When I implied that with yesterday’s post about the Bud Light-Dylan Mulvaney fiasco I was through commenting on the matter, I didn’t mean to preclude others from doing so. Here, Michael R. opens up a whole new wing of commentary that I managed to keep shuttered.

Today was also another entry on the episode’s timeline with ethical resonance: The CEO of Anheuser-Busch tried to avoid some accountability in an earnings call with investors by insisting that the whole thing was misinterpreted, was “not a campaign,” and should not have had so much attention attached to it. He also promised investors that Bud Light will triple its marketing spend this summer to undo the damage that the company was not really at fault for. “Anheuser-Busch did not intend to create controversy or make a political statement,” he said, unconvincingly. “In reality, the Bud Light can posted by a social media influencer that sparked all the conversation was provided by an outside agency without Anheuser-Busch management awareness or approval. Since that time, the lack of oversight and control over marketing decisions has been addressed and a new VP of Bud Light marketing has been announced.”

How do investors retain trust in a company with such loose and inattentive management that this could happen? Is just announcing, “Not to worry, it’s all fixed now!” sufficient to restore their confidence?

Just asking, not observing.

Here is Michael R’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Final Ethics Observations On The Bud Light-Dylan Mulvaney Ethics Train Wreck”:

***

I don’t see this as a boycott. I see this as people being done with a product. People boycotting something usually have demands. Bud Light’s former customers aren’t demanding anything. They are just done with the brand.

Let’s see the timeline of events:

(1) Company hires feminist, woke, woman as ‘historic’ hire.
(2) Woke female executive finds that none of her friends use or patronize ‘her’ product.
(3) Woke female executive finds that the customers of ‘her’ product are not ‘cool’ or ‘hip’, like her friends, but are ‘frattish’ and ‘out of touch’. Some of them might have even voted for Trump!
(4) Woke female executive decides that the brand is ‘dying’ despite its great success, so she needs to turn the brand around.
(5) She decides to ‘turn the brand around’ by getting rid of the current customers and attract a new, better clientele.
(6) This turnaround is accomplished by destroying the brand for the existing customer.

Oh, I’m sorry, that was the timeline of events for the destruction of Star Wars.

Oh, I’m sorry , I mean that was the timeline of events for the destruction of Star Trek.

Oh, I’m sorry, that was the timeline of events for the destruction of Marvel movies.

How many other things does this apply to? How many times have female executives told an audience that ‘this isn’t for them’ and when that audience doesn’t spend money on it, the same executive rants about the fact that the audience didn’t come to patronize the product?

I haven’t seen much backlash against Mulvaney. I have seen a lot of complaints about Bud Light. The people who drink Bud Light probably aren’t his fans. The problem with the ad was that it was interpreted through steps 1-5. People know when the product is insulting them, this ad was definitely a targeted attack on Bud Light’s customers, and the customers knew it. People get upset when a brand they have patronized and given a lot of money over the years goes out of its way to insult them.

Just like with Star Wars, Star Trek, and to some extent, Marvel movies, the traditional customers are just gone. I watched the first 6 Star War’s movies, and was a fan of Star Trek until I was told they didn’t want people like me watching. I obliged, but I was mad. Bud Light told the Bud Light drinkers that they were no longer wanted. Those drinkers obliged and they are mad.

Maybe I don’t follow the wrong crowd, but I haven’t seen any real blame on Mulvaney from the people complaining about Bud Light. I actually suspect that if Mulvaney had been used (using his typical schtick) as a spokesperson for Dexron, the very same Bud Light drinkers would have laughed and applauded GM for a clever marketing campaign.

I don’t really have a dog in the Bud Light fight. I have been ‘boycotting’ Bud Light for over 50 years. I just see another company entering the culture wars and driving away a customer base that they view as beneath them.