“We need to clarify the facts that this was one can, one influencer, one post and not a campaign,” Michel Doukeris told investors during an earnings call.
"Hey guys we never made it FORMAL, just paid them to represent our product."
Doukeris went on to decry the “misinformation” spread on social media after Mulvaney last month posted a photo with a Bud Light while in a bathtub on TikTok to her more than 10 million followers.
Oh, it is always misinformation isn't it. That damned social media misinformation.
Doukeris said the company was “providing direct financial support” to delivery drivers, wholesalers, and bar owners who were impacted by the backlash.
Why the fuck are the drivers responsible for bud light sales? Is InBev getting fucked across their entire portfolio? That would be brilliant, but the idea that drivers and bar owners are impacted is absurd. They just replace the lines they lose in bars, likely with competitor products.
“We will continue to learn, meet the moment in time, all be stronger and we work tirelessly to do what we do best: Bring people together over a beer and creating a future of more cheers,” Doukeris told Fox Business.
Lame PR requirement to his statement.
Overall 1/10 statement, way too late, not enough promises of repercussions for the people involved and 0 consequences.
Who the fuck is giving these guys advice, some woke PR company? Because holy shit they are just as incompetent.
Bud Light was the best selling light beer brand in the US by far, losing 25% or more of those sales will absolutely wreck everybody in the beer distribution system. InBev executives are using it as a fake excuse, but that doesn't mean it isn't also a real problem.
losing 25% or more of those sales will absolutely wreck everybody in the beer distribution system.
There absolutely would be people affected, however the delivery drivers and bar owners are not impacted the slightest bit.
When a bar says "I don't want to carry bud light" the InBev distributor just says "alright pick another product and we'll replace it". The delivery driver doesn't give a shit what products he's carrying, just that his reefer is full. The bar doesn't give a shit what products he's carrying, just that his bar is full.
The only people who get hurt are the distributors who now have tons of inventory they can't move from one line, but InBev probably replaced 50 - 70% of bud light lines with another product they carry so it isn't a big deal for them.
The missing scene is that all of them were fully aware of this and were too gutless to push back against the diversity hire who wanted it despite likely knowing this is exactly how it would end up
Considering I've run into shit like this before all the time, I guarantee at least one person in the room said it was a stupid ass idea, and got told to shut the hell up.
Bullshit. Even working at big but much smaller companies than AB, ad campaigns didn't just appear from the ether without absurd levels of focus-grouping, review and approval.
Hell I as a lowly engineer once got brought into a "what should we name the product?" committee, and they had a whole official process for that we had to go through. And this was for a product that no one here ever would have heard of, let alone the ad campaign for a beer that's a household name.
No what happened was the committee came up with a name that was Gruntmaster 6000 tier bad, then the exec in charge of the product rightly concluded the name was garbage and named it something different (ie. good). So the entire exercise was wasted.
The funny thing was it really bothered one of the other engineers on the committee that the name wasn't used. He acknowledged the name was garbage but didn't like that they decided on a whim to not follow this process they claimed to want to follow.
I used to get into friendly arguments with him about it, because I wanted the product to have a good name and didn't particularly care how it got one.
without absurd levels of focus-grouping, review and approval
So, in a sane world each of these steps should have stopped this from ever happening. But happen it did. Let's see if they look inward to find out where they went wrong.
The only way I'd ever even remotely consider doing business with them again if if everyone involved publicly denounced ESG and CEI. That will never happen.
Further proving they don't understand the demographic. Take the L, fire everybody, make actual radical changes for the core demographic, and all the while, beg for forgiveness.
"Hey guys we never made it FORMAL, just paid them to represent our product."
Oh, it is always misinformation isn't it. That damned social media misinformation.
Why the fuck are the drivers responsible for bud light sales? Is InBev getting fucked across their entire portfolio? That would be brilliant, but the idea that drivers and bar owners are impacted is absurd. They just replace the lines they lose in bars, likely with competitor products.
Lame PR requirement to his statement.
Overall 1/10 statement, way too late, not enough promises of repercussions for the people involved and 0 consequences.
Who the fuck is giving these guys advice, some woke PR company? Because holy shit they are just as incompetent.
Bud Light was the best selling light beer brand in the US by far, losing 25% or more of those sales will absolutely wreck everybody in the beer distribution system. InBev executives are using it as a fake excuse, but that doesn't mean it isn't also a real problem.
There absolutely would be people affected, however the delivery drivers and bar owners are not impacted the slightest bit.
When a bar says "I don't want to carry bud light" the InBev distributor just says "alright pick another product and we'll replace it". The delivery driver doesn't give a shit what products he's carrying, just that his reefer is full. The bar doesn't give a shit what products he's carrying, just that his bar is full.
The only people who get hurt are the distributors who now have tons of inventory they can't move from one line, but InBev probably replaced 50 - 70% of bud light lines with another product they carry so it isn't a big deal for them.
We paid him and made him a custom beer can, and amplied on social media everywhere, but we didn't really mean it.
The missing scene is that all of them were fully aware of this and were too gutless to push back against the diversity hire who wanted it despite likely knowing this is exactly how it would end up
Considering I've run into shit like this before all the time, I guarantee at least one person in the room said it was a stupid ass idea, and got told to shut the hell up.
That person should be the new CEO.
Bullshit. Even working at big but much smaller companies than AB, ad campaigns didn't just appear from the ether without absurd levels of focus-grouping, review and approval.
Hell I as a lowly engineer once got brought into a "what should we name the product?" committee, and they had a whole official process for that we had to go through. And this was for a product that no one here ever would have heard of, let alone the ad campaign for a beer that's a household name.
This is the same company that hired Amy Schumer to complain about (the nonexistent) female pay 'inequality'. And used Amy Schumer to promote the 'gender spectrum'.
It gets even worse.
Was your product the Gruntmaster 6000?
No what happened was the committee came up with a name that was Gruntmaster 6000 tier bad, then the exec in charge of the product rightly concluded the name was garbage and named it something different (ie. good). So the entire exercise was wasted.
My favorite 'joke' about committees and group meetings is a camel is a horse designed by committee.
The funny thing was it really bothered one of the other engineers on the committee that the name wasn't used. He acknowledged the name was garbage but didn't like that they decided on a whim to not follow this process they claimed to want to follow.
I used to get into friendly arguments with him about it, because I wanted the product to have a good name and didn't particularly care how it got one.
So, in a sane world each of these steps should have stopped this from ever happening. But happen it did. Let's see if they look inward to find out where they went wrong.
Just kidding, they'll just blame the customers
The only way I'd ever even remotely consider doing business with them again if if everyone involved publicly denounced ESG and CEI. That will never happen.
Burgers?
The damage is done fucktard, you have one out and you refuse to use it.
nah. you're the ceo, you signed off on it.
Further proving they don't understand the demographic. Take the L, fire everybody, make actual radical changes for the core demographic, and all the while, beg for forgiveness.
It's plastered all over your literal product you twat