Take the Bud Light and Dylan Mulvaney controversy for example. The genesis wasn't an ad hoc tweet in response to public outcry—à la a BLM or Trans Lives Matter twitter post in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy—but rather a planned and paid-for advertising campaign. A campaign in which, ostensibly anyway, Mulvaney was endorsing Bud Light, and not the other way around. Obviously Bud Light sought out the affiliation by soliciting the endorsement (I think they sent her a customized pack of beer, though I never actually saw her video about it), so we can assume they were hoping to come across as endorsing Mulvaney (and therefore the LGTBQ+ community at large), but that leaves the question of why. As you explain in your piece, companies exist to make money, so our assumption should be that someone at Bud Light thought this would be a good way to make more money. Same goes for Target with their pride displays. How were those displays approved unless someone convinced a decision maker that the displays would lead to greater profits. Your suggestion is that they were an empty gesture, but I think that assumes a lot. The most simple explanation is that the displays were meant to make money.
Now, in both cases, the company had to backtrack, but that just leads to more questions, not conclusions. That is, we can't say, "because they backtracked, it signals that it was obviously an empty gesture." Instead we have to ask ask, "why did they backtrack?" Did they not anticipate the backlash? (and does someone in marketing need to be fired?) Or did they just underestimate the backlash (in the case of Bud Light that there would be more financial harm than benefit, and in the case of Target that there would be threats of violence)? If that's the case, then the anticipated backlash probably ought to factor into future campaign calculations. But so long as those risks are accounted for, and the company still thinks there is an additional dollar to be made by courting a particular demographic (in these cases the trans community and the greater LGBTQ+ and Ally community) that would be the most logical path to take. Right?*
I think the problem is less that corporations want to tweet popular slogans, because of course they do, or that they are often ham-fisted about it, because of course they are**, and more so that we find ourselves in a situation where Target has to take down pride displays to protect their employees from threats of violence. To say that the problem in that scenario is Target is way off the mark. The problem is violent extremists who present a real and viable threat. Same for Bud Light. Kid Rock's video is just one example of many that sent a clear message, "we have guns, and if you do something we disagree with, we will use them to hurt or kill you." I'm under no illusion that Bud Light actually cares about trans people, but I won't lay the political divide at their feet, or blame both sides ("the hot takes of the far-right and the far-left."). There is only one side threatening and perpetrating violence on a regular and widespread basis—rightwing extremists and the less-extreme constituency that enables them. The world we live in is one in which even the quietest member of the LGBTQ+ community, the one who won't even shop from a pride display, lives under the near-constant threat of violence and even an entity as powerful as AB InBev can't speak up without courting extremist backlash. If that were not the case, if there were no threat of violence, then we might live in a wold where we can tell a corporation to shut up (because, yes, they should), but that is not the world we live in.
*For an example of this, consider Subaru, which specifically targeted the lesbian community. Yes, their campaign was more subtle, but that only raises the question of execution, not principal.
**This is true but bizarre. Companies exist to make money, but they just can't seem to figure out how to pay people to protect them from saying something stupid in public.
These are great points, and I find myself agreeing with most of them. I think where I differ is in the determination of the hollowness of the corporate support of their initiatives.
The Bud Light fiasco just reeks of a lack of internal communication across departments and leadership. From a branding perspective, the partnership didn't make a lot of sense and felt very out of left field. When trying to carve new audiences out for a well-established product like watered down urine beer, layer upon layer of risk assessment needs to be done. Knowing who their core consumer is would have required a more measured approach into outreach to the trans community versus a one-off partnership with a woman dressed up as a Breakfast at Tiffany's character pretending to try to understand what March Madness is. The fact that Dylan Mulvaney is a trans woman is not the offensive part - the god awful execution of what is a shitty creative idea to begin with is what grinds my gears. Have some respect for the craft!
But Bud Light and AB InBev should have expected backlash. They should have had responses ready for that backlash. Reading the PR-ified statements from AB InBev leadership makes it clear that they did not anticipate the backlash (which tells me that this partnership was very likely a blip on the radar that didn't get approved at high levels, but who knows.) I see this as Bud Light trying something, doing it very poorly and predictably failing at it, and then reverting to the mean of their brand identity. Pretty ho-hum for large brands, but the bigger miss was trying to use the trans community to inch top line sales higher and then distancing themselves from that community when it backfired.
Target I see as more egregious. You are right that corporations are not to blame for the current divide in America (though they're not blameless either given their influence in our political fundraising cesspool.) Supporting Pride in 2023 should be a no-brainer, but it is a very sad fact that these days it is not due to a resurgent right-wing faction of this country emboldened by Donald Trump's dangerous rhetoric. But to cower to the demands of a vocal minority threatening violence shows that all you need to do in America to get your way with a massive corporation is to be a vocal minority who threatens violence.
When the knuckle-dragging troglodytes who throw violent tantrums at the sight of a rainbow flag begin getting their way through these threats, it is one sign of societal breakdown. Letting them win tells the LGBTQ community that their right to exist peacefully in American is less of a priority than the right-wing threats Target was receiving. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, for evil to triumph all it takes is for good people to do nothing. The counterargument to that would be, are corporations supposed to be good people? My argument is absolutely not and we should not expect them to be, which is why they should stay out of something they don't believe in enough to stand behind when it gets uncomfortable. As America's foremost central banker said, "If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything."
Thanks for responding! I think we are pretty closely aligned on this. Not that alignment is the goal, but I wanted to clarify in case it didn't come across that way. I tend to only reply with my questions, and leave out areas of agreement.
I think it might be more complicated.
Take the Bud Light and Dylan Mulvaney controversy for example. The genesis wasn't an ad hoc tweet in response to public outcry—à la a BLM or Trans Lives Matter twitter post in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy—but rather a planned and paid-for advertising campaign. A campaign in which, ostensibly anyway, Mulvaney was endorsing Bud Light, and not the other way around. Obviously Bud Light sought out the affiliation by soliciting the endorsement (I think they sent her a customized pack of beer, though I never actually saw her video about it), so we can assume they were hoping to come across as endorsing Mulvaney (and therefore the LGTBQ+ community at large), but that leaves the question of why. As you explain in your piece, companies exist to make money, so our assumption should be that someone at Bud Light thought this would be a good way to make more money. Same goes for Target with their pride displays. How were those displays approved unless someone convinced a decision maker that the displays would lead to greater profits. Your suggestion is that they were an empty gesture, but I think that assumes a lot. The most simple explanation is that the displays were meant to make money.
Now, in both cases, the company had to backtrack, but that just leads to more questions, not conclusions. That is, we can't say, "because they backtracked, it signals that it was obviously an empty gesture." Instead we have to ask ask, "why did they backtrack?" Did they not anticipate the backlash? (and does someone in marketing need to be fired?) Or did they just underestimate the backlash (in the case of Bud Light that there would be more financial harm than benefit, and in the case of Target that there would be threats of violence)? If that's the case, then the anticipated backlash probably ought to factor into future campaign calculations. But so long as those risks are accounted for, and the company still thinks there is an additional dollar to be made by courting a particular demographic (in these cases the trans community and the greater LGBTQ+ and Ally community) that would be the most logical path to take. Right?*
I think the problem is less that corporations want to tweet popular slogans, because of course they do, or that they are often ham-fisted about it, because of course they are**, and more so that we find ourselves in a situation where Target has to take down pride displays to protect their employees from threats of violence. To say that the problem in that scenario is Target is way off the mark. The problem is violent extremists who present a real and viable threat. Same for Bud Light. Kid Rock's video is just one example of many that sent a clear message, "we have guns, and if you do something we disagree with, we will use them to hurt or kill you." I'm under no illusion that Bud Light actually cares about trans people, but I won't lay the political divide at their feet, or blame both sides ("the hot takes of the far-right and the far-left."). There is only one side threatening and perpetrating violence on a regular and widespread basis—rightwing extremists and the less-extreme constituency that enables them. The world we live in is one in which even the quietest member of the LGBTQ+ community, the one who won't even shop from a pride display, lives under the near-constant threat of violence and even an entity as powerful as AB InBev can't speak up without courting extremist backlash. If that were not the case, if there were no threat of violence, then we might live in a wold where we can tell a corporation to shut up (because, yes, they should), but that is not the world we live in.
*For an example of this, consider Subaru, which specifically targeted the lesbian community. Yes, their campaign was more subtle, but that only raises the question of execution, not principal.
**This is true but bizarre. Companies exist to make money, but they just can't seem to figure out how to pay people to protect them from saying something stupid in public.
These are great points, and I find myself agreeing with most of them. I think where I differ is in the determination of the hollowness of the corporate support of their initiatives.
The Bud Light fiasco just reeks of a lack of internal communication across departments and leadership. From a branding perspective, the partnership didn't make a lot of sense and felt very out of left field. When trying to carve new audiences out for a well-established product like watered down urine beer, layer upon layer of risk assessment needs to be done. Knowing who their core consumer is would have required a more measured approach into outreach to the trans community versus a one-off partnership with a woman dressed up as a Breakfast at Tiffany's character pretending to try to understand what March Madness is. The fact that Dylan Mulvaney is a trans woman is not the offensive part - the god awful execution of what is a shitty creative idea to begin with is what grinds my gears. Have some respect for the craft!
But Bud Light and AB InBev should have expected backlash. They should have had responses ready for that backlash. Reading the PR-ified statements from AB InBev leadership makes it clear that they did not anticipate the backlash (which tells me that this partnership was very likely a blip on the radar that didn't get approved at high levels, but who knows.) I see this as Bud Light trying something, doing it very poorly and predictably failing at it, and then reverting to the mean of their brand identity. Pretty ho-hum for large brands, but the bigger miss was trying to use the trans community to inch top line sales higher and then distancing themselves from that community when it backfired.
Target I see as more egregious. You are right that corporations are not to blame for the current divide in America (though they're not blameless either given their influence in our political fundraising cesspool.) Supporting Pride in 2023 should be a no-brainer, but it is a very sad fact that these days it is not due to a resurgent right-wing faction of this country emboldened by Donald Trump's dangerous rhetoric. But to cower to the demands of a vocal minority threatening violence shows that all you need to do in America to get your way with a massive corporation is to be a vocal minority who threatens violence.
When the knuckle-dragging troglodytes who throw violent tantrums at the sight of a rainbow flag begin getting their way through these threats, it is one sign of societal breakdown. Letting them win tells the LGBTQ community that their right to exist peacefully in American is less of a priority than the right-wing threats Target was receiving. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, for evil to triumph all it takes is for good people to do nothing. The counterargument to that would be, are corporations supposed to be good people? My argument is absolutely not and we should not expect them to be, which is why they should stay out of something they don't believe in enough to stand behind when it gets uncomfortable. As America's foremost central banker said, "If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything."
Love the perspective here Josh - thanks!
Thanks for responding! I think we are pretty closely aligned on this. Not that alignment is the goal, but I wanted to clarify in case it didn't come across that way. I tend to only reply with my questions, and leave out areas of agreement.