Walking A Tightrope: Unpacking The Crisis Response of Bud Light.

“Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it.”

-Charles R. Swindoll

What a week for Bud Light. It is a case study for how a brand manages controversy (especially when it centers around something like inclusion).

I am not here to debate their decision about the light-touch addition of a trans-influencer. Like Charles said above, that’s only 10% of it. And it’s been debated to death.

But what is most telling is the aftermath, what it has stirred in people and how customers and the brand are choosing to respond. That tells a much bigger story than outsized outrage for a trans influencer who is holding a beer they over-identify with as their own.

Last week that anger turned to violence with a bomb threat at the Van Nuys Busch factory. It is a stark reminder of the divide that lies beneath the surface of our society.

And, I could probably boil it down to a simple sentence: We live in a world where people are not accepted for who they are, and this leads to fear, anger, hate, and sometimes bomb threats.

But that’s something we already knew.

A simple Google search shows that those same people who decry cancel culture, and the same people doing it, especially when it supports their agenda. That’s pretty simple to understand as well, because when emotions get involved, especially negative ones, they tend to remove our ability to hold a rational or consistent thought.

More Questions Than Answers

“We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people,” Anheuser-Busch InBev CEO Brendan Whitworth said in press release titled Our Responsibility To America, “We are in the business of bringing people together over a beer.”

There was more, but it was equally as benign in it’s explanation. Brendan left us with more questions than answers, the first of which is why is an apology necessary for promoting inclusivity?

Labels Belong On Beer, Not People

Now, this isn’t the first time Bud Light dipped it’s foot into the rainbow pond, but it is the one that received the most backlash. Maybe that is why the reaction was so unexpected, as they have been progressive in this space.

There was controversy in 2019 about some Pride month ads, mostly from the LGBTQ community, but it was in tone, not in substance. And for the SuperBowl 10 years ago, they presented a message of inclusivity to their audience, with the concept that Labels belong on beer, not people. They have also leaned left with spots on marriage equality and equal pay in the past.

So, what made this specific promotion, with its limited reach, so provocative? It could be that at that moment, Dylan personified the brand, rather than merely being one of the numerous influencers they collaborate with. Perhaps it was her face on the can, which generated confusion and resulted in an artifact that spread more rapidly than the truth. It’s also possible that people found Dylan irritating, regardless of her being transgender. Or maybe, since the 2016 election, anger and hate have been emboldened and no longer live in the shadows.

The Breakdown

First, the apology was panned by both sides of the fence, because it effectively said nothing. Second, their counter-punch was a social media video of Clydesdales going around America with some hackneyed Patriotic copy.

In essence, the video once again fetishized the America of yore, when gay, trans or anyone beyond a nuclear family lived in the shadows. Their CMO and CEO are not on the same message, and it is a bit of a comms train wreck. In fact, their Crisis team should have been ready to keep everyone on message, and pick a side.

But they didn’t. We don’t know the message, and must choose to read between the lines. It is a tragicomic display of corporate non-speak, and we are left to believe that the company’s commitment to inclusivity extends only as far as their bottom line.

Let It Go

I’ve advised big brands on crisis response around social media. Quite honestly, the best response is no response. Because now they are not just being slammed by detractors. They have opened themselves up to ridicule and anger on sides for such a lifeless, rushed response that was not gamed out effectively.

Lucky for them, this will pass. Social media has created a neuroplasticity in our brains that let the good and bad travel as quickly as the scroll. That is what the suits misunderstood. Those higher on the food chain who are not in the trenches probably demanded a response, rather than simply waiting it out, and letting some other piece of outrage take its place.

That was a mistake.

I wish the best for Bud Light, as they have been an advocate for inclusion in the past. And I don’t anticipate any long-term damage to the brand, besides the fact that they will most likely have a long cooling off period of any influencer that doesn’t fit the mainstream appetite of their audience.

AB is now in a challenging position, trying to strike a balance between adapting to societal shifts and maintaining the loyalty of their long-standing customer base, especially as their market share gets eaten.

But they are marketers, and despite this stumbled response, will figure it out. Shit, if they can convince the American public that they bleed red, white, and blue (while being Belgium-owned since 2008), they obviously know how to maintain the facade.

What they do from here will truly define them as a brand. So they can carve out who they are, what are their values, and how to effectively respond when things go south.

Then, with profits in decline, we will sit tight and see if their historical dedication to social progress is as genuine as the flavor in a Bud Light.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Thanks for reading. Visit our Cast Iron LA blog for articles on creativity, thought leadership, diversity and more.