Economy Anheuser-Busch loses more than $5 billion in value amid Dylan Mulvaney Bud Light controversy

[Bojka]

The pendulum is swinging on this stuff to the point that many center and even normally left wing folks are turning against this stuff. That is becoming clearer and clearer

At Easter my nurse sister said that even some of her lesbian co-workers have said that the trans stuff in media is getting to be "too much."

My question is how is it any different from 2 or 3 years ago? Perhaps the novelty of it is just starting to wear off and so some of the enthusiasm for it especially in progressive types (who tend to support things sometimes just for their novelty) is waning.

 

[44nutman]

It appears a superior beer is trolling Bud Light.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...elebrating-status-Oldest-Brewery-America.html

It's too bad it's hard to get here on the West Coast. Good beer.

Yuengling has been my go to beer forever. Growing up in Delaware I was familiar with it, but it was nowhere in Florida when I was finally old enough to drink.
The reason they are the oldest active brewer in the US, is because of the caves near Pottsville, where they stored their beer. Prior to like mid 1800's, Louis Pasteur Bless, beer had a short shelve life so they stored their beer in the caves to extend the shelve life. All brewers pre 1900's, were local due to the short shelve life.
I was happy when they finally made their way to Florida after buying the old Stroh's plant in Tampa. Its nice because every golf course now has it, on the beer cart and carried in even 7-11's.
They are not in Las Vegas which sucked at least they were not the last time I was in Vegas.
Beer is proof the good Lord loves us.
-Ben Franklin.

 

[Whippy McGee]

Yuengling has been my go to beer forever. Growing up in Delaware I was familiar with it, but it was nowhere in Florida when I was finally old enough to drink.
The reason they are the oldest active brewer in the US, is because of the caves near Pottsville, where they stored their beer. Prior to like mid 1800's, Louis Pasteur Bless, beer had a short shelve life so they stored their beer in the caves to extend the shelve life. All brewers pre 1900's, were local due to the short shelve life.
I was happy when they finally made their way to Florida after buying the old Stroh's plant in Tampa. Its nice because every golf course now has it, on the beer cart and carried in even 7-11's.
They are not in Las Vegas which sucked at least they were not the last time I was in Vegas.
Beer is proof the good Lord loves us.
-Ben Franklin.

I was not introduced to Yuengling until in my 40's in West Palm Beach, Florida for an event. The bar carried it and the East Coast guys insisted I try it. I am glad I did, great stuff. I got to hear the whole history of the beer from Nuclear Engineers, so the details were extensive, but still a great story and pretty neat how you can tour the original site.

 

[HereticBD]

At Easter my nurse sister said that even some of her lesbian co-workers have said that the trans stuff in media is getting to be "too much."

My question is how is it any different from 2 or 3 years ago? Perhaps the novelty of it is just starting to wear off and so some of the enthusiasm for it especially in progressive types (who tend to support things sometimes just for their novelty) is waning.

The lesbians are on their hit list. Don't you know that lesbians are transphobic if they don't want to ride a female cock? They've even been getting attacked here and there at protests. Their waning support might have something to do with that. I'd imagine a lot of parents have had a change of heart as well, now that the more insidious members of that community have started to go after their kids.

It's not gonna end well, and they're currently in the midst of setting back LGBT progress a good 50 years. The LGB's better wake up and start distancing themselves from this deranged cult.

 

[44nutman]

I was not introduced to Yuengling until in my 40's in West Palm Beach, Florida for an event. The bar carried it and the East Coast guys insisted I try it. I am glad I did, great stuff. I got to hear the whole history of the beer from Nuclear Engineers, so the details were extensive, but still a great story and pretty neat how you can tour the original site.

Pottsville even had an NFL team. I used to have a Pottsville Maroons T-Shirt, which thinking about it need to get another one.
Pretty interesting story about the team.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottsville_Maroons
When not practicing, the Maroons spent their days hanging around the fire house, drinking Yuengling, playing cards and tossing footballs in the street.
That sounds like an awesome time.

 

[Bojka]

The lesbians are on their hit list. Don't you know that lesbians are transphobic if they don't want to ride a female cock? They've even been getting attacked here and there at protests. Their waning support might have something to do with that. I'd imagine a lot of parents have had a change of heart as well, now that the more insidious members of that community have started to go after their kids.

It's not gonna end well, and they're currently in the midst of setting back LGBT progress a good 50 years. The LGB's better wake up and start distancing themselves from this deranged cult.

Yeah I guess the Lia Thomas stuff wasn't big in the news until a year or so ago either. So that could be part of it as well. A lot of them probably aren't happy about how the female identity is being eroded.

 

[Kowboy On Sherdog]

Sorry Bud. But the Rednecks have moved on

 

[Islam Imamate]

This is ridiculous. So you're now agreeing that the overwhelming majority of those that are simply buying a different kind of beer and that's it...are NOT showing any evidence of "anger"? Or you believe that someone just grabbing a six pack of Coors light shows that "clearly they were angry and is another episode in the anti trans movement by the right"? Which is it? Is Joe Blow from Toledo OH that really wants no part of any of this and chooses Coors Light angry? Or not?

Cornered LMAO? Umm...no. You guys are doing EXACTLY what you love to accuse "the right" of doing. Taking a few extreme examples from Twitter, mixing in a Kid Rock one...and acting like it represents the "anger" level of millions of people. It's anecdotal, but I personally know a bunch of people who don't buy Bud Light anymore but used to. They aren't "angry"...they just don't want anything to do with the discussion or at worst think the overall societal Trans push has gone too far. None are "angry".

But hey, sure, for the convenience of YOUR argument, act like the whole of the boycott is super angry dudes wearing MAGA hats and shit.

The boycott tapped into people's anger in regards to issues relating to transgenders from the right which should be obvious to anyone who saw the backlash and the rhetoric around it. You even see it here where at least one poster ITT talked about how they saw this as part of the wider culture war regarding that issue and here you're hinting that those wider controversies are a part of the backlash. And people do indeed get very angry about that issue, its literally the main wedge issue for the populist right right now.

We have armed protesters and threats directed at libraries that do Drag Queen Story Time for instance. We have state legislatures and local school districts across the country passing laws about this and even Congressman tapping into this moral panic. Pretending like its some dispassionate consumer choice when the backlash was so large and severe and ties into other controversial culture war issues regarding gender strikes me as either oblivious or dishonest.

 

[kflo]

Where did I say her interview actually "started" the pushback? I've literally stated all the way through numerous times that this is a situation where multiple things happened that got it to where it is. If the Mulvaney thing was the initial spark, OK? It may have quickly blown over if not for her adding fuel to it. We'll never know, which is what I've said all along. There are no "facts" that you've posted that belie this stance, not even close. And it's bizarre you'd try to claim otherwise (if that's what you're doing).

Again, every time you’re proven wrong you just move on and act like you weren’t and that it doesn’t change anything.

You thought she called customers hillbillies.
You thought the interview was one day before the IG post
You thought the interview was part of the reason for the initial boycott
You’ve attributed the boycott to the VP talking bad about customers and not because of a trans influencer
And you’ve not acknowledged the misrepresentation of the VPs words. Worse, you’ve continued to push the misrepresented version as the truth.

And as you learn each one of these falsehoods you don’t acknowledge it, and you don’t let it impact your position. You just move on as if you’ve been right about everything.

 

[kflo]

The boycott tapped into people's anger in regards to issues relating to transgenders from the right which should be obvious to anyone who saw the backlash and the rhetoric around it. You even see it here where at least one poster ITT talked about how they saw this as part of the wider culture war regarding that issue and here you're hinting that those wider controversies are a part of the backlash. And people do indeed get very angry about that issue, its literally the main wedge issue for the populist right right now.

We have armed protesters and threats directed at libraries that do Drag Queen Story Time for instance. We have state legislatures and local school districts across the country passing laws about this and even Congressman tapping into this moral panic. Pretending like its some dispassionate consumer choice when the backlash was so large and severe and ties into other controversial culture war issues regarding gender strikes me as either oblivious or dishonest.

Again, there was an 11% drop in volume the days after kid rock and before the VP interview was uncovered and he’ll refuse to believe the large initial backlash was entirely driven by a trans influencer having an IG post. Kid rock, Travis Tritt, john whoever had no fuckin idea there was an interview. And then when the interview was uncovered by right wing outlets they completely fabricated the narrative and THAT became her words. Not her actual words, but the words from the outlets already on the boycott train. They knew what they were doing. The public doesn’t read the actual words, just the words from the people who think like them….

 

[mkess101]

Again, every time you’re proven wrong you just move on and act like you weren’t and that it doesn’t change anything.

You thought she called customers hillbillies.
You thought the interview was one day before the IG post
You thought the interview was part of the reason for the initial boycott
You’ve attributed the boycott to the VP talking bad about customers and not because of a trans influencer
And you’ve not acknowledged the misrepresentation of the VPs words. Worse, you’ve continued to push the misrepresented version as the truth.

And as you learn each one of these falsehoods you don’t acknowledge it, and you don’t let it impact your position. You just move on as if you’ve been right about everything.

Please quote where I said the boycott was solely due to the exec's comments. That's either an outright lie, or you're misremebering badly. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

The rest is inconsequential to the crux of this discussion, and you latching onto something happening a few days off from when I'd read it happened is ridiculous.

You're now strawmanning (again, hopefully due to not remembering correctly) and claiming I said the Mulvaney part of this didn't play a role. Which is patently untrue, yet again I'll repeat: two things happened that contributed.

It's like this weird mindset you're caught in where as long as you can label everyone who's buying different beer now as bigots, AB's role in this with their marketing decisions becomes irrelevant. The problem is the bottom line doesn't care about your accusations of bigotry and can't force all those people back to drinking Bud Light.

But again, the Bud Light seltzer soda stuff I had to buy today that my buddy's wife drinks was on sale from $20 marked down to $12. So I'm not mad at all about the fallout of this.

 

[kflo]

Please quote where I said the boycott was solely due to the exec's comments. That's either an outright lie, or you're misremebering badly. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

The rest is inconsequential to the crux of this discussion, and you latching onto something happening a few days off from when I'd read it happened is ridiculous.

You're now strawmanning (again, hopefully due to not remembering correctly) and claiming I said the Mulvaney part of this didn't play a role. Which is patently untrue, yet again I'll repeat: two things happened that contributed.

It's like this weird mindset you're caught in where as long as you can label everyone who's buying different beer now as bigots, AB's role in this with their marketing decisions becomes irrelevant. The problem is the bottom line doesn't care about your accusations of bigotry and can't force all those people back to drinking Bud Light.

But again, the Bud Light seltzer soda stuff I had to buy today that my buddy's wife drinks was on sale from $20 marked down to $12. So I'm not mad at all about the fallout of this.

I never said everyone buying different beer is a bigot. But I do know you’ve suggested the boycott was because of the words of the VP. The search function of course is shit so it’s impossible to find quotes.

Again, their “marketing decisions” was to give a sponsored slot to mulvaney. Beyond that, we know very little about their marketing decisions. The only decision that mattered was mulvaney.

Again, you misrepresented the words of the VP. Both the first time when thought she called customers hillbillies and then when confronted with her real words you pretended still that she was insulting bud light customers.

Except their customers showed it WASN'T "too fratty" for the people buying their product. It's hilarious you can't see how a customer might not take it well.

"Our advertising is too fratty for our customers"

"Wait, I'm their customer and I like their ads. Now she's saying their advertising is 'too fratty'...WTF?"

I mean...why would I need to spell this out?

**Facepalm**

The marketing "didn't hit the mark" exactly BECAUSE their customers took offense at her saying their marketing was "too fratty". SHE is saying the marketing is "too fratty". Those she offended didn't even look at the marketing as "fratty". And then you actually try to falsely frame my argument on top of that!

They boycotted because they received her message as one of the company not valuing them as customers. Whether YOU think that's an irrational view by those customers is irrelevant.

Your multiple attempts to obfuscate an extremely simple thing are such a waste of time.

Again, suggesting that the reason customers were mad was because of “too fratty”. It’s not a logical position. It’s nonsense rationalization. But I don’t expect you to reflect on it. I hope you do. You can be a good poster.

 

[mkess101]

I never said everyone buying different beer is a bigot. But I do know you’ve suggested the boycott was because of the words of the VP. The search function of course is shit so it’s impossible to find quotes.

Again, their “marketing decisions” was to give a sponsored slot to mulvaney. Beyond that, we know very little about their marketing decisions. The only decision that mattered was mulvaney.

Again, you misrepresented the words of the VP. Both the first time when thought she called customers hillbillies and then when confronted with her real words you pretended still that she was insulting bud light customers.





Again, suggesting that the reason customers were mad was because of “too fratty”. It’s not a logical position. It’s nonsense rationalization. But I don’t expect you to reflect on it. I hope you do. You can be a good poster.

We can rehash it all, but you've just quoted me saying absolutely NOTHING that states I solely blame this whole thing on the exec's words. Yes, I'm claiming they've played a role. My stance had been the exact same throughout. Which is EXACTLY what you've quoted me stating.

Look at the paragraph you quoted where you bold "They boycotted because they received her message as one of the company not valuing their customers". The paragraph ABOVE that one I clearly state "those she's offended"...so quite obviously that's who the next paragraph is referring to LOL! That's specific to the boycotters who were offended by her! Not ALL of those who boycotted.

And hell...even that quote says those people who were offended RECEIVED her words that way. Not that her intentions were to offend them, just that it was the result.

Never once did I say this was not IN CONJUNCTION with the Mulvaney side of it. You've stated it's ONLY because of that. I've disagreed, but also said that there's no way either of us could ever know because both things have already happened.

It seems as though I'm repeating the exact same position over and over...but it's not something you like or want to hear so you're spending energy to nitpick whe. It's utterly unnecessary.

 

[kflo]

We can rehash it all, but you've just quoted me saying absolutely NOTHING that states I solely blame this whole thing on the exec's words. Yes, I'm claiming they've played a role. My stance had been the exact same throughout. Which is EXACTLY what you've quoted me stating.

Look at the paragraph you quoted where you bold "They boycotted because they received her message as one of the company not valuing their customers". The paragraph ABOVE that one I clearly state "those she's offended"...so quite obviously that's who the next paragraph is referring to LOL! That's specific to the boycotters who were offended by her! Not ALL of those who boycotted.

And hell...even that quote says those people who were offended RECEIVED her words that way. Not that her intentions were to offend them, just that it was the result.

Never once did I say this was not IN CONJUNCTION with the Mulvaney side of it. You've stated it's ONLY because of that. I've disagreed, but also said that there's no way either of us could ever know because both things have already happened.

It seems as though I'm repeating the exact same position over and over...but it's not something you like or want to hear so you're spending energy to nitpick whe. It's utterly unnecessary.

Can you accept the idea that maybe people “received” her words in a way because that’s how they were misrepresented by media outlets who were already against bud light for the mulvaney spot?

 

[evansusmc2]

I thought it was pretty funny. But this commercial never gets made if their tranny push suceeded.

Too little too late Bud Light.

 

[kflo]

I thought it was pretty funny. But this commercial never gets made if their tranny push suceeded.

Too little too late Bud Light.

The “tranny push” was a single post from a trans persons IG account.

 

[mkess101]

Can you accept the idea that maybe people “received” her words in a way because that’s how they were misrepresented by media outlets who were already against bud light for the mulvaney spot?

Maybe? I have no idea. Her interview wasn't only available on "media outlets already against Bud Light" though.

The thing is...that's largely irrelevant when it comes to business and her decision making.

In her position, you can't afford to put something out there that could even be construed as taking a shot at your customers. Whatever she "meant", what she said was enough to add fuel to a fire that had been lit. A lot of fuel imo (again, you're free to disagree).

Let's say I have a customer base that's made up largely of gay people. They've been our bread and butter. Then the company decides to do a little marketing towards a different demographic. We do something with an influencer that is a lot the antithesis of our normal gay customer base (not sure what that would be, but let's say some MMA blogger or something). Then I do an interview and say "well we feel our marketing had stagnated and become a bit too centered on flamboyance...we needed a little refresh". I very likely wouldn't be INTENDING to upset our gay customer base, but I damn sure would be risking doing exactly that. And if a few news stories that were "against me" ratcheted it up and my sales plummeted...it would be ME to blame. Because we can't unring that bell.

 

[evansusmc2]

i'm just calling out bad behavior of others brother.

First off your OPINION of "bad behavior is just that. An opinion. Secondly, you were happy for Bud Light to try and shove this tranny nonsense at us? And their CEO (now canned) calling us "fratty out of touch"?

Oh and were we supposed to take this lying down huh?

 

[CrazyN8]

I hate posting in the war room but I find this topic funny so I always look consistently bud light is always fully stocked when I'm shopping and the alternatives, Coors and Miller, are always almost empty. Say whatever you want but man this is a epic loss for the Bud Light brand.

 

[mkess101]

The boycott tapped into people's anger in regards to issues relating to transgenders from the right which should be obvious to anyone who saw the backlash and the rhetoric around it. You even see it here where at least one poster ITT talked about how they saw this as part of the wider culture war regarding that issue and here you're hinting that those wider controversies are a part of the backlash. And people do indeed get very angry about that issue, its literally the main wedge issue for the populist right right now.

We have armed protesters and threats directed at libraries that do Drag Queen Story Time for instance. We have state legislatures and local school districts across the country passing laws about this and even Congressman tapping into this moral panic. Pretending like its some dispassionate consumer choice when the backlash was so large and severe and ties into other controversial culture war issues regarding gender strikes me as either oblivious or dishonest.

No...it's because you're latching onto the most fringe among them. Quite frankly, it's absurd to think that the average plumber or mechanic or whoever has the energy and bandwidth to just "be angry" at the trans community. It also seems like you think it can't be part of the wider picture without this alleged "passionate anger". Why?
People might have become weary at what they perceive as having a pro trans agenda pushed on them, but that's not "anger".
Again, they aren't actually having to DO anything outside buy a similar quality beer for the same price. This boycott forces zero sacrifice, which means it's foolish to ascribe any level of passion to the majority taking part in it. There are literally people who don't care either way that won't buy Bud Light because they just don't want to even risk a conversation about this topic.

Wanna know who's "angry"? Organize a protest outside AB headquarters to show disdain for Mulvaney and the exec that made the decision. The ones that show up? THEY are the angry ones.