This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The Bud Light boycott continues. Anheuser-Busch is responding by sponsoring vet groups and commissioning ads that "will play heavily on themes such as football and country music". A glance at conservative comment sections reveals a few vocal consumers vowing that no amount of patriotic pandering will change their mind and that they will continue the boycott no matter what.
I am reminded of this apocryphical exchange between two Chinese officers late for battle:
That is to say, a proper incentive structure should not only contain costs for injecting woke politics into business but also rewards for backpedalling.
On the other hand, the undisputed champions of pushing business and people around do not seem too keen on accepting apology. Or do they? The bottom line seems to be: If your public kowtow is more valuable for the propagation of the movement than the display of your head on a spike, you may get another chance (unless and untilyou even slightly step out of line again).
This seems ideal because the incentives for the victim thus contain an effectiveness criterion. Mouthing platitudes is not enough, you need to actually further the cause of your attackers. The uncertainty ups the ante for the victim.
On the other other hand, woke shaming campaigns might not be the ideal blue print for convervatives, given their lack of clout and high-brow media capture.
Budweiser really shot themselves in the foot, and it looks like it was mostly down to the stupid decision by the marketing VP. On the one hand, I can see where she's coming from: the brand is slowly declining, even if it's still the number one, and they need to pivot to a new audience. So if that means appealing to the woke young college kids (never mind what she said about "fratty" associations), so be it.
The problem was twofold, though. Maybe even threefold, gimme a moment to count on my fingers.
(1) The interview with the podcast where she went on about the "fratty" image. Girleen, who do you think drinks your cheap light beer? People who want to be able to drink a lot over a long period of time without getting wasted too fast, and people who want to drink a lot on the cheap. So cheap boozing is college students, like it or lump it
(2) Dylan Mulvaney. Yes, I know all about the cans and that it wasn't a partnership etc. Great, you want to get Dylan's 10 million TikTokkers and the 2 million Instagram followers, and for "who is the hot new name right this minute?", Mulvaney probably comes up. Except.
What is the age range/age group of Mulvaney's followers? Are they legal drinking age in the US?
Mulvaney's other endorsements seem to be for cosmetics, fashion, etc. Do you really think a bunch of young women tuning in to see the latest lipstick shade are all going to decide to start swigging Bud Light?
Just because Mulvaney is Internet famous does not mean they are a good match for your brand; it's like asking the Chief Rabbi to endorse your line of 100% organic pork sausages and bacon. There's ways to appeal to the more liberal, younger set, but this was a bad idea.
(3) Why is the brand declining? Is it because younger people are not drinking beer, but rather spirits and seltzers? And if they are drinking beer, more likely to be the craft beers and micro-breweries? Or indeed, not drinking at all? Was there any research done, because it sure doesn't look like it.
They (or she) tried a marketing stunt and it went viral - in all the wrong ways. If your core demographic for your brand are older, more conservative, more redneck types, then coming out with an interview that basically says "we don't want your custom any more" and this sort of influencer is pretty much telling them "we think you're smelly and icky and we don't want you around anymore".
So then people said "Okay, if you don't want us, we're going" and switched to other cheap, low-quality beer. That was easily done, it's all on the shelves beside your brand, so there was no more effort needed than move three inches to the side and grab that 15-pack instead.
Oops.
And to rub salt into the wound, there wasn't an influx of new young drinkers or LGBT bars stepping up and buying Bud in support. On the contrary.
InBev/Anheuser Busch can rush out all the hokey country music ads and wrap themselves in the flag all they like now, but this is too blatant pandering for even rednecks and hicks to swallow, because they've seen the messaging: we want the rainbow dollar. It's not sincere, and they're not falling for it.
And this could easily have been avoided with just a little more thought about how to pivot and what way to do it. I don't think it's a "trans backlash", despite how they're trying to spin it. I mean, I find Mulvaney highly irritating, and the beer in the bath video was excruciating to watch. But more subtle appeals to the young and LGBT set? That could have been done. Embrace your 'fratty' college roots, but have it be the activist types (not too activist, though) drinking Bud Light and not the frat boys. But no, they went full-on absolute opposite to their core market, and showed contempt for them, and that's what people are reacting to, more than anything.
Now, however, they can't even give it away for free (as the rebate coupled with the mark-downs to get the stuff off the shelves before it hits the expiry date means it's practically free).
If you really want to make a trans bud light ad - make and advertisement how ugly girl drinks bud light and turns into Buck Angel ... It will make your chest hair thicken is not a message that will offend the current Bud Light drinker demographic ...
A guy goes to the bar to get a bud light. Hipster guy says "Bud Light? chuckles". Cool trans/lesbian/NB person comes up and orders a Bud Light. Or rolls their eyes at the hipster guy from across the bar while drinking one. It includes the people you want to include and attempts to manufacture some alliance between red america and trans. Something like that is "inclusive" while complimenting your current audience's good taste in the face of insufferable craft beer drinkers (of which I am one).
More options
Context Copy link
Or even an ad where a FtM trans person doesn't fit in, eventually showing up at a bar and is welcomed or acknowledged by someone drinking one of your beers. Now you've reached out to a new community, while communicating your core message (our product brings people together over shared enjoyment) and shown your core customer in a positive light.
Exactly! If you're trying to reposition the brand as inclusive and evolving and what-not, then get a trans man to be the face of your promotion.
Not whatever Dylan Mulvaney is, I really don't believe he's a trans woman, I think he's a gay guy that started a performance art/drag act during lockdown and now it's blown up into this big thing that is too profitable (up till now) to drop:
My uninformed view on this is that Mulvaney is a theatre kid turned performer who, like a lot of performers, needs attention and an audience like a plant needs sunshine. Being locked down at home with no job, they tried the online performance and it caught on, and the rest is history.
This seems to be the second controversy over "we're not officially partnered with Mulvaney", Snopes is debunking the story but it does seem that Mulvaney claimed Tampax sent them a box of tampons to share with women who need them (I can't even begin to untangle the logic behind that line of thinking):
Why the hell would Tampax just out of the blue send this person a box of tampons for no reason except "share them round"? One box? Gentlemen, let me assure you that is not a lot of sharing around (though it does depend on the size of the box). And how exactly is Mulvaney meant to give them to women who need tampons? Approaching random women on the street and asking "Hey, honey, need a tampon?" Approaching random women in bathrooms? Yeah, that move is going to go over well.
Somebody is not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And if the Budweiser marketing lady was copying this move with "hey, send a promotional can with Mulvaney's face on it to them", then the decision was even stupider than I thought.
Obviously he doesn’t need tampons, but maybe they figured having them in his purse would help him pass? Still seems dumb, but it seems like a box of tampons would be cheap to ship out, especially if it’s to someone who doesn’t actually need them and thus won’t need more than a notional quantity. Alternatively they thought he’d do a video on ‘contents of a girl’s purse’ or some such bs and they thought they could corner the trans market- after all, Tampax presumably doesn’t care if the person buying their product doesn’t actually need it as long as their credit card goes through.
It's a fetish...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link