Is Budweiser Looking to Destroy their market During the Super Bowl

[AAAintheBeltway]

The audi ad is not so much political as just stupid. It sets up a strawman that there is rampant discrimination against women in the US and by golly, audi is against it. Maybe if they ran the ad in Saudi Arabia, it would make sense. Here, no. There has never been a better place to be a woman in the history of the world than present-day United States.

I will note that the ill-fated Bud Light ads with that cow Amy Schumer made the same pitch. Those ads were far more in your face however, and used abrasive, polarizing actors. Audi is just pandering to women and their beta male companions.

Now this is a car ad. It attempts to hit a chord with their target audience, older guys trying to recapture their youth. You don't generally associate M-Bs with outlaw bikers. Clearly they are trying to add some edge to the AMG edition.

 

[Tsing Tao]

The audi ad is not so much political as just stupid. It sets up a strawman that there is rampant discrimination against women in the US and by golly, audi is against it. Maybe if they ran the ad in Saudi Arabia, it would make sense. Here, no. There has never been a better place to be a woman in the history of the world than present-day United States.

I will note that the ill-fated Bud Light ads with that cow Amy Schumer made the same pitch. Those ads were far more in your face however, and used abrasive, polarizing actors. Audi is just pandering to women and their beta male companions.

Now this is a car ad. It attempts to hit a chord with their target audience, older guys trying to recapture their youth. You don't generally associate M-Bs with outlaw bikers. Clearly they are trying to add some edge to the AMG edition.

See, that's a great ad. Funny, points out the product and how the roadster is for buyers in their "prime" who haven't yet accepted they are "over the hill" and may never accept it. nothing political in there (although I'm sure you can find something if you look hard enough). Just good advertising that will have people remembering it.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Guys like AAA will always be offended at the slightest thing. I doubt it pays to walk on those eggshells. Meanwhile, let me ask you again: which part of the ads, specifically, could possible be offensive to a reasonable and decent human being? AAA is the consummate snowflake here. Snowflakes melt. That is their nature.

Hilarious, seriously. The progressives have elevated political correctness to a secular religion, but conservatives are snowflakes?

What we're saying is, this is a two way street. If every real estate ad has to have a couple of black faces, if we can't have a mexican dog making jokes about Taco Bell, if we have to pretend that diversity makes us stronger when we all know it sows division and conflict instead, then we have a few things we are going to insist upon. One is don't freakin' insult us or our values.

Since the entire entertainment/media/ad industry regard Trump voters as sickening blights on society, they do face a challenge. A good first step is , like TT says, ask yourself why is it important for you to offend viewers? How does that help move product?

 

[Frederick Foresight]

I'm not assuming anything will happen to Bud or Audi at all based on past results. All I'm saying is why chance it? There's absolutely no upside (at least not in the way shareholders want "return" to come from risk) so why engage in the risk? To make a political statement? Just stay out of it.

You're making an unfair statement by saying "the idea of appealing to the lowest common denominator"...again, just because people don't share your values or support what you think they should, doesn't make those people inferior. It just makes them have different values.

The content of the ads is not in question. I happen to think they are noble messages. I just also happen to think they don't belong in product advertisement of a company whose primary objective is to maximize profit.

I think you're being a bit dogmatic about it. I guessing the shareholders aren't in jeopardy, or even disappointed. Although my undergraduate major was in marketing, I've never worked in such a role in real life. But I've come to believe that there is not necessarily a paint-by-the-numbers formula for appealing to an intended audience. I'm guessing that their marketing people and their ad agencies took the potential risks into consideration and regarded their decision as a net positive. Perhaps in time we will learn that they were mistaken. But I don't think so.

Personally, I don't think they're risking anything. Perhaps they're just being socially conscious. What's wrong with that. I would think that's a net plus. They may want to appeal to as large a potential base of customers as their products can generate, but I don't think they wish to be dictated to by extremists. And anyone who is offended by either ad is in my mind an extremist. An appeal to our better angels? Come on. That's my take. Yours is different, and theirs may be different still. But I like what I saw. And while I will never drink beer (it all smells like it came from the same urinal), I do like the lines of an Audi...

 

[Frederick Foresight]

See, that's a great ad. Funny, points out the product and how the roadster is for buyers in their "prime" who haven't yet accepted they are "over the hill" and may never accept it. nothing political in there

And maybe the folks at Audi are cultivating a market segment that is only now coming into its prime...

 

[Tsing Tao]

I think you're being a bit dogmatic about it. I guessing the shareholders aren't in jeopardy, or even disappointed. Although my undergraduate major was in marketing, I've never worked in such a role in real life. But I've come to believe that there is not necessarily a paint-by-the-numbers formula for appealing to an intended audience. I'm guessing that their marketing people and their ad agencies took the potential risks into consideration and regarded their decision as a net positive. Perhaps in time we will learn that they were mistaken. But I don't think so.

Personally, I don't think they're risking anything. Perhaps they're just being socially conscious. What's wrong with that. I would think that's a net plus. They may want to appeal to as large a potential base of customers as their products can generate, but I don't think they wish to be dictated to by extremists. And anyone who is offended by either ad is in my mind an extremist. An appeal to our better angels? Come on. That's my take. Yours is different, and theirs may be different still. But I like what I saw. And while I will never drink beer (it all smells like it came from the same urinal), I do like the lines of an Audi...

I may be dogmatic, but because I've been faced with these decisions in the past, and still am from time to time. A company absolutely should focus on social issues. Things like "going green" through less energy usage, or recycled materials, or wholesome food, or supporting education charities, or supporting the homeless for examples are exactly what companies should be doing. What they should not be doing is entering highly charged political arenas to plant flags and get a point across. Remember when Target took a stand about allowing transgenders in whatever restroom they wanted? That didn't work out well for them.

There was an article in the WSJ a while back, I'm trying to find it. Was written about this exact subject, and how shareholders polled wanted companies they invested in to stay out of the fray. If I locate, I'll post.

I had an interview for a CFO role at a medium sized CPG company located in Pennsylvania. During the interview I asked the question about what the social media policy of the company was - this was a while ago when people were just starting to use social media regularly. The CEO stated sagely, "I am forbidden to go online and have no social media accounts. We figured not long ago that it would be foolish of me/us to risk 150 years of good consumer feelings about our company by a 150 character message, even if we believe it's the right thing to do." Very wise.

 

[Tsing Tao]

And maybe the folks at Audi are cultivating a market segment that is only now coming into its prime...

What segment do you think that commercial is trying to cultivate?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Here is why I find the Bud ad offensive. Maybe they developed it months ago when they thought Hillary was sure to be president and their aim was to address the perceived problem of an American staple, Bud, being owned by a foreign company.

Times change however. We are in a highly charged immigration debate. This ad clearly represents taking sides. It paints those who oppose uncontrolled or illegal immigration as heartless, mean-spirited bigots. In truth, we welcome immigrants with open arms and generous welfare, which many are quick to latch on to. What people object to are our laws being cast aside and our culture being visibly altered by a massive and unprecedented influx of people who have no legal right to be here. Then we are supposed to accommodate them rather than the other way around.

Why a consumer products company would want to piss off half its customer base escapes me, particularly when they are the very people buying its crap beer. And it's not like you don't have alternatives. Like I said however, this is not a one-off mistake by Bud. They took the same approach with the Bud Light ads and had to pull them. Slow learners I guess.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

The progressives have elevated political correctness to a secular religion, but conservatives are snowflakes?

Don't talk to me about PC. You're offended by your own shadow.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Why a consumer products company would want to piss off half its customer base escapes me, particularly when they are the very people buying its crap beer. And it's not like you don't have alternatives. Like I said however, this is not a one-off mistake by Bud. They took the same approach with the Bud Light ads and had to pull them. Slow learners I guess.

A bit hyperbolic. I don't think they're going to piss off half their customer base. But even if 2% took offense, why do it? The Budweiser one is a bit more ambiguous than the Audi one, so it has less of a chance of offending. But in this super-charged environment, I don't see the upside.

There have been U&A studies showing that people that feel good about your company don't necessarily buy more of your product. They continue to consume, but they don't over-consume simply because they like your company. However, these same studies show that people who get pissed off definitely decrease purchases and even stop altogether, switching to a competitor. Why risk that?