Is Budweiser Looking to Destroy their market During the Super Bowl

[Frederick Foresight]

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.

"Uncontrolled or illegal immigration?" Please tell me where you saw this in the ad? If that's what you saw in the ad, then there is no pleasing you, so why bother trying?

As for "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," that's an even bigger issue under the Trump administration.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

But even if 2% took offense, why do it?

Perhaps, as they see it, the net benefit is positive. I hope it is.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Perhaps, as they see it, the net benefit is positive. I hope it is.

Sorry, I just edited that post to bring up the U&A studies that show that this isn't a hope that is realistic. Based on that research. I'll repost here:

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?

 

[Frederick Foresight]

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.

That's hardly the same thing. Although recognition of our LGBT community is an idea whose time has come, despite the misgivings of some of us older folks who were brought up in different times, the ads for Bud and Audi were NOT controversial. They were both about meritocracy. And anyone who is against the idea of meritocracy is arguably not truly American.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Sorry, I just edited that post to bring up the U&A studies that show that this isn't a hope that is realistic. Based on that research. I'll repost here:

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?

I'm just spit-balling, but perhaps they don't see it as a risk. Maybe it's about corporate image and building brand loyalty among those whom they regard as their key or target market. They may not buy more Audis or drink themselves silly on Bud, but they'll feel even better about the choices they made. Not all ads can be about the product's features, as you know. It gets boring if you want to keep ads on the air and the product in the intended market's consciousness. So you vary it. Product; feel; values. Repeat.

 

[Tsing Tao]

That's hardly the same thing. Although recognition of our LGBT community is an idea whose time has come, despite the misgivings of some of us older folks who were brought up in different times, the ads for Bud and Audi were NOT controversial. They were both about meritocracy. And anyone who is against the idea of meritocracy is arguably not truly American.

I'm not trying to draw a parallel to the issue, just that there was a management team at Target that thought it was a good idea and that there was upside to the decision. And they were very wrong.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

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

Just guessing, but maybe younger, perhaps better-educated people with a progressive world view. And those who support it.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I'm just spit-balling, but perhaps they don't see it as a risk. Maybe it's about corporate image and building brand loyalty among those whom they regard as their key or target market. They may not buy more Audis or drink themselves silly on Bud, but they'll feel even better about the choices they made. Not all ads can be about the product's features, as you know. It gets boring if you want to keep ads on the air and the product in the intended market's consciousness. So you vary it. Product; feel; values. Repeat.

The people who agree with certainly feel better about the choices they made. But, as you say, they will probably not buy more. The people that it offends will buy less, or go to the competition. So I ask again, as a business owner/leader whose sole responsibility is to drive profit...why do it?

 

[Tsing Tao]

Just guessing, but maybe younger, perhaps better-educated people with a progressive world view. And those who support it.

Then someone in the Audi department needs a lesson in demographics. Because younger folks are not their target audience (a premium car industry doesn't target young people).

 

[Frederick Foresight]

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.

Wise indeed. But I don't think the majority of ad campaigns by world class companies are conceived as impetuously as most personal social media ramblings.