This Bud's for you...

[trnyerheadncough]

Apr 20, 2023 7:04:30 GMT -5 Mickey34jb said:

Apr 19, 2023 22:53:43 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Why not? Stocks rise and fall on a regular basis. My point from the start was all of this hoopla was a whole lot of nothing.

Look at the big picture here, AB went all in on Dylan. Investors expect a price climb, not for the price to teeter back and forth 64 to 66. In 2003, Nike stock was at $49. They went all in on a campaign around a high school kid. That stock doubled. The stock sits at $124 today. Again we'll wait 6 months and talk about this epic fail of a campaign then.

And a counter example…Target. Back when the morality police were demanding boycotts due to a bathroom policy, this discussion was had on this board. The stock fell from 81 to 72. Target stuck with their policy and kept doing business. Stock price today? 162.50.

[Mickey34jb]

Apr 20, 2023 7:29:48 GMT -5 Walter said:

Apr 20, 2023 7:09:29 GMT -5 Mickey34jb said:

The VP responsible for helping that stock climb for Bud Light retired a few years back after 43 years at AB. He was the guy responsible for the Clydesdales, Bud Bowl, Real men of Genius etc...He is probably sitting back in horror watching the brand he built crumble to the ground

Again, what worked for boomers may or may not work for GenZ, the current target audience.
It may turn out badly, it may turn out great. But one cannot just transport one idea between generations and be certain it will hit.
If AB had chosen Sinatra, as big a star as there ever was, as the face of Budweiser and then used him to sell beer to people at Woodstock, well, you see the problem..

But Tiny Tim? Probably a better fit, even though it would have likely had the same effect of shock and horror on our parents as this current guy has on some GenZ parents.

Sinatra would've sold more beer back then and even now as a dead man than a man wearing a dress.

[Mickey34jb]

Apr 20, 2023 7:44:07 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Apr 20, 2023 7:04:30 GMT -5 Mickey34jb said:

Look at the big picture here, AB went all in on Dylan. Investors expect a price climb, not for the price to teeter back and forth 64 to 66. In 2003, Nike stock was at $49. They went all in on a campaign around a high school kid. That stock doubled. The stock sits at $124 today. Again we'll wait 6 months and talk about this epic fail of a campaign then.

And a counter example…Target. Back when the morality police were demanding boycotts due to a bathroom policy, this discussion was had on this board. The stock fell from 81 to 72. Target stuck with their policy and kept doing business. Stock price today? 162.50.

Geezus__Target employed popular actresses to promote their stores after the toilet tragedies of 6 or 7 years ago. Real women brought that stock to $162.

[Mickey34jb]

Apr 20, 2023 7:41:21 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Apr 20, 2023 7:04:30 GMT -5 Mickey34jb said:

Look at the big picture here, AB went all in on Dylan. Investors expect a price climb, not for the price to teeter back and forth 64 to 66. In 2003, Nike stock was at $49. They went all in on a campaign around a high school kid. That stock doubled. The stock sits at $124 today. Again we'll wait 6 months and talk about this epic fail of a campaign then.

It didn’t go “all in” with Dylan. Dylan is one of several people who have done this. They are one of many Bud Light influencers.

Investors don’t expect immediate jumps due to one single thing. Most investors are not day traders who are looking for a quick dollar over the course of a week. AB’s stock was over a hundred 5 years ago. It dropped down to 65, rallied to the mid 90s, and then the pandemic wiped it out to under 40 bucks. It’s been steadily climbing since then.

If you look at the rises and falls of this (or really, any) stock, ups and downs are normal. As I’ve pointed out, AB has ranged from 44 at a low to 67 as a high just over the last year.

By the way, you’re changing the narrative. I started out this discussion taking issue with the claim that all this outrage and all these boycotts and how the market cap was severely affected by this…that it wasn’t going to tank the stock. You, then, disagreed.

Now, it has changed. Now it appears, you’re suggesting that if, in six months, AB’s stock hasn’t doubled, it is clear that using DM as an influencer was a bad idea.

Look again....If they didn't go all in then AB shouldn't feel the need to come out with a statement on the backlash, why should they bother since Dylan is just one of many. I'm done here

[Walter]

Apr 20, 2023 8:03:13 GMT -5 Mickey34jb said:

Apr 20, 2023 7:29:48 GMT -5 Walter said:

Again, what worked for boomers may or may not work for GenZ, the current target audience.
It may turn out badly, it may turn out great. But one cannot just transport one idea between generations and be certain it will hit.
If AB had chosen Sinatra, as big a star as there ever was, as the face of Budweiser and then used him to sell beer to people at Woodstock, well, you see the problem..

But Tiny Tim? Probably a better fit, even though it would have likely had the same effect of shock and horror on our parents as this current guy has on some GenZ parents.

Sinatra would've sold more beer back then and even now as a dead man than a man wearing a dress.

Okay, Boomer.

[trnyerheadncough]

Apr 20, 2023 8:15:36 GMT -5 Mickey34jb said:

Apr 20, 2023 7:44:07 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

And a counter example…Target. Back when the morality police were demanding boycotts due to a bathroom policy, this discussion was had on this board. The stock fell from 81 to 72. Target stuck with their policy and kept doing business. Stock price today? 162.50.

Geezus__Target employed popular actresses to promote their stores after the toilet tragedies of 6 or 7 years ago. Real women brought that stock to $162.

Lol…you 1) know that for sure…how? And 2) why can’t AB continue to hire influencers (like they do on a very regular basis) and continue its marketing strategy?

You’re acting like AB has sunk its entire marketing budget into Dylan Mulvaney. It hasn’t, and will continue to market to different groups of individuals to try to encourage them to drink their beer.

Why that offends people, I have no idea.

[trnyerheadncough]

Apr 20, 2023 8:18:48 GMT -5 Mickey34jb said:

Apr 20, 2023 7:41:21 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

It didn’t go “all in” with Dylan. Dylan is one of several people who have done this. They are one of many Bud Light influencers.

Investors don’t expect immediate jumps due to one single thing. Most investors are not day traders who are looking for a quick dollar over the course of a week. AB’s stock was over a hundred 5 years ago. It dropped down to 65, rallied to the mid 90s, and then the pandemic wiped it out to under 40 bucks. It’s been steadily climbing since then.

If you look at the rises and falls of this (or really, any) stock, ups and downs are normal. As I’ve pointed out, AB has ranged from 44 at a low to 67 as a high just over the last year.

By the way, you’re changing the narrative. I started out this discussion taking issue with the claim that all this outrage and all these boycotts and how the market cap was severely affected by this…that it wasn’t going to tank the stock. You, then, disagreed.

Now, it has changed. Now it appears, you’re suggesting that if, in six months, AB’s stock hasn’t doubled, it is clear that using DM as an influencer was a bad idea.

Look again....If they didn't go all in then AB shouldn't feel the need to come out with a statement on the backlash, why should they bother since Dylan is just one of many. I'm done here

They came out with a statement because the morality police came out with their tar and pitchforks because, heaven forbid, AB made an attempt to acknowledge a group of people in this country who have hopes and dreams like everyone else. You notice in the statement the one thing they didn’t do?

Apologize.

Nor should they, IMO.

Their statement was, “Hey…we’re trying to bring people together because we’re so divided, and we’d love it if you’d do it over a beer.”

The response? “Let’s destroy their market cap!”

[Panama pfRedd]

[Panama pfRedd]

[cbisbig]

Apr 20, 2023 9:24:53 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Apr 20, 2023 8:18:48 GMT -5 Mickey34jb said:

Look again....If they didn't go all in then AB shouldn't feel the need to come out with a statement on the backlash, why should they bother since Dylan is just one of many. I'm done here

They came out with a statement because the morality police came out with their tar and pitchforks because, heaven forbid, AB made an attempt to acknowledge a group of people in this country who have hopes and dreams like everyone else. You notice in the statement the one thing they didn’t do?

Apologize.

Nor should they, IMO.

Their statement was, “Hey…we’re trying to bring people together because we’re so divided, and we’d love it if you’d do it over a beer.”

The response? “Let’s destroy their market cap!”

Most Christians and grown MEN don't approve of the decision.
Don't know how you bring people together by highlighting one percent of the population.

Traditionally, bud drinkers are bad ass men.
Not dress wearing men.👎

[trnyerheadncough]

Apr 21, 2023 18:51:21 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Apr 20, 2023 9:24:53 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

They came out with a statement because the morality police came out with their tar and pitchforks because, heaven forbid, AB made an attempt to acknowledge a group of people in this country who have hopes and dreams like everyone else. You notice in the statement the one thing they didn’t do?

Apologize.

Nor should they, IMO.

Their statement was, “Hey…we’re trying to bring people together because we’re so divided, and we’d love it if you’d do it over a beer.”

The response? “Let’s destroy their market cap!”

Most Christians and grown MEN don't approve of the decision.
Don't know how you bring people together by highlighting one percent of the population.

Traditionally, bud drinkers are bad ass men.
Not dress wearing men.👎

Yawn.

[cbisbig]

Apr 21, 2023 19:06:24 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Apr 21, 2023 18:51:21 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Most Christians and grown MEN don't approve of the decision.
Don't know how you bring people together by highlighting one percent of the population.

Traditionally, bud drinkers are bad ass men.
Not dress wearing men.👎

Yawn.

Uh huh, manly men, not girly men
You probably also liked the "notebook" movie😊

[trnyerheadncough]

Apr 21, 2023 19:08:16 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Apr 21, 2023 19:06:24 GMT -5 trnyerheadncough said:

Yawn.

Uh huh, manly men, not girly men
You probably also liked the "notebook" movie😊

I’m not so insecure as to worry about it.

[cbisbig]

Lol...yep
www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/bud-light-marketing-vp-takes-leave-absence-wake-dylan-mulvaney-backlash-report

Anheuser-Busch is rearranging the management of its Bud Light brand following a boycott by conservative drinkers.


Bud Light marketing vice president Alissa Heinerscheid is taking a leave of absence and is being replaced by Budweiser global marketing vice president Todd Allen, AdAge reports.

The company has also hired two consultants with experience in Washington, D.C.'s conservative circles to advise the brand moving forward.

Origin Advocacy consultants Sean McLean and Emily Lynch have been brought on to advise "general policy regarding the alcohol-beverage industry," according to lobbying disclosure reports filed to the U.S. Senate on April 1.


McLean is a veteran of former President Donald Trump's administration. He also served on the legislative staff of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

Lynch has previously held policy staff positions under Republican Rep. Rep. Virginia Foxx and former Sen. Kelly Ayotte.

[Buckeye Dale]

Apr 22, 2023 13:10:56 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Lol...yep
www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/bud-light-marketing-vp-takes-leave-absence-wake-dylan-mulvaney-backlash-report

Anheuser-Busch is rearranging the management of its Bud Light brand following a boycott by conservative drinkers.


Bud Light marketing vice president Alissa Heinerscheid is taking a leave of absence and is being replaced by Budweiser global marketing vice president Todd Allen, AdAge reports.

The company has also hired two consultants with experience in Washington, D.C.'s conservative circles to advise the brand moving forward.

Origin Advocacy consultants Sean McLean and Emily Lynch have been brought on to advise "general policy regarding the alcohol-beverage industry," according to lobbying disclosure reports filed to the U.S. Senate on April 1.


McLean is a veteran of former President Donald Trump's administration. He also served on the legislative staff of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

Lynch has previously held policy staff positions under Republican Rep. Rep. Virginia Foxx and former Sen. Kelly Ayotte.

...the girly-men will be along any second now to tell us the two things were not related, just coincidence...