Yes, they did. They had a calculated marketing campaign where they paid various influencers to market towards their respective audiences. I'm sure they made a risk analysis - and if you look at other transgender influencers paid by other companies who were spared this moral outcry, you'll see that it's more bad luck than anything else that the conserviative media machine focused so much on them.

I don't think so. Gay Marriage bills didn't even pass in California, or 29 other states. The supreme court overturned the will of Americans (btw I'm French).

It's clear American elites are far far more liberal progressive than the American people themselves. The country that had Nixon win in a landslide, brought Trump too.

Luckily that's very easy to disprove, since we have statistics about the amount of Americans supporting e.g. same-sex marriage: in November 2022, 61% of Americans saw it as a net positive. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/15/about-six...

No, they had one marketing executive making the decisions, who was subsequently thrown under the bus. Get your facts straight.

> No, they had one marketing executive making the decisions, who was subsequently thrown under the bus

What did I write that you think you're disagreeing with here? I didn't specify the amount of marketing executives who made the decision, so what are you trying to say I should get my facts straight on?

>I'm sure they made a risk analysis - and if you look at other transgender influencers paid by other companies who were spared this moral outcry, you'll see that it's more bad luck than anything else that the conserviative media machine focused so much on them.

You're throwing around ridiculous speculation.

Well, there definitely are other transgender influencers paid by other companies who were spared this moral outcry. So what is the ridiculous speculation? That they made a risk analysis?

You're lacking examples

This is the first time you're asking for examples. Given both your way of asking and your previous messages I'm neither interested in continuing this "discussion" with short and snippy responses, nor do I feel safe directing you to any individuals.

You think that it is ridiculous speculation to say that a large company did something with the goal of making money and it just didn't work out how they expected it to?

Several times in a row over multiple years? Yeah.

The Bud Light controversy is absolutely stunning, and is affecting my job in directional planning.

I don't think any high level executive saw that coming.

The customer base was alienated because Bud Light made one (1) custom can of beer. Not one kind of custom can, literally only one can.

Strangely, Bud Light has made special cans for pride month for years now and no one much cared. Strangely, people are boycotting Bud Light specifically and Anheuser-Busch is largely ignored. Strangely, major beer companies have had much more prominent partnerships with trans people with no similarly hysterical reaction.

This is not a story that makes sense. Even from the perspective of the modern American right it doesn't make sense. It's just a herd of people freaking out for no reason.

The explanation is that Bud Light is viscerally associated with Dylan Mulvaney, who shot videos promoting the custom can. Bud Light's masculine, blue collar customer base does not want to be associated with Dylan Mulvaney. However, they are not sophisticated enough to extend the association to AB-InBev's other products. It's not hard to understand.

As I said, this doesn't make sense even within the modern American right. Bud Light has been loudly supporting trans rights for years now with no backlash I can remember. Why did associating with a transgender person for a single video result in more outrage than years of deliberate political activism?

It's a random social media outburst. People latched on to one trivial event because that's what happens on the Internet. There is no rational explanation.