05-08-2023, 06:23 PM
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.
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.
![[Image: oN5QAdY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oN5QAdY.png)
