First, to preface everything, this is by no means a political piece. The entirety of this column is dedicated to business. This, however, is one of those prominent intersections between profits and politics.
With the elephant out of the room, let’s dive into a timeline and context of the event in focus. Everything began back in mid-March when popular transgender journalist Dylan Mulvaney’s one year of transitioning was documented through the 365 Days of Girlhood event. In the past, Mulvaney had become very polarizing due to a very publicized transitioning journey via social media, so the special put an even larger target upon Mulvaney’s back.
In response to the event, Anheuser-Busch sent Mulvaney personalized cans as well as featured Mulvaney’s Instagram for a targeted advertising campaign.
The fallout has been immense and well-vocalized from both sides of the political aisle—including a Republican-led boycott of Anheuser Busch products, mainly Bud Light—have resulted in a 17% decrease in sales during the week ending April 15 compared to the previous year’s metrics, leading to two of Anheuser’s top marketing executives placed on leave.
Now, for the million-dollar question: was the move by Bud Light to market through Mulvaney intelligent? Simply put, no—the move was a calculated manipulation of an individual’s identity politics to push a product into a new market that the company had previously been unsuccessful in marketing to.
The intentions of Anheuser were quite clear, as stated by their Vice President of Marketing at the time, Alissa Heinerscheid, that the brand needed to shed its “fratty” branding with “inclusivity” in order to appeal to younger generations. Heinerscheid doubled down on the need to change Bud Light’s image, emphasizing the necessity for a shift towards a more gender-neutral product rather than the current marketing focus on males.
With respect to Heinerscheid,who has been very successful and has a strong Harvard education to bolster her name, the move was poorly thought out and disregarded a large reason for the brand’s reputation: preference. A 2007 study by Beverage Dynamics found that almost 60% of light beer drinkers were males—with the largest age groups being made up of the late-20s and early-30s. The discrepancy only worsens when it comes to other types of beers such as dark brews and imports—with the gender split rising closer to 66% male preference and the age grouping only further compounding into the late-20s and early-30s.
When it comes to politics, a 2014 study featured in the Washington Post found that Bud Light was very politically agnostic compared to the more liberal-leaning Budweiser and conservative-leaning Coors Light.
The move to position Bud Light to be a more aristocratic, egalitarian beer simply just does not make sense. Beers typically are not the drink of choice for that demographic, who opts more for single malts or wines at higher levels of affluence and seltzers at lower levels. For Bud Light to try to position itself within that group does not prove to have much upside. Anheuser would have benefited more from pushing into the seltzer market more, as its only current standing is Bud Light seltzer, which has had its own struggles, largely due to its association with Bud Light.
Moreover, while the push for inclusive marketing has been successful in the past — see Nike and Colin Kaepernick or M&M’s growing female “spokescandies,” which have been less abrasive to the target audience. Here, Bud Light was directly pressing their market where it hurts, and the market pushed back. While it remains to be seen if the outcome will be longstanding or if this is simply a hitch in the journey of Bud Light to modernize its brand and reach new audiences.
On the positive side of things, Bud Light does notoriously taste like week-old rainwater, so the boycotts are opening doors for Anhauser to push some of their more refined products into stores in the future.
