Really can't believe Saul is still going on about AB/Dylan Mulvaney being the problem here. But I suppose it's easier than looking inward
She wasn’t a “controversial influencer.” None of the idiots protesting this knew who the fuck she was.
I have personally drank 10,000 bud lights since the start of March Madness, so I see your anecdote and raise it.
love the continued disingenuousness from this dickhead continually saying that he doesn’t support the backlash but he won’t drop it because “it’s just a really interesting case study in advertising” please have the decency to not think anyone is dumb enough to fall for that shit
and just an hour ago he was having a panic attack and puking and shitting himself. I’m glad he recovered so quickly
So your solution seems to be marketing around inclusion should stop because there's currently a moral panic hysteria happening?
Might be a good time to finally launch my new product, “Not for Negroes Beer.” We just want to avoid claims that we’re too woke.
10 words or less....lol..you know damn well that ain't gonna happen. I'm not a fan. He's an asshole and I don't agree with any of his "what is a woman?" bullshit or his other gotcha moment bullshit. He lives and thrives in far right echo chambers. Waaaayyy too socially conservative for me.
To be honest, I don't know. On one hand, I mostly agree with inclusion but don't necessarily think it's business's place to take a stand one way or another. I especially don't think that running an inclusion campaign that could potentially have devastating affects on your brand is very smart, especially with such a massive company like A-B. Downstream distributors are also taking the brunt of this and losing revenue. That really sucks.
Nice critique of capitalism in one post. Can't be inclusive to all groups because it might affect the distributor's bottom line
Cloaking your bigotry in business school brain speak is gross though. If Nazis burned down every target because of their pride displays and it hurt their stock price are we really going to do this second order discussion to excuse it.
Personal vs political I guess. I have my own specific views but I don't think my views or any set way of conducting business should be forced upon unwilling participants. Let them live or die on their own merits not a forced ideology of any kind.
again, I tried to show you an established, conventional, perfectly well regarded academic/consultant in Doug Holt (of Wisconsin, Harvard, and Oxford) who has a large body of work completely challenging your armchair marketing bullshit. the marketing team at BL has been worried that their segment is declining for years (hence their quarterly losses before your handlers in the media got you and your ilk mad at this single post) and they're doing small touchpoint spots for younger segments, including one in which they already had credibility in the LGBT community. the idea that it's some sort of heretical and risky move is moronic and completely belied by the history of big American brands (coke, Bud, Mountain Dew, Harley, Apple, Starbucks, Snapple, the list goes on-- he has multiple books on the subject). as for your inability to make the quantified case, that's exactly my point. your whole shtick here has been that you're a big brained business neutral observer and they're being "devastated" by this "national campaign." not only is it not a national campaign-- a million viewer is hilarious compared to GRPs for like CBS-- but you can't say it's devastating without appealing to anecdotes you yourself admit are worthless. instead of harping on that dumb and incorrect point more, maybe ask yourself why you're parroting the same hateful horseshit towards trans people that you did 10 years ago towards black people when you were in an alcoholic, rage-filled stupor.
This didn't answer the question. What inclusivity do you not like being marketed because you disagree with their inclusion.
Businesses live to make money, provide jobs and services or products to their communities. It's not imperative for them to take social stands. If they do, fine but that's going to have an affect one way or another. If that's negative, they have no one to blame but themselves.
I know this is getting circular, but how did they take a stand here? What’s objectionable about the post beyond it coming from a trans person?
you agree with capitalism but can't define it, how interesting also you agree with capitalism but are upset by some moral system of your own that exists outside the utilitarian maximization/accumulation, how interesting
she’s “controversial” and “not a good ambassador” for unspecified reasons that definitely aren’t just transphobia and misogyny
since guys like this are so keyed into "the movement" I'm always curious who would be a good ambassador for... trans bud light
I do have to give The Real UT credit, at least he isn't a chicken shit about his stupid beliefs like dukebuckeye
I'm curious the media diet involved here Kind of a red flag to have this many opinions about a micro tiktoker when you're middle aged imo
He still selectively picks his reply-posts and he still passes off his nonsense as 'sticking to his guns.' I guess it's like the old school Republicans who liked W for being proudly a stooge and found HW off-putting for being so clearly a spook
I'm getting Rogan-adjacent vibes with the grindset business brain framing (that is actually very poorly substantiated)
The WOAT dumbest above the fray faux centrism or like, ostensibly curiosity in the business ramifications. Like, everybody sees through that dumb shit and nobody believes you.
How is that ad - even if it was broadcast nationally on primetime (it wasn’t) - an attack on you or anyone?
it’s probably preferable, but it’s interesting when people occasionally feel the conviction to debate trans issues on here but talk around me
Like, perfectly mediocre but incredibly popular despite really average characteristics but like, great marketing and being in the right place at the right time. And for people with an 85 IQ.
It's absolutely insane to me people go to bat for like a distribution center in the face of bigotry and hatred unless you're like a CEO of the company. How do we as a society produces lunatics like this?
Only because that’s what the current version of capitalism dictates. In the post WWII boom, capitalism was much more paternalistic than it is today and took pride treating their workers and society well. I mean Nixon’s approach to the environment is viewed as heretical communism by today’s Republican Parry and the Supreme Court. What I am saying is that “businesses” are really just a collection of a handful of really wealthy people making decisions about what they want. If they’re shitheads, you have really shitty outcomes. If they’re decent people, they generally try to think a little bit farther ahead than next quarter’s balance sheet.
he thinks it still does that! he thinks firms literally factor in community quality of life in their decision calculus.
I don’t know if there’s any scholarly work to support my hypothesis, but my guess is that a lot of decision makers in the post WWII economy were people that had fought in the war with people from different SE backgrounds or at the very least were forced to understand the sacrifice involved with reaching a greater goal. And that those experiences made those decision-makers willing to do things like give their workers great pensions and shit. That and unions.