People missing the point re Bud Light, or "Beer!" the movie

Putting this here b/c the point of this post is that this is NOT political. If it turns that way I'll move it. This really is about business and an 80s movie.

Now, I'm sure some are boycotting Bud Light over the woke thing, or the trans thing, etc. Probably a lot, maybe most.

But the underlying issue here, the one that will not rebound as easily and why pundits are surprised b/c most "boycotts" fade quicker than this, is b/c this is simply bad marketing.

You guys know the secret to great beer? Marketing. That's it. There are not enough differences in the taste of beers within a category to really be based on taste. it's based on the image the beer creates and conveys. This was all brought out (and I stole the quote from) a great 1980s flick called, not coincidentally,"Beer!", starting Loretta Switt (Hot Lips from MASH) and Rip Torn. Funny movie.

As that movie shows, and as anyone in marketing knows, beer is all about imagery and branding. Especially these categories of beer like Bud, Bud Light, etc.

I just saw Barkley rant about how if you dont' want to drink Bud Light that you're a "redneck" and to "F*** you". Clearly implying it's b/c you are anti-trans or anti-gay or whatever.

But that misses the point. When people drink beer they drink it in large part b/c of the image it conveys, and that is more true of Budweiser brands than most others as their beer itself is pretty non-descript.

The mistake of Bud Light is that they branded the beer with a person who most people either don't care for or, maybe more important, don't identify with as a brand spokesman. Now Bud Light didn't intend for this person to become a spokesman, but he/she did and as a spokesman it's simply a disaster of branding, not of politics.

It doesn't help that this person seems to think that becoming a "woman" requires dressing up like Audrey Hepburn in the 1940s on a regular basis. Even women won't identify with that persona, even if the fact that this woman has a penis isn't turning them off. Even if you are fine with someone being trans, you may not find this particular version of it very appealing, not at a level where you can identify and want to pattern yourself after, which is how spokesman branding works.


So Barkley and the others miss the point, or at least a big part of the point. In the end the death blow to their sales wasn't just the woke backlash, but the fact that their brand manager referred to their brand as "fratty" and wanted to change it to something more cosmopolitan and urban. This was part of an intentional move to try to broaden the Bud Light market base, albeit in ways they thought would be more laser targeted and not become a broad campaign. Well that's great except that most of your consumers of that beer aren't in the category you are trying to expand into, and will be turned off by that move.

It's like branding your champagne with a cowboy, or Cheez Whiz with Paris Hilton. Or, to help Barkley with this, it would be like Nike hiring Mulvaney to sell basketball shoes. Doesn't work, does it? It's contrary to the image your consumers want to project of themselves, which is fundamentally how branding works.

Anyway, sorry for the rant. I get that there's a political side to this, but what most commentators seem to be missing, esp. those criticizing people for moving away from the beer, is that this is just horrible brand management, bad business, not just politics.

No man wants to be seen drinking one and have his buddies ask him if he needs a dress and pearls to go with it. It's really that simple when the product is basically tasteless water built almost entirely on imagery and just being a light beer option. Far too easy to substitute to some other light beer that tastes pretty similar, and not have people tease you about it. Few current drinkers of Bud Light want to project the image created by Mulvaney, so they don't drink the beer. That's why Marlboro sold so many cigarettes, b/c people who smoked them wanted to be seen as that kind of guy.

PS, almost this exact thing happens in the movie Beer btw, and it's interesting as it really predicts this whole situation in a way. I won't spoil it more than that, though if you find this thing anywhere let me know, I'm trying to locate a copy. :)

Unless you're talking about an IPA or something, you're right. I mean, I can taste a difference between Bud Light, Budweiser, Miller Lite, and Coors, I guess, but enough to make a difference? Not really. I'll put it another way. If I'm at a gathering, and an adult beverage is offered to me, and I'm in the mood for a beer, I'm going to drink it regardless of whatever it is. Even "Natty Light" or Busch. Maybe I don't have a sophisticated palate. In fact, I'm sure that's true. But I'm an awful lot like Joe Average in that regard, I suspect. I do *think* I like Yuengling better than about anything else in the "every day" beer drinking category, and that's what has been in my fridge forever if I didn't have AmberBock, which I also enjoy. But any of them are drinkable to me. Marketing? Yep, I can see it.

People generally have a category preference, and I for example prefer Mich Ultra for my mainstream, no flavor, simple beer. But for most of those beers they are built on image. The Miller Lite campaign of "tastes great, less filling" was brilliant b/c prior to that the idea of a light beer was a turn off to men b/c they didn't want to be seen as being on a diet, or needing to lose weight. The campaign dismissed that and gave a classic "alternate of choice" sales pitch which didn't include that it was fewer calories. Prior to that every campaign based on fewer calories failed miserably.

Miller Lite's success goes 100% to that campaign. It wasn't about taste or even fewer calories, at that time, but about getting rid of the negative image of "diet beer" to allow mainstream drinkers drink it without feeling like they would be seen negatively. That is the exact opposite of what just happened with Bud Light, and we see the impact.

Bud Light's problem is an image issue more than a political issue. It is a "fratty" beer, and since those types drink a lot of beer, it kept it #1. They were declining in share, but their solution was a miserable failure.

Arguably AB's best option would be to simply let Bud Light ride its segment and let it steadily decline in sales, and then bring in another brand to take over that part of the market position. That can be very successful.

that's another story, but a marketing milking strategy isn't always wrong, and neither is cannibalizing your product line with another product. It beats letting the competition do it.