deleted by creator
get all the corporations out of politics
This is unfortunately not possible. A corporation is a political construct, and cannot be divorced from the politics of its own existence.
It’s possible if we all had the will to change it.
They weren’t standing for anything in the first place. They were trying to market their product in a way that they thought would make people buy it.
(cue Kylie Jenner ending BLM protests by giving a riot cop a Pepsi)
I can’t remember if this actually happened or if you are just making a joke. Good times.
It was an absurd Pepsi commercial
Gasp. Are you suggesting corporations don’t actually care about representation and just want that sweet sweet lgbtq money? How dare!
I find it hilarious when people get upset about companies that don’t change profile pics during whatever month, when it’s not like any of them give a shit in the first place.
the people who grand stand about this sort of crap are the people who are the same way as the companies. they don’t give a shit either, but they want to be seen as giving a shit so they can feel like they are ‘good’ people, you know, get that sweet social capital of likes on IG.
Wow, how dare you
I’m going to boycott them for not standing up for anything.
Unfortunately I don’t drink bud light so they’ll never know.
Make sure you also avoid Kona, Stella Artois, Goose Island, Elysian, Four Peaks, Golden Road, 10 Barrel, and any other whack-a-mole AB-InBev brands that pop up.
Unless they make meth and heroin probably don’t buy their products.
Yeah this is me in a nutshell.
If Dookie Cat-hair Pizza was like “Trans-rights”, I’m still not going to go buy it.
Thank god it’s a boycott and not a cancel!
Good. It’s empty and fake anyway, lol
Your job is to make and sell beer. Just make and sell fucking beer that I won’t drink. Simple. Why should corporations have political influence campaigns on social issues?
They shouldn’t, but they do.
Though, it’s not what’s printed on the packaging, it’s the donations to political campaigns.
Why should corporations have political influence campaigns on social issues?
Because they want to sell you beer.
If they could sell “Trans Cans” with the transgender flag on it and guarantee a huge profit you’d see them in every store and commercial.
Unfortunately conservative morons are scared of colorful cans and everyone else thinks Budweiser tastes terrible so instead we get this article.
I never understood why a business would take a stance on anything. Regardless of what it is you’re immediately isolating yourself from a subset of potential customers.
Reminds me of a local barbershop here I went to check it out and get a beard trim and they have a big ass “Fuck Biden” flag in the window, turned around and went home.
Just to take that logic a little farther… should they take a stance on climate change? Like, should they bother to aim for net zero emissions or is that too political?
How about civil rights? If a city bans trans people from using a bathroom that matches their gender identity, is the business obligated to enforce that law? Or any other morally reprehensible law?
I’m just not sure where the line is
I was about to write something similar to that original comment, but then started thinking about it a little bit more, isn’t part of the problem with Capitalism that profit is nearly the only factor that businesses consider? It’s like the only way we can motivate businesses to do anything “good” is if we give them some sort of carrot or stick that either makes them more money or lose less money if they do the good thing (that they should be doing anyways).
So even though I want businesses to “stay in their lane”, there’s a number of businesses whose lane is negatively affecting society and the planet, so they should actually be concerning themselves more with the environment or their products’ effects on society. It’s not that businesses should care less, it’s that they should care more.
It depends on how you look at it. Most business thinking nowadays, at least at the scholarly level, involves some extent of stakeholder theory. Part of that means acknowledging the community’s wellbeing. Similarly, you can look at the rise of Enterprise Risk Management, which forces businesses to think about risks like climate change or en the risk of ignoring vs embracing the LGBTQ+ community
from a business point of view, no. they are solely there to make profit for the next quarter. and follow the law to a minimum to reduce costs.
So that’s sort of a shit response and far from accurate. I currently don’t drink Budweiser. Budweiser was attempting to market to a new crowd. From a business point of view having more customers is a good thing. If this little bit of marketing had caused Budweiser to double their sales they would have doubled down and released an article like this.
In fact in their response they said they still wanted to focus on “controversial” stuff. “I want to enjoy it with my friends. I want sports, I want music. I want fun.”
Sports is controversial. What sports? Will they sponsor Chess? Quidditch? Horse Dressage?
Music is controversial. Which music? Taylor Swift? Kid Rock? Jazz? Tap Dance? Country? Juggalos?
Budweiser will absolutely continue to advertise “controversial” things because if they don’t they die.
If the only thing that matters is profit next quarter then they need either current customers to buy more or new customers, but ideally both. If you only rely on current customers you’re fucked since eventually they die.
Sure Budweiser might be quiet for a few years, but they’ll be back because they’re not stupid at running a business, but their customers are.
By not being gay, bud light is the gayest thing ever.
This partnership they had with Dylan was a prime example of not knowing your consumers.
But Light has stood for gay rights for decades, something many in the LGBTQ+ community had acknowledged and appreciated.
Go back to making funny commercials and selling your product.
Ok I’ll never drink their spineless beer then
It’s definitely not because there’s local queer friendly breweries with good beer
