Desperately trying to turn the metaphorical page after a trans-endorsing fiasco that has dropped the brand in popularity, infuriated share-holders, and made it a foamy joke, Bud Light just issued that video above as “marketing.” Now-exiled marketing VP Alissa Heinerscheid, the genius who made male cross-dresser Dylan Mulvaney the symbol of the beer, did an infamous interview with the podcast “Make Yourself At Home” on March 30 where she discussed her goal in transforming Bud Light’s outdated, unsophisticated, “fratty” image to appeal to a younger market. So now that the “Bud Light drinkers like chicks-with-dicks!” campaign has inexplicable failed, the geniuses running the show decided on a new, sure-to-succeed message: “Bud Light drinkers are fat, slovenly, clumsy yahoos who are simply hilarious!”
Unbelievable.
Ethics Alarms 
You’ll be thrilled to learn that one of the leading stock analyst firms just upgraded Anheuser-Busch from “hold” to “buy.”
Sigh.
Huh, Heinerscheid is working for an investment outfit?
Jack,
“Bud Light drinkers are fat, slovenly, clumsy yahoos who are simply hilarious!”
Yes, Jack, they’re called human beings, with whom we can all sympathize. Frankly (to my eyes), this is one of the best ads they’ve produced in years, as it appeals to the average consumer without specific pandering, sexually-explicit imagery, or virtue-signaling. Did you notice the complete lack of mixed-race couples, and only three (maybe four) persons of color featured in the entire ad? The ad’s message could more fairly be interpreted as “Through good times and bad (clumsy moments), Bud Light has you covered.”
Why waste all this e-ink on Bud Light? They miscalculated and made a bad advertising call and retracted it immediately. Now, they’re trying something else. Don’t buy the beer and send a message that way, but spending all this time over what’s essentially a bad business decision seems like wasted outrage.
Lastly, I’ve made a killing on the fluctuation in their stock prices since this whole fiasco started. But, please, keep up the snark and further line my pockets.
If this message seems rude to you, keep in mind this is in keeping with the tone you regularly respond with to my messages (which I usually end with “Thanks for the column. Hope you’re well!”) before either ignoring my protestations or claiming “it isn’t what it is”. If someone says you’ve hurt their feelings, denying that makes you a jerk. You can chose not to care, but you don’t get to unilaterally rule on what’s rude or not … that’s for your audience to decide.
Neil, this commercial is classic “white people are klutzes” stuff. Much like the Corona commercial with Snoop Dog and the terminally unhip Jewish dork who’s trying to be cool. It’s tiresome and it’s ubiquitous. And their including a single black guy doesn’t obviate the problem.
WHERE’S THE CUTE STACKED GIRL IN THE BIKINI???? WHERE”S DAISY DUKE????
Back in the early 2000s, Victoria (a Mexican beer with small-medium reach from Grupo Modelo – which owns Corona, Modelo, etc.) had a great ad series where a pair of dumb gringos go on vacation to a Mexican beach, try Victoria and then decide to smuggle it into the US – unsuccessfully and hilariously. The selling point was that the beer was only available in Mexico; and it was good-naturedly mocking your typical US tourist. This episode reminded me of that; and that THEY WERE NOT TRYING TO ADVERTISE TO THE US MARKET. Really, what is going on in Marketing Schools these days?
BTW, Victoria is now available in the US, making the ad campaign a relic of the past; and is probably the best mass market Mexican lager you can get.
“Victoria […] is probably the best mass market Mexican lager you can get.”
Seeing there’s no accounting for taste, my fave in that category of Barley Pop would be Cerveza Pacífico Clara, AKA Pacífico.
Not rude, just dead wrong and willfully obtuse, Neil. Wow. You must have taken out your cerebrum with an ice-cream scoop before writing that one. Owie!
I’m petty sure I shouldn’t have to recap all of my periodic Cognitive Dissonance Scale explanations for you, once you do some reverse scooping, but what’s Bud Light’s excuse? See, people buy products that are associated with thinks people like and like seeing. Do they think that fat, slovenly people like looking at fat slovenly people, or that they even like to think of themselves that way? This is taking the minority lament, “Where are people like me?” too far. I did notice that there was barely a single attractive person in the ad, the closest probably being the bearded guy showing off his arm-pit hair. I could almost smell him through my computer screen.
Then its back to your trademark, “Why spend time writing about what you think is ethically relevant and not the important stuff I think is ethically relevant?” complaint. Again, the answer is “Because I think it’s ethically relevant, that’s why.” In this case, the ad shows just how arrogant and estranged these marketers and the beer’s own executives are from their market and, amazingly, their own profession. Not only does bias make one stupid, so does believing stereotypes.
Thanks for reading the column. Hope you’re well!
Jack,
When a person begins a statement with “Frankly (to my eyes)” anything that follows represents an opinion. In other words, arguing it somehow represents a lack of critical thinking states the obvious since an opinion is simply an impression about the facts, not a statement of fact themselves.
What’s more, although the cognitive impairment jokes get funnier every time, as I’ve explained (ad nauseum), I have legitimate and real learning and cognitive disabilities that make everything you say true to fact, but also hurtful. I’m sorry I lack your intelligence and education, but you’d never posted an minimum IQ requirement for posting, so I assumed it was okay to admit ignorance. My mistake.
Why always make it personal?
Easy answer: I consider trolling, gratuitous insults and deliberate contrariness just to be annoying to be personal. For many reasons, you get a pass that few others do, in part because you don’t abuse the privilege.
Thanks for reading the column. Hope you’re well!
Only time will tell if the ad wins or loses. It seems to me that such an ad can only be unethical if it fails to positively alter the trajectory of Bud Lite sales. If it works then the ad is treated as a humorous look at the consumer by the consumer.
I myself can identify with many in the ad but I can also be right at home with PhD’s.
Insulting your market is always unethical, even if it “works.” Furthering negative stereotypes is unethical. But this is just an incompetent ad by every marketing principle I know, and especially given its context.
I’m betting they pull it.
Chris,
The “only be unethical if it fails” view sounds like the end justifying the means philosophy. For me, an end justifying the means approach is only valid if my family or I am in imminent existential threat. Otherwise, I don’t see ethics being dependent on outcomes.
I have no significant disagreement with either Jack or Tom’s response to my point. However self-effacing humor is not in itself unethical. The question becomes how is it perceived and what was the motivation behind it? Tom is correct that what I said sounds like the ends justify the means. I cannot dispute that, but these ads are no different than a sculpture, a painting or any other piece of art. I am not sure how we can say that something arising out of a creative process is ethical or unethical only the motivation behind the work can be unethical or ethical. Ads like these are either effective or ineffective.
Sure, the ad could have omitted people having difficulties navigating some activity, but I can relate to some and to me I did not take offense at the imagery. As for what is called slovenly appearance, how is one to dress for what appears to be a community picnic on a sweltering day? People sweat. Should they have had people dressed for church? No one in the ad appeared any differently than those I see at the mall or at a Blues Festival.
Would this ad have been more effective had it shown people dressed in their finery at the theater drinking Bud Light at the cast party? To some, yes but for the larger potential market it would have been at best a time to use the bathroom or make a sandwich.
The question I have is whether or not the responses shown in the addendum to this post that follows are just opportunities to continue to bash the product over the Dylan Mulv-mania fiasco or are these the true feelings of the average consumer that was once a Bud Light fan. I seriously doubt it is the latter because they would have had ample opportunities in Bud light ads from years prior that incorporates similar imagery. More to the point, where is the outrage to virtually every other ad that portrays white men as incompetent buffoons who are unable to do anything without the assistance of their wife or black neighbor.
I suppose my overall point is beating a dead horse to me is unethical. Because I don’t drink beer I don’t really care about Bud Light or its competitors. I do care when we start trying to find fault in every little thing that never bothered us before because we want to hurt that someone who did something we felt hurt our sensibilities at some point in time. It is no different that demanding reparations.
If Mulvaney had never happened, this would have been an hilarious ad.
This interpretation of humor is not based on laughing at clumsy obese white people stereotypes but on my observations of my 5 children 6-15 years old and all of their heroically goofy antics.
Everything in that ad was something they have done.
Ethical ad even if it fails to increase sales.
If AB had any balls, they would have had Mulvaney show up in the ad along with some friends, there would be some funny looks and the old bearded dudes would toss him/her a can and everybody would get along doing stupid clumsy stuff.
Unethical ad because they are still treating the customer base like AB has done nothing wrong and we can all go back to business as usual. The Mulvaney-antifratty perspective is a commercial version of Hillary’s “deplorables”.
That’s exactly what it is.
The ad might even generate support for Trump. It’s this kind of arrogance that drove people to him in the first place.
Had the Mulvaney fiasco not occurred I would not view the ad as humorous. That this is AB’s effort to win back its former customers is infuriatingly insulting. Apparently, the AB upper executives think many of their customers are bumbling buffoons. Which if they go back to Bud Light then the AB executives were correct in their assessment.
I have always found it advisable that when you find yourself in a hole; STOP DIGGING. A more honorable approach would have been for a high-ranking executive like a division president ranking appear in a commercial. They would acknowledge that their recent marketing campaign was not well received by some of their loyal customers. The parties responsible for that error are no longer with the company. We will do everything possible to not repeat our errors. And hope that those customers who have left us will return and allow us to earn back your trust and loyalty.
Marketing incompetence on a galactic scale. Thank God I’ve always hated that swill…
“When you find yourself in a hole; STOP DIGGING.” Very true
“A more honorable approach would have been for a high-ranking executive like a division president ranking appear in a commercial. They would acknowledge that their recent marketing campaign was not well received by some of their loyal customers.”
Now, that president will have to explain why the customers did not receive it well. Any explanation or no explanation at all would imply an interpretation by senior executives would boil down to our customers are bigots and would be perceived as such in the minds of its customers.
The Mulvany fiasco had less to do with Mulvany as a person and his character as it did with prevailing woke culture that sees people that disagree with the urban orthodoxy as bigots and racists. Mulvany was simply a last straw. AB was to many a refuge from the constant barrage of complaints against them for being who they are. Going on TV and apologizing for using Mulvany is making the trans community the scapegoat for a culture instituted by woke MBA’s from prestigous institutions at AB who view their customers as privileged white rednecks. No groveling apology is needed just change your behavior.
Any apology that could be given would require an announcement that AB is instituting a reeducation program to deprogram anti-white male attitudes from recent grads and future hires will undergo similar training.
Chris,
I don’t think the detail you suggest is necessary. I don’t believe anything beyond what I suggested is required. I have always felt the most effective response to someone’s negative response to any action is:
Acknowledge the person is offended. No need to explain if they are right or wrong.
Explain that corrective action has or will be taken. Details are not necessary.
Pledge to not repeat the offending action in the future.
Do not offer an excuse. Case closed.
Jack,
1) Trolling signifies scrolling through someone’s social media and making excessive, uninvited comments. Here, I post comments on a public blog that invites responses. So, this doesn’t jive.
2) Gratuitous Insults. I don’t recall insulting you personally over any issue. I’ve often suggested your viewpoints reflect antiquated thinking, but I’ve never (that I recall) personally insulted your intelligence or character (like you have of mine).
3) Intentional Contrarianism. We disagree often, yes, but that doesn’t mean I do it on purpose. We just have vastly different impressions of the world. I’m sorry that upsets you, but again, you’ve never stated a rule that disagreements must be kept to a limit per day/week/month.
Every time I mention my learning disability, you conveniently ignore it, despite not putting it in a “woe is me” context, simply an explanation. Considering I finished high school with an equivalency degree, never went to college, and currently work as a mail clerk, might suggest that your rude, lengthy rebuttals might be excessive, except then you blame me for your “wasted time.” This is Muhammed Ali vs. Peewee Herman, why go glovelesss?
You’re one of the smartest people I’ve had the pleasure of conversing with (second to my father) and hold your viewpoints in largely the same regard. For the (however manyth) time, I apologize that my tone so seldom conveys this meaning, but I had (previously) assumed we had an understanding that all disagreements/arguments (from me) were for purposes of intellectual growth, not real points of contention. I have trouble making cohesive arguments on my own and relish your insights into those errors, just not the snark that so often accompany them.
Something to consider.
Troll: “one who deliberately tries to offend, annoy, or cause trouble by posting exclusively derogatory comments, on blogs, websites, or social media.” That’s the definition I use. When any commenter’s entries here are overwhelmingly negative, there is a rebuttable presumption that they are trolling. As I said, you get a pass, but I have the statistics.