True. But the impetus is begun in the same ideation exercise.
Is Budweiser Looking to Destroy their market During the Super Bowl
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
True. But the impetus is begun in the same ideation exercise.
They may not buy more, but they may buy again. And I think you're making it into something far more controversial than it really is. Let's look outside the ET P&R fishbowl.
This keeps getting funnier. TT points out this type of social virtue signaling has no upside and plenty of downside. FF says the only people who would be offended are deplorables.
Let's say both are right. How does that help Bud sell more beer? I'd wager their customer base is>50% Trump voters.
Bud has been running Super Bowl ads for 50 years. This is the only time they decided to make it about immigration, and they did it in a way to say that those who oppose immigration are reprehensible.
They usually run feel good ads of sleighs going down lovely snow trails. Why the change? Tone deaf or taking sides?
Let's say both are right. How does that help Bud sell more beer? I'd wager their customer base is>50% Trump voters.
Bud has been running Super Bowl ads for 50 years. This is the only time they decided to make it about immigration, and they did it in a way to say that those who oppose immigration are reprehensible.
They usually run feel good ads of sleighs going down lovely snow trails. Why the change? Tone deaf or taking sides?
I'm not looking in the ET fishbowl. I'm referring back to the U&A studies I mentioned. You keep downplaying the risk, and that's fine. But even if the risk is slight as you claim, there is still no upside to business.
People happy with a company may not buy more but will buy again regardless (as long as they are not unhappy because of some external force).
I said younger. Not necessarily young. Younger, upwardly mobile career folks who view the world differently than do their parents or grandparents.
I can't speak to the demographics of the Bud customers, but that's precisely my point. In business, you want return if you are going to take risk. All I'm saying is there is potentially high risk (and potentially low risk, but still risk) with absolutely no margin return. That's not good business.
Yes, but you suggested they might be appealing to a new segment. They have spent millions (the car industry) on identifying the buying age of their product. I guarantee you they know their consumer down the amount of times a day the consumer brushes their teeth. Unless they drastically change the targeted segment, what is the "new segment"?
In your view. But there was no overt political statement. As I keep repeating, it was simply an appeal to our better angels, if there was any message at all, and the ideal of a meritocracy, which is about as (theoretically) American as you can get. Regardless of your studies, perhaps they don't see a downside. As for upside...
Perhaps they're cementing their base rather than taking it for granted.
Anyway, we will not agree on this one.
Not a new segment.
Just the new generation that is now coming into its own. And those who support them and their ideals.
Yes, in my view. But I'm willing to admit missing something. What is it? I don't think you can simply say "I don't know, but they must have something!" as evidence in the past shows that companies don't exactly think this stuff through to conclusion. Additionally, I will point out again that I've got a considerable amount of real world experience in this arena (even though you don't believe me on that point), and have been pretty good at recognizing a bad PR decision when it comes to CPG.