Is Bud Light Right And I'm Wrong?

[CJD]

Budweiser made the crucial mistake of not knowing their core demographics.

With that said, I think their "losses" are being overblown in an attempt to make the boycott seem more successful than it has been. The 5 billion dollar or 6 billion dollar or whatever number is thrown around nowadays is based on the price of the stock.

Per this article written on April 13th, the stock price for BUD was $66.73 per share on March 31st. On the close of Wednesday, April 12th, the price had fallen to $63.38 per share. They call this a 5.02% drop in market value or $4.562 billion dollars in market cap. "Market Cap" is basically "This is how much all the shares of a company are worth if they were all simultaneously sold for the current market price and that sell off did not change the price of any share in the period of time it took for everyone to sell their shares." Or, in other words, "price per share x number of shares."

It is now May 8th, 2023. BUD's stock price is now sitting at $64.57 per share. So they've regained 35.5% of the market cap they lost from the boycott (or approximately 1.62 billion dollars), and it is likely to continue going up.

Why?

Well...because boycotts don't work.

Or, maybe I should say, they usually don't work. At least not political ones. And this is true for boycotts from the right of the left.

It's part of outrage culture and social media culture that things like the Budweiser boycott catch fire fast, get a lot of attention, and then slowly fade away. And, in some cases, they can backfire entirely, bringing more attention to something and potentially increasing their sales/value instead of decreasing it.

The left has tried to boycott Chick-Fil-A and Harry Potter shit. Neither worked. The Right has tried to boycott...I mean....so many things. Make up that has used trans and gay spokesperson, Amazon, Apple, Carhartt, Goodyear tires, Keurig, M&Ms, NASCAR, Nike etc.

They just don't work. People don't have the attention span for them.

EDIT:
if I had answered this question on April 27th instead of May 8th, the closing price of BUD was $66.19, meaning they would have "recovered" 83% of those losses.

Or, if the article had used March 28th as their determining line rather than March 31st, the reference price would have been $63.47 meaning the boycott would have resulted in only 122 million dollars in "losses" compared to the low point of April 12th, $63.38.

Stock prices are an incredibly fickle way of determining a boycott's success when they fluctuate so much day to day.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-08-2023, 06:14 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Yeah copy and pasting on mobile is weird. Not sure why it jacked up the size.

Anyways, my point (as clearly as I can make it) is your post reads as though your favorite uncle's attitude speaks for the entire LGBTQ community, as if there aren't plenty of other slugs for salt voters out there. I can assure you that nobody's narrow window of the community - whether their active in it or not - speaks for the whole community.

As someone who hates broad strokes against LEOs, I'd think you would be less inclined to use them.

Ahh, I understand your confusion now.  Also, before I continue, I never stated that was my uncle's position, at all.  

I think your confusion lies from my use of the word "appears".  As I said it "appears" there is a schism in the LGBT community that is getting worse.  For comparison, let's say a person is stopped by the police for suspicion of DUI. The officer will say that it "appears" the person is under the influence.  This, of course, is not a statement of fact, that the person in question is factually under the influence.  The statement is that, from the officer's perspective the person shows the signs of being under the influence.  So, when I say it "appears" that there is a schism in the LGBT community over this issue that is an inherent statement that, from my perspective, and my perspective only, this is the case.  As you say, it appears to you to be different.  Also, as you correctly stated, this is not a homogenous community, as is the case for any other group, for which any statement will be 100% true.

I sincerely hope this clears everything up.

[*Nately120*]

(05-08-2023, 06:23 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: They just don't work. People don't have the attention span for them.

Agreed, and add in that a lot of mega corporations own a bunch of alternatives to the product you want to avoid that you don't know they own.

[CJD]

(05-08-2023, 06:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Agreed, and add in that a lot of mega corporations own a bunch of alternatives to the product you want to avoid that you don't know they own.

Yep. It's like that Seinfeld episode where Elaine boycotts one store for bad customer service and goes to a competing store instead, only to find out both stores are owned by the same person.

[*pally*]

what's really amusing about this one, is that they have had to buy thousands of dollars of product in order to film their video of it being destroyed

[*Nately120*]

(05-08-2023, 06:45 PM)pally Wrote: what's really amusing about this one, is that they have had to buy thousands of dollars of product in order to film their video of it being destroyed

If you are a celebrity or big influencer it is an investment.  You sink $1000 bucks in and get more back in sales/influence/views etc for destroying the stuff.  If you're a nobody doing it, yeah, that's economically stupid.

[NUGDUKWE]

(05-08-2023, 08:32 AM)pally Wrote: It just proves the overhyped hysteria of the right.  This wasn’t an advertising campaign.  They sent a commerative can to a media influencer (whether you liked or agree with them) on a milestone in their life.  Cue the hysteria.  
Please explain, how this decision by Bud Light impacted ANYONE’s life other than the recipient’s.  It is simply another sign that today’s conservatives go out of their way to find something to be outraged about.

The over reaction has been simultaneously ridiculous and sad.  It shows us far more about the sheep mentality of the right than it does about Bud Light.

Bud’s parent company reported this morning, that the overall impact has been about 1% of their global sales.

This is pretty much what I think. They sent a can because they have 10mil tik tok followers. So I'm sure they saw it as a way to get product in front of 10mil people and to say they are accepting of everyone. But people on the right want to act like they are trying to push transgenderism on everyone. The funny thing is probably no one even hears about this outside of the people already following Mulvaney without people complaining and making it much bigger than it was to start. 

[samhain]

(05-08-2023, 06:23 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Budweiser made the crucial mistake of not knowing their core demographics.

With that said, I think their "losses" are being overblown in an attempt to make the boycott seem more successful than it has been. The 5 billion dollar or 6 billion dollar or whatever number is thrown around nowadays is based on the price of the stock.

Per this article written on April 13th, the stock price for BUD was $66.73 per share. On the close of Wednesday, April 12th, the price had fallen to $63.38 per share. They call this a 5.02% drop in market value or $4.562 billion dollars in market cap. "Market Cap" is basically "This is how much all the shares of a company are worth if they were all simultaneously sold for the current market price and that sell off did not change the price of any share in the period of time it took for everyone to sell their shares." Or, in other words, "price per share x number of shares."

It is now May 8th, 2023. BUD's stock price is now sitting at $64.57 per share. So they've regained 35.5% of the market cap they lost from the boycott (or approximately 1.62 billion dollars), and it is likely to continue going up.

Why?

Well...because boycotts don't work.

Or, maybe I should say, they usually don't work. At least not political ones. And this is true for boycotts from the right of the left.

It's part of outrage culture and social media culture that things like the Budweiser boycott catch fire fast, get a lot of attention, and then slowly fade away. And, in some cases, they can backfire entirely, bringing more attention to something and potentially increasing their sales/value instead of decreasing it.

The left has tried to boycott Chick-Fil-A and Harry Potter shit. Neither worked. The Right has tried to boycott...I mean....so many things. Make up that has used trans and gay spokesperson, Amazon, Apple, Carhartt, Goodyear tires, Keurig, M&Ms, NASCAR, Nike etc.

They just don't work. People don't have the attention span for them.

Boycott declarations of victory are almost always self-congratualtory.  They are based on some imagined criteria and the goalposts move.  A lot.  It all ends up being what it was in the beginning, ie a bunch of people who don't like something making each other feel like they taught that something a real lesson.  

Libs sang the evils of Walmart from the highest mountain throughout the 90's and into the 2000's.  They wrote entire books about how shitty it was to patronize the megastore.  Impact was minimal if at all.  Lots of people claimed they'd never go there, but they inevitably did in most cases.  The only thing that stopped Walmart was the rise of an entity even more lethal to brick-and mortar business, ie Amazon.  And damn near all the anti-walmart folk probably have prime memberships, too.

Conservatives killed the NFL back in the Kaepernick kneeling days.  By gosh, Trump even called them players a bad name once.  It crippled the league from a financial standpoint when the nation stopped watching on the order of their president.  Players were forced to take real jobs.  Goodell lived in a homeless shelter for a brief spell.  Stadiums were torn down and replaced with NASCAR tracks.  Then Covid came and the league was totally unable to weather the crushing power of MAGA in all of it's glory.  That's what I think happened, anyway.

Most people won't actively protest anything that they genuinely like or that saves them money.  They'll say they do, but that's largely perfomance art.  

[BigPapaKain]

(05-08-2023, 06:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahh, I understand your confusion now.  Also, before I continue, I never stated that was my uncle's position, at all.  

I think your confusion lies from my use of the word "appears".  As I said it "appears" there is a schism in the LGBT community that is getting worse.  For comparison, let's say a person is stopped by the police for suspicion of DUI. The officer will say that it "appears" the person is under the influence.  This, of course, is not a statement of fact, that the person in question is factually under the influence.  The statement is that, from the officer's perspective the person shows the signs of being under the influence.  So, when I say it "appears" that there is a schism in the LGBT community over this issue that is an inherent statement that, from my perspective, and my perspective only, this is the case.  As you say, it appears to you to be different.  Also, as you correctly stated, this is not a homogenous community, as is the case for any other group, for which any statement will be 100% true.

I sincerely hope this clears everything up.

No worries. Fwiw there are schisms in every facet of society, so that a small group has one isn't a surprise - even in small groups. Especially in small groups.

I know just a few years back a lot of pure homosexuals weren't very welcoming of bisexuality. I think it just bothers me that even 'out' groups have their own out groups.

All that said, I personally don't see the schism between LGB and T getting worse. Most of what I see is them coming together laughing at Billy Bob wasting his money on Bud Light so show his disapproval of Bud Light.

[samhain]

(05-08-2023, 12:25 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Highly unlikely to get heckled for Miller Lite since they are not the talk of the town at the moment. 

IDK, dude.  I have a boss that drinks with us occasionally.  He always drinks White Claw, and we absolutely eviscerate him for it, sometimes for up to a week or two after.  Still, he keeps drinking them.  Some people like what they like and give zero shits what anyone thinks of their choices.  

[*Nately120*]

(05-08-2023, 09:08 PM)samhain Wrote: Libs sang the evils of Walmart from the highest mountain throughout the 90's and into the 2000's.  They wrote entire books about how shitty it was to patronize the megastore.  Impact was minimal if at all.  Lots of people claimed they'd never go there, but they inevitably did in most cases.  The only thing that stopped Walmart was the rise of an entity even more lethal to brick-and mortar business, ie Amazon.  And damn near all the anti-walmart folk probably have prime memberships, too.

Oddly enough, I know one person who doesn't go to Wal Mart and he and his family don't do so because they apparently did some pride thing or donated to something like that, or some such.  I also recall a Wal Mart being built in my small conservative dead factory PA hometown in 1999 and all the old folks and conservative types were freaking out and taking issue with it.
I know liberals complain about it, but I think they got burned out on it, as you've said.

(05-08-2023, 09:08 PM)samhain Wrote: Conservatives killed the NFL back in the Kaepernick kneeling days.  By gosh, Trump even called them players a bad name once.  It crippled the league from a financial standpoint when the nation stopped watching on the order of their president.  Players were forced to take real jobs.  Goodell lived in a homeless shelter for a brief spell.  Stadiums were torn down and replaced with NASCAR tracks.  Then Covid came and the league was totally unable to weather the crushing power of MAGA in all of it's glory.  That's what I think happened, anyway.

The NFL thing was a bit amusing because as I said before prior to the Kaepernick thing I dealt with liberal women finding my zeal for the NFL to be an off-putting support of a conservative and misogynistic corporation.  Then the Kaepernick thing happened and conservatives fluffed up the FAMILY VALUES of NASCAR and then NASCAR banned the confederate flag and they got butthurt over that.  Oy, it never ends for the folks who totally don't get offended. 

[*pally*]

(05-08-2023, 09:51 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Oddly enough, I know one person who doesn't go to Wal Mart and he and his family don't do so because they apparently did some pride thing or donated to something like that, or some such.  I also recall a Wal Mart being built in my small conservative dead factory PA hometown in 1999 and all the old folks and conservative types were freaking out and taking issue with it.
I know liberals complain about it, but I think they got burned out on it, as you've said.



The NFL thing was a bit amusing because as I said before prior to the Kaepernick thing I dealt with liberal women finding my zeal for the NFL to be an off-putting support of a conservative and misogynistic corporation.  Then the Kaepernick thing happened and conservatives fluffed up the FAMILY VALUES of NASCAR and then NASCAR banned the confederate flag and they got butthurt over that.  Oy, it never ends for the folks who totally don't get offended. 

This liberal woman loves football and so do many others I know. I also used to love NASCAR racing, hated the confederate flag flying and was pleased when they banned it. All my favorite drivers retired and the racing got boring, so I’ve stopped watching.

[GMDino]

(05-08-2023, 09:08 PM)samhain Wrote: Boycott declarations of victory are almost always self-congratualtory.  They are based on some imagined criteria and the goalposts move.  A lot.  It all ends up being what it was in the beginning, ie a bunch of people who don't like something making each other feel like they taught that something a real lesson.  

Libs sang the evils of Walmart from the highest mountain throughout the 90's and into the 2000's.  They wrote entire books about how shitty it was to patronize the megastore.  Impact was minimal if at all.  Lots of people claimed they'd never go there, but they inevitably did in most cases.  The only thing that stopped Walmart was the rise of an entity even more lethal to brick-and mortar business, ie Amazon.  And damn near all the anti-walmart folk probably have prime memberships, too.

Conservatives killed the NFL back in the Kaepernick kneeling days.  By gosh, Trump even called them players a bad name once.  It crippled the league from a financial standpoint when the nation stopped watching on the order of their president.  Players were forced to take real jobs.  Goodell lived in a homeless shelter for a brief spell.  Stadiums were torn down and replaced with NASCAR tracks.  Then Covid came and the league was totally unable to weather the crushing power of MAGA in all of it's glory.  That's what I think happened, anyway.

Most people won't actively protest anything that they genuinely like or that saves them money.  They'll say they do, but that's largely perfomance art.  

I'll use my brother in law as an example:

He's in a union, is an uber Christian and Conservative and a veteran of the Navy.

He swore he'd never got to Walmart because they were anti-union (while voting straight republican...go figure) then he got divorced and he shops there all the time.

He also swore to never watch the NFL again because they "disrespected the troops" by kneeling.  One Sunday years ago he was watching with us (we got together a lot to watch games) and was complaining the entire time.  I told I thought he said he was never going to watch again and that some of us enjoyed the game and perhaps he should go elsewhere and watch golf instead.  He got mad.  My wife got mad.  But I just wanted him to stand up for his beliefs...lol.  Now he will watch games with us and not say anything about it.  

The urge to boycott passed and life went on.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-08-2023, 09:51 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Oddly enough, I know one person who doesn't go to Wal Mart and he and his family don't do so because they apparently did some pride thing or donated to something like that, or some such.  I also recall a Wal Mart being built in my small conservative dead factory PA hometown in 1999 and all the old folks and conservative types were freaking out and taking issue with it.
I know liberals complain about it, but I think they got burned out on it, as you've said.



The NFL thing was a bit amusing because as I said before prior to the Kaepernick thing I dealt with liberal women finding my zeal for the NFL to be an off-putting support of a conservative and misogynistic corporation.  Then the Kaepernick thing happened and conservatives fluffed up the FAMILY VALUES of NASCAR and then NASCAR banned the confederate flag and they got butthurt over that.  Oy, it never ends for the folks who totally don't get offended. 

I don't go to Wal mart because I think I'm better than the average customer.  Not a lot of places I can say that, so that's my go to. 

[Dill]

(05-08-2023, 06:23 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Well...because boycotts don't work.

Well, sometimes they do. 
https://northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/1161664788/the-women-behind-the-montgomery-bus-boycott

It's just that in this case the basis for the boycott is not actual harm, but faux RWM-stoked outrage.

That kind of boycott won't last, even till the net faux outrage.  

[Dill]

(05-09-2023, 10:10 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't go to Wal mart because I think I'm better than the average customer.  Not a lot of places I can say that, so that's my go to. 

What a terrible elitist you are!


In this country, even a Supreme Court Justice is humble enough to hang out in Walmart parking lots.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-justice-thomas-and-wife-camp-out-at-wal-mart
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/clarence-thomas-said-he-loves-rvs-and-walmarts-in-a-documentary-financed-by-the-billionaire-who-was-taking-him-on-luxury-vacations/ar-AA19y4n6

[CJD]

(05-09-2023, 11:51 AM)Dill Wrote: Well, sometimes they do. 
https://northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/1161664788/the-women-behind-the-montgomery-bus-boycott

It's just that in this case the basis for the boycott is not actual harm, but faux RWM-stoked outrage.

That kind of boycott won't last, even till the net faux outrage.  

Boycotts when something actually unethical or unjust happened do work on occasion.

But even then, unless they're incredibly targeted and well motivated/sponsored, they can still fail with regularity.

Even when a boycott is justified, like with the whole child labor issues surrounding chocolate, I think a lot of people have embraced the "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" approach because if we refused to purchase items from companies or corporations that mistreat their workers or otherwise exploited people to produce their goods we'd be left with...nothing? Could we buy anything at that point?

It's just the nature of Capitalism that, in order to maximize profits and drive costs down to their bare minimum, someone is likely being abused or exploited. The corporations are just hoping that, by doing it in mostly poor and *ahem*..."underdeveloped" countries, they hope that the average consumer either doesn't hear about it, or doesn't care once they do.

Social Media boycotts like this Budweiser one only look more absurd in comparison when you look at all the other truly unethical practices occurring, which do not get the attention they deserve.

[SunsetBengal]

Plot twist, now gay bars in Chicago are boycotting AB products in response to the brand distancing itself from Mulvaney.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/bud-light-controversy-takes-a-twist-that-offends-a-whole-new-crowd/ar-AA1aXGHy?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9f2c37a969944854a03d8df67f5c8095&ei=105

[BFritz21]

(05-09-2023, 04:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Plot twist, now gay bars in Chicago are boycotting AB products in response to the brand distancing itself from Mulvaney.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/bud-light-controversy-takes-a-twist-that-offends-a-whole-new-crowd/ar-AA1aXGHy?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9f2c37a969944854a03d8df67f5c8095&ei=105

It keeps getting funnier!

[GMDino]

(05-09-2023, 04:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Plot twist, now gay bars in Chicago are boycotting AB products in response to the brand distancing itself from Mulvaney.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/bud-light-controversy-takes-a-twist-that-offends-a-whole-new-crowd/ar-AA1aXGHy?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9f2c37a969944854a03d8df67f5c8095&ei=105

Again, this will pass.

I did find this bit interesting though.

Quote:So in a way, Bud Light has managed to unite both the anti-trans and pro-trans factions of the country by focusing their anger on the brand.


But this is where the size of a global corporation like Anheuser-Busch InBev comes into play. 


While Bud Light might be at the center of a cultural identity for many American beer drinkers, the truth is Bud Light only represents a fraction of the $14.2 billion in revenue and more than $4 billion in profits the company reported in its most recent quarter.
  
"With respect to the current situation and the impact of Bud Light sales, it is too early to have a full view -- Bud Light's volume decline ... would represent around 1% of our overall global volumes for that period," explained Anheuser Busch CEO Michael Doukeris. 


"Bud Light is very important to our U.S. business, and I would never minimize the situation. However, seeing the context of our global company provides perspective."