Maybe, but there's more people in the conference room than just the Bud Light VP. That's what makes it confounding. Or is everyone just a "yes man" to the VP?Aggie95 said:
I also think people like the Bud Light VP, truly are insulated and believe 80% of the population agrees with their political/advertising stance. They've been "educated" by liberal professors and been in groups that really don't offer counter thought.
I bet that girl is truly shocked that the divide is 50/50 or even 60/40 against her.
Why are so many business execs sacrificing customer goodwill for politics?
10,090 Views |
76 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Adverse Event
I have a close Aggie friend who is CEO of a company and you can't believe the pressure (both incentive comp-wise and board-wise) he gets to make sure they are conforming to the ESG /DEI mantra. The inclusion of the PRIDE logo on their corporate email signatures for the month of June almost became a breaking point. All of this driven by a "progressive" HR head. Many Boards have been co-opt'ed by the ESG scorecard.
ac04 said:
i'm telling you what's actually happening in the real world and you're responding with conjecture.
As I said previously, I've never doubted that ESG plays a large role in this.
But you're also grossly simplifying it to "mean shadow bogeyman" if you think the only reason AB decided to run this type ad is because Blackrock (or the like) puppetmasters told them they had to or no more access to capital.
Because ads like this existed long before the big ESG push of this administration. People were up in arms about marketing to gays. People were up in arms about Kapernick kneeling ads. I'm sure if you go back far enough people were up in arms about marketing to blacks.
And just looking solely at the Kapernick ads, turns out the approach was insanely profitable for the company.
ESG is the real culprit. Set up from the beginning to pull strings by whatever the political class want to favor.
ac04 said:
this is not the same thing as kaepernick at all, that's not relevant. lots of people in nike's target demo supported him. bud light drinkers are clearly not supportive of mulvaney. this is one of the biggest marketing blunders in recent memory.
Except you don't actually know if bud light drinks are so clearly not supportive of mulvaney that they'll abandon the product (and AB's other products).
Many would have said Bud Light (or any other of the popular light beer brands) are/were not supportive of the homosexual "movement". Advertising to them didn't take down any of them.
Do I think it was a good idea? Probably not. And like I said previously it may end up being a big mistake. But the same was said about the first pro-gay beer ads, and it didn't really make an impact in those company's bottom lines at all.
So I guess at the end of the day maybe all of these major corporations have become so beholden to capital access that they are willing to completely sacrifice their share prices.
Or maybe there's just a lot of people who don't like it when they feel like "their product" is suddenly being consumed by someone they don't like (trans/gay/black/whatever) and rather than come to grips that there's apparently money in marketing to "those people", it's easier to think their favorite companies/brands are really just being forced to do it by the investment banks.
Personally... if there wasn't money in making or attempting these moves, then I find it difficult to believe investment banks... who like money... would be forcing them.
Again, I'm not doubting ESG exists. But I'd say it's far more likely that the mulvaney ad had more to do with AB's own internal "what can we do to appeal to this demo?" than direction from their capital partners.
Quote:
What happened to Stan R?
In short, he was critiquing a campaign in development & obviously wasn't as sensitive as an employee thought he should be. They leaked it and he was forced to resign as national clients began to leave.
Google has tons about it.
Edit to add Texas Monthly's take on it:
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/stan-richards-richards-group-racial-remarks/
But the folks at tu didn't care.
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2021/11/23/ut-pr-school-maintains-stan-richards-namesake-despite-racist-comments/8722560002/
Corporate virtue signaling. The world goes on….
Proposition Joe said:
What am I missing? They've lost maybe 2% off their stock price since the instagram posting, no?
Seems like this backlash isn't as big as certain sites/people are trying to make it out to be.
I looked up these numbers yesterday.
Over the past Week...
TAP +7.04%
BUD -0.41%
DJIA +1.11%
S&P500 +1.05%
NASDAQ +0.84%
So what if Bud is clawing back? Over the exact same time period they're down 7.5% to their competition. They're down 1.5% to the broader market.
So, in my view, is not the small down tick. It's the fact that dropped when their competition rose. When their competition beat the broader market, they were at best flat.
As for their earnings call... This happened after Q1 numbers closed, but i bet analysts will have questions, and the CEO better have good answers.
A lot of you are overestimating the power of someone with a VP title. A VP isn't **** in a company the size of AB and no one is playing yes man to someone who is probably 5-7 levels removed from the CEO.
FTAG 2000 said:It's this.ac04 said:
wrong board. corporations are somewhat held hostage by huge investment firms like blackrock, vanguard, and state street among others to participate in ESG/DEI bull**** or else.
You had Vanguard, Blackrock, and State Street going to big companies in the months following Biden being voted in and told that ESG would be a priority for those institutional organizations going forward.
And business leaders were staring at inflation and a recession, and the big money threatening to sell off the companies shares they owned if they don't play ball.
We had a rep for Larry Fink (Blackrock) tell our leadership they would dump all of our shares if we didn't play ball. That would have absolutely tanked our stock. So our leaders have started implementing some of the ESG stuff to our detriment - nothing publicly stupid like A-B just did, but things that get us 'ESG points' in the investment community.
And it's all pointless stuff that does nothing positive to our bottom line, or is really having any effect on our company culture, but checking a bunch of boxes and keeping us in the good graces of the big 3.
Bingo. Plays out even in non-global and non-regional companies. I'm piggybacking a little on youbet's response but the DEI push is total bull**** for many companies. Emphasizing a diverse workforce and global values at companies that aren't even regional is about hegemony; the examples on trainings are stuff you never see and can't plan for. They're not gonna get a single muslim woman demanding to wear a hijab in a midsized Texas town's workforce no matter how much it's in the videos. But if you don't watch the video and get the questions right HR is gonna visit you. And if you don't have a DEI officer good luck with financing.
ac04 said:
you're clearly dug in so i'll agree to disagree about AB's motivations. we'll check back in later to see how it all played out. initial numbers are extremely bad but perhaps there will be a wave of support for trannies among bud light drinkers at some point.
I think if it plays out how they wanted it to, it will be less a wave of support amongst the trans population, but rather not really that big a "boycott" from the anti-trans crowd. There will be a couple of weeks of blowback, then the Bud Lite drinkers will go back to drinking Bud Lite (or switch to some other product unknowingly under AB) and the growing trans population might start buying/supporting their product.
Again, I'm not opining whether or not it was a good marketing decision (I tend to think not) -- just that I very much doubt that these enormous companies are purposely making really bad marketing decisions simply so that they can still get access to capital from investors (who would then be investing in a company that is going to have its stock price and/or market share take a hit). Just doesn't make sense.
Hiring more LBGTQWhatever? Sure. Forcing employees to include He/Her/That on their email signatures? Yeah.
Run this crappy ad that might potentially crush our marketshare because the capital gatekeepers who are doing what the political leaders are telling them to do say we have to? I doubt it. That's people projecting their own disdain for something and "surely my beer of choice wouldn't market to those people willingly!".
Proposition Joe said:ac04 said:
you're clearly dug in so i'll agree to disagree about AB's motivations. we'll check back in later to see how it all played out. initial numbers are extremely bad but perhaps there will be a wave of support for trannies among bud light drinkers at some point.
I think if it plays out how they wanted it to, it will be less a wave of support amongst the trans population, but rather not really that big a "boycott" from the anti-trans crowd. There will be a couple of weeks of blowback, then the Bud Lite drinkers will go back to drinking Bud Lite (or switch to some other product unknowingly under AB) and the growing trans population might start buying/supporting their product.
Again, I'm not opining whether or not it was a good marketing decision (I tend to think not) -- just that I very much doubt that these enormous companies are purposely making really bad marketing decisions simply so that they can still get access to capital from investors (who would then be investing in a company that is going to have its stock price and/or market share take a hit). Just doesn't make sense.
Hiring more LBGTQWhatever? Sure. Forcing employees to include He/Her/That on their email signatures? Yeah.
Run this crappy ad that might potentially crush our marketshare because the capital gatekeepers who are doing what the political leaders are telling them to do say we have to? I doubt it. That's people projecting their own disdain for something and "surely my beer of choice wouldn't market to those people willingly!".
Have you been to bschool recently? I went 15 years ago to a non-Ivy and they lived in a bubble. It's only gotten worse.
ac04 said:
you're still not getting it. the ad was run to score DEI points. obviously they didn't intend to anger their customers, that's an idiotic thing to even propose. they just badly misread how their customers would react to this specific ad. how are you still not connecting the dots here
So basically they ran an ad targeting a demographic and it didn't turn out how they wanted it to (as of now). A pretty standard advertising blunder since the dawn of commerce.
Similar to how they've run ads for gays, social justice warriors and going far enough back, minorities. All of which were done without some political push for DEI.
So while you're theorizing that it is DEI that caused the ad in the first place, at this point its just a theory. You're connecting two dots that may be related, but since ads like this have been tried each of the last few decades (on a much larger scale) there's no reason to completely be in disbelief that they might have tried this on their own.
What you frame under "score DEI points" could also simply be considered "appeal to a new demographic". You're assuming without these sources of capital that they are beholden to (that are being dictated to politically), that AB never would have run an ad like this.
History says otherwise.
Y'all need to get a room.
ac04 said:
just noticed you put "score DEI points" in quotations as if i am making that up or being hyperbolic. but the fact is that this commercial literally helped them score points in their CEI ranking (which has been published since 2002 btw):i guess if pretending that the corporate equality index doesn't exist (and that AB doesn't participate) somehow makes you feel better we can just leave it at that. very confusing position and i'm not sure what it accomplishes but this is clearly going nowhere.Quote:
- Three Distinct Efforts of Outreach or Engagement to Broader LGBTQ Community (15). Businesses must demonstrate ongoing LGBTQ-specific engagement that extends across the firm, including at least three of the following:
- LGBTQ employee recruitment efforts with demonstrated reach of LGBTQ applicants (required documentation may include a short summary of the event or an estimation of the number of candidates reached)
- Supplier diversity program with demonstrated effort to include certified LGBTQ suppliers
- Marketing or advertising to LGBTQ consumers (e.g.: advertising with LGBTQ content, advertising in LGBTQ media or sponsoring LGBTQ organizations and events)
- Philanthropic support of at least one LGBTQ organization or event (e.g.: financial, in kind or pro bono support)
- Demonstrated public support for LGBTQ equality under the law through local, state or federal legislation or initiatives
I've never said it didn't exist (and actually I believe reference it to being a thing we all know about earlier).
I have no doubts it exists and have no doubts it impacts a lot of corporate decisions -- I know Johnny CEO likely isn't deciding "hrmmm, we should add Her/He/Them/Whatever to our email signatures!" on their own.
What I'm saying is that chalking it up 100% to DEI pressure initiatives (which allows one to then skew into "this must be due to the political administration!") then basically allows someone to say any decision a company makes they don't actually agree with at it's root is likely caused by whatever political party/candidate they don't like.
I'm not saying that is what you specifically are doing, but defaulting to "oh, must be because their capital partners are pushing DEI!" is a leap that while may be true, isn't necessarily the case -- especially when in this case it would involve running an ad that you and others are so sure will cost AB tons of money -- something I simply don't believe their capital investors are keen on seeing happen.
Just a quick googling shows Bud Light was running ads in gay magazines in the mid-90's. 10 years ago they had a same-sex marriage support ad.
Were capital sources pulling the strings then too?
Comeby! said:
Y'all need to get a room.
I think it's been fairly civil on both ends. I have no doubt he has more insight into the corporate marketing world than I do -- but I also think it's very easy to just lump any brand/marketing decision made by a company that rubs many of us the wrong way (gays, kneeling during the anthem, trans, whatever) as some decision made due to political pressure (in this case by way of capital funding).
Sometimes a bad advertisement is just a bad advertisement.
It has. It's just been a tennis match to the rest of us.
Serious answer? It's a long term strategic decision to appeal to the inclinations of the youngest generation. In 20 years, they will be the largest part of the core customer base for a lot of these companies, so the battle for future market share begins today.
It doesn't matter what most of us think. The baby boomers and Gen X are fading out of leading the country and the Millennials aren't far behind. The Gen Z, those born from 1995 to 2010 especially those born late in the range, and the Gen Alphas, those born since 2010 are going to determine the direction of the country in the next couple of decades.ABATTBQ11 said:
Serious answer? It's a long term strategic decision to appeal to the inclinations of the youngest generation. In 20 years, they will be the largest part of the core customer base for a lot of these companies, so the battle for future market share begins today.
Considering that most people in their youth are having their minds and thoughts developed through liberal schools and mostly liberal social networks, I think that there will be many changes coming. I think that you can look at England and much of western Europe to see what the U.S. will be a few decades from now.
htxag09 said:
One thing that has always fascinated me with corporations and the nature of the stock market / investing is the increasing need to always grow. No corporation will ever be satisfied with how they're performing, even if it's really good. And it seems to be the downfall of quite a few of them....
If you're not growing revenue, how else do you pay for ever growing salaries and expenses?
You and I both know it's less about paying salaries and expenses and more about increasing returns for shareholders/investors…..
The small companies I worked for would disagree. It was more about retaining talent and keeping people happy. You're probably right about the large corporations. I also wish they would focus more on ROI than growth, my company included!
woodiewood1 said:
…... I think that you can look at England and much of western Europe to see what the U.S. will be a few decades from now.
This! And it's scary.
I didn't know Vanguard was one of these. Time to sell my investments there. Any recommendations on a non-cancer alternative? (I am not a sophisticated investor, so I need mutual funds.)ac04 said:
wrong board. corporations are somewhat held hostage by huge investment firms like blackrock, vanguard, and state street among others to participate in ESG/DEI bull**** or else.
"We also outlined our views on diversity beyond the boardroom and our expectations of a board's role in overseeing DEI risks within the workplace. We illustrated the case for getting it right and the risks of getting it wrong."SchizoAg said:I didn't know Vanguard was one of these. Time to sell my investments there. Any recommendations on a non-cancer alternative? (I am not a sophisticated investor, so I need mutual funds.)ac04 said:
wrong board. corporations are somewhat held hostage by huge investment firms like blackrock, vanguard, and state street among others to participate in ESG/DEI bull**** or else.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/06/22/vanguards-insights-on-shareholder-proposals-concerning-diversity-equity-and-inclusion/
schwack schwack said:That was crazy but probably the #1 reason people in Advertising & their clients just go along. Who would have thought that Stan could not voice questions or opinions about a campaign in development in discussion? One employee took him down. One. Employee. Wonder if they are still there.Quote:
Look what happened to Stan Richards -- one of advertising's greatest minds. His own people leaked audio of his issues with a new Motel 6 ad campaign and he was forced to resign from the firm he founded and built into a powerhouse.
Massive fallout from that. That employee just didn't take Stan down, they basically took down the firm and led to many, many layoffs - likely their own.
Multiple clients left and never returned. I have some buddies that work/have worked there and the firm is still a shadow of its former self, without El Capitan at the helm.
Doesn't help that young advertising professionals are maybe some of the most liberal and work professionals that exist.
I don't think it has anything to do with the company's preference for wokeness or anything else like that. Its about money, sales and more specifically it's all an advertisement. And Wokeness is like having a free celebrity endorse your company
Understand how the HRC participates in mafia-like extortion of business and this will go a long way towards answering your questions.
https://www.hrc.org
https://www.hrc.org
The business world starting making a lot more sense when I started looking at companies differently. I used to think the goals of a company were providing a product or a service, growing market share, and making a proft. Now I just look at companies as entities that try to attract outside capital and investment. So even if your product is bad, market share is low, and you don't make a profit, none of that matters if you can continue to attract investors. It finally hit me with the tale of 2 car companies. One is the largest in the US, makes the most vehicles, has the best selling vehicle in nearly every class, and has great ratings and satisfaction. The other has tiny market share, well documented quality control problems, has low output and small profit margins. Yet the second is the most valuable car company in the world, and the first is crippling their supply line so they can be more like the second.
It's not about anything but the investment capital. If bad PR drops investment, then that's a problem. If bad PR drops sales but increases investment, then that's not a problem. So everyone is trying to make big investors happy. Everything else is secondary, including sales, profits, market share, you name it.
It's not about anything but the investment capital. If bad PR drops investment, then that's a problem. If bad PR drops sales but increases investment, then that's not a problem. So everyone is trying to make big investors happy. Everything else is secondary, including sales, profits, market share, you name it.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Featured Stories
See All
Rashaun Agee named Southeastern Conference Co-Player of the Week
by Richard Zane
34:50
10h ago
3.8k
Father's memory motivates Gold Glove infielder Tallen Edwards
by Emily Dreger
6:09
5h ago
864
FINAL from Reed Arena: No. 3 South Carolina 71, Texas A&M 56
by Justin Paez
96AgGrad
Breaking: Florida State OC Gus Malzahn announced his retirement Monday morning.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
168
Highway6
Breaking: Florida State OC Gus Malzahn announced his retirement Monday morning.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
53
AggieBucksJB
Breaking: Florida State OC Gus Malzahn announced his retirement Monday morning.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
37