this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
119 points (96.1% liked)

Business

472 readers
6 users here now

A place to share business news and insights.


Rules


  1. Follow lemmy.world rules
  2. Only post content related to business
  3. Do not use this community to promote your business

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] duckCityComplex 29 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Potatos_are_not_friends 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

(cue Kylie Jenner ending BLM protests by giving a riot cop a Pepsi)

[–] jaybone 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I can’t remember if this actually happened or if you are just making a joke. Good times.

[–] JustAnotherRando 5 points 7 months ago

It was an absurd Pepsi commercial

[–] SkyezOpen 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TubularTittyFrog 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Wow, how dare you

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart 28 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I’m going to boycott them for not standing up for anything.

Unfortunately I don’t drink bud light so they’ll never know.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart 2 points 7 months ago

Unless they make meth and heroin probably don’t buy their products.

[–] dogsnest 2 points 7 months ago

Thank god it's a boycott and not a cancel!

[–] Potatos_are_not_friends 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[–] GardenVarietyAnxiety 21 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Good. It's empty and fake anyway, lol

[–] Fecundpossum 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

They shouldn't, but they do.

Though, it's not what's printed on the packaging, it's the donations to political campaigns.

[–] MimicJar 0 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] SlapnutsGT 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jeffw 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] paddirn 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jeffw 1 points 7 months ago

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

[–] TubularTittyFrog 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] MimicJar 3 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] Nunar 4 points 7 months ago

By not being gay, bud light is the gayest thing ever.

[–] MeanEYE 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This partnership they had with Dylan was a prime example of not knowing your consumers.

[–] jeffw 1 points 7 months ago

But Light has stood for gay rights for decades, something many in the LGBTQ+ community had acknowledged and appreciated.

[–] Pixlbabble 2 points 7 months ago

Go back to making funny commercials and selling your product.

[–] captainlezbian 1 points 7 months ago

Ok I’ll never drink their spineless beer then

It’s definitely not because there’s local queer friendly breweries with good beer