The decision to reverse course is almost certainly a reaction to the reality that the parent company behind Bud Light is a major donor to the group—and comes after Donald Trump Jr. urged an end to a boycott of the “conservative-leaning” beer. In the 2022 cycle alone, Anheuser-Busch and its employees gave the NRCC $464,505.

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2023 by BeaverFever

[Hodad]

Personally, I think this whole story is silly. A case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

To believe it deliberate is to imagine, implausibly, that people care enough about a sponsored social media post from a little-known trans influencer is enough to get people to change their beer of choice or their investment strategy in a blue chip company. 

Are bud light drinkers so transphobic that this sponsorship will induce then to switch beers? Not at scale.

Are InBev investors so transphobic that they will dump stock over a post - or do they believe Bud Light drinkers are so transphobic that they will switch brands over this? Not at scale.

No this is just a stock blip that is being politicized by the transphobic culture warriors.

 

[BeaverFever]

Donald Trump Jr. Urges Right-Wingers to End Boycott of ‘Conservative-Leaning’ Bud Light

 

During Thursday’s broadcast of his Triggered podcast, Trump pointed out that despite conservatives’ complaints that Anheuser-Busch had “gone woke,” the conglomerate actually donated more money to Republican candidates than Democrats in recent election cycles.

“That’s literally unheard of in corporate America, where it’s really easy to go woke, where they do so constantly, where there’s a consequence of actually being a conservative,” he exclaimed. “So 60-40 to the conservative side is kind of a big deal.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-jr-urges-right-wingers-to-end-boycott-of-conservative-leaning-bud-light
 

 

OBEY YOUR MASTER

[CdnFox]

54 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

InBev is wide awake.

And their stock is doing great.

What? No it isn't, it totally tanked. It cost them about 6 billion dollars

54 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Snooze you lose.

Looks like they'd have won a hell of a lot more staying asleep to me

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

You trivialize how this strikes at the very heart of our culture.

To paraphrase PET, "Canadians are satisfied with just a few basic things. A hockey game, a bottle of beer."

It's not our culture it's America's.

 

And it's not even their culture, it's the hostile takeover of culture by corporate brands via advertising.

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Donald Trump Jr. Urges Right-Wingers to End Boycott of ‘Conservative-Leaning’ Bud Light

 

During Thursday’s broadcast of his Triggered podcast, Trump pointed out that despite conservatives’ complaints that Anheuser-Busch had “gone woke,” the conglomerate actually donated more money to Republican candidates than Democrats in recent election cycles.

“That’s literally unheard of in corporate America, where it’s really easy to go woke, where they do so constantly, where there’s a consequence of actually being a conservative,” he exclaimed. “So 60-40 to the conservative side is kind of a big deal.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-jr-urges-right-wingers-to-end-boycott-of-conservative-leaning-bud-light
 

 

OBEY YOUR MASTER

Honestly i don' t think it's the fact that they "went woke".  Bud has supported LGBT groups many times in the past and as i somewhat jokingly noted 'spuds mckenzie' was a girl.

I think the public is sick of woke and woke politics and this was seen as being a very in your face woke political move and people have snapped, and their annoyance is being taken out on bud.

As i noted, the reaction and affect on their stock is too big for just a hadful of conservative die hards.  I think it crosses the spectrum a fair bit and EVERYONE except the far left is just done with it.  It was fine when trans did their thing and bios did their thing and everyone accepted each other but now people have to live with daily does of trans in the news, trans demanding this or that. trans shooting up churches, trans in their kids schools with unreasonable bra sizes, trans wanting to "educate" their children during "Story Time", and now they can't even just sit back and have a beer without dealing with Trans drama.

I don't think most of these people care about trans people one way or another - they're just sick of hearing about it.

[Aristides]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What? No it isn't, it totally tanked. It cost them about 6 billion dollars

Looks like they'd have won a hell of a lot more staying asleep to me

It's a stock price. Doesn't cost a thing unless you are selling it. It has already recovered about half that loss.