The Bud Light Saga Continues

From non-apology apologies to horses and the heartland, the brand hit another sour note with fans.

Since my last post about the Bud Light brand’s failure to connect with their fans in featuring transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney in a social media campaign, the beer behemoth has attempted a reset. Bud Light released a new patriotic ad featuring their trademark Clydesdale horses in order to make a go at wiping the slate clean. Think of it as a do-over. No more “inclusion” or rejection of the past to welcome in new better consumers. Just those horses. And the same old consumers.

In addition, the CEO of Anheuser-Busch (A-B), Brendan Whitworth, shared a statement. While it doesn’t directly address the controversy, the allusion is there when the CEO says: “We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people.” You can read the full statement below:

In my opinion, the statement misses the mark in a few ways. And I can come at it from “both sides.”

First, if you’re going to apologize, apologize. Own up to the fact that your brand leader insulted your consumer by calling them “fratty” and “out of touch.” Acknowledge that you promoted politics rather than product. Admit it wasn’t inclusion you were after, it was virtue signaling to align yourself with a set of “values” (that sex is assigned at birth rather than something observed) favored by coastal, deep Blue city elites. Which, based on the push back, your consumer and even most Americans are not buying, in some part because the result is quite often unfair to women.

Inclusion — if that is what Bud Light was after — might start with including women, a large percentage of the population (50%!), and a commercially viable one.

Leaders need to lead. In short, Bud Light, you should have said you were sorry for insulting your loyal fans and pushing a political agenda instead of pale lager.

Whitworth didn’t want to do that though. Why? Because, assumedly, the company is afraid of angering “the other side” — the leftie ideologues who don’t even drink Bud Light to begin with. But A-B is attempting to evade more bad PR and so the Corporate Communications equivocating minions landed on this mealy-mouthed statement when they were finally pushed into feeling they needed to make one.

Secondly, and I’ll take the “other side” on this one: Did the brand really not think about the fact that this choice of influencer/endorser might put them squarely in the center of a controversy and prepare for that? If they didn’t consider it, how clueless and out of touch are they? If they knew it, and didn’t stand by their position AND Mulvaney for that matter, then shame on them. If they are going to weigh in, then do it. And be prepared to deal with the repercussions and stand by the position. If they want to stand for “inclusion” by featuring Mulvaney, then go for it. Don’t back down.

Bud Light can’t have it both ways. But they want the beer without the hangover.

As Ben Schott wrote for Bloomberg:

“Bud Light actively and eagerly sought out a controversial influencer in a dangerously polarized space, with neither the wisdom to plan for a backlash nor the bravery to stand by its partner.”

And herein lies the hypocrisy of woke capitalism. Corporate leaders want to parade as social justice warriors and pretend they are changing the world by taking “tough stances.” Or as Chip Bergh, the CEO at Levi’s, likes to say: “Take the harder right over the easier wrong.” But these faux social justice warriors aren’t willing to take any of the real risk that might come with that. If they’re going to weigh in on a controversial issue because they feel like they are on “the right side of history”, they should be prepared to take the slings and arrows that will inevitably come. I’m fine with that, really.

Pick a lane, Bud Light.

The hypocrisy mirrors that of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) — SVB wanted to take all the risk necessary for outsized financial gain, without having to suffer the consequences if that risk failed to pay off. AB wanted to pretend to be a courageous risk-taker by assuming a position they assumed they’d be lauded for. When they weren’t lauded (and instead slammed by their loyal fans who felt dragged into politics they want no part of), the company pretended to apologize and moved on to the horses, assumedly hoping no one would notice.