Volinbham Talks Marketing and Bud Light

#51
#51
volinbham said:
no way - it still generates huge revenue and they have so many ancillary brands tied to it like seltzers
Click to expand...
They could still keep the seltzers. But the brand "Bud Lite" is tainted.

volinbham said:
it was a F-up that will sting for a while
Click to expand...
Sales were already trending down and this move irreparably damaged the brand. It's past its pinnacle. What celebrity endorsement or Super Bowl ad could save it at this point?
 
#52
#52
Rasputin_Vol said:
They could still keep the seltzers. But the brand "Bud Lite" is tainted.


Sales were already trending down and this move irreparably damaged the brand. It's past its pinnacle. What celebrity endorsement or Super Bowl ad could save it at this point?
Click to expand...
Stone cold Steve Austin. Washed up wrestlers need cash flow too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
#54
#54
Great thread.

volinbham said:
Part 2: The Situation at Bud Light Prior to the Decision

Taking the Marketing VP at her word, sales of Bud Light were sliding and had been for quite some time. The big question is where was the decline coming from?

Possible Scenarios

1. Sales of Bud Light could be down in line with a drop in sales of all beer consumption (eg. switching to other alcoholic drinks like cocktails, seltzers, etc)
2. Sales of Bud Light could be down as people switch from tasteless domestic light beers to other beers.
3. Sales of Bud Light could be down as light beer drinkers switch to other domestic light beers.

It is #3 that would most call for a change in marketing campaign. #2 and #1 may require product changes since they are driven more by product differences.

So, was #3 the case? We do not know.
Click to expand...

It was almost certainly a combination between 1 and 2. Scenario 1 for females and scenario 2 for males (generally speaking).

volinbham said:
Part 6: The Mistakes

Why did it go so bad? A series of predictable events but at the heart was a strategic decision to change the image of the product that was primarily differentiated by image.

As noted above, merely adding some DEI messaging but not trying to overhaul the image would have been much less damaging and possibly even slightly positive.

The outbreak could have been contained/lessened if the VP video did not surface. It was her own words that confirmed this wasn't just some messaging but an intended change of the image of the product to something that didn't align with the customer base.

One could argue that the public shouldn't have seen that video but again BL had to know that once something gets controversial the Internet sleuths come out of the wood work to dig up what ever they can and this one was the confirmation that the base needed to see it wasn't just a rainbow on the can for a week or month but indeed the company saying we are different now.

Had BL done all the research and concluded the change of image would be a net positive then the VP should not be fired/reassigned. From the outside however it appears they missed too many obvious land minds and misread the situation so badly that they probably didn't do the research.

At a minimum, they exhibited they didn't understand their customer base - a failure of the most basic tenet of Marketing.
Click to expand...

The bold is key. Given that it was a combination of scenarios 1 and 2, their best hope was to hold on market share of an ever shrinking pie and try to make up for the shrinking pie by strategically increasing their portfolios to tap those trends away from macro light beer (Bud Light). Thus, there was no need to go for a risky play to try an expand their customer base in scenario 3 as that was not reality.

Other macro light beers (Miller and Coors) have subtly reached out to the LBGT community without making it controversial or the center point of their brand. Bud Light's plan was quite simply the worst tactical plan imaginable for trying to wade into a controversial arena.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, 05_never_again, hog88 and 1 other person
#55
#55
Rasputin_Vol said:
They could still keep the seltzers. But the brand "Bud Lite" is tainted.


Sales were already trending down and this move irreparably damaged the brand. It's past its pinnacle. What celebrity endorsement or Super Bowl ad could save it at this point?
Click to expand...

Bud Light Seltzer has the Bud Light name but appeals to a different audience. Ditching Bud Light beer but keeping the Bud Light name on Seltzer just doesn't make sense.

if sales were trending down because people were drinking less domestic light beer then a new brand would likely never match what current sales are.

it's the same thinking that led to this fiasco. Just because sales are down doesn't mean you get rid of it altogether. It's still a cash cow for AB.

it doesn't need saving - it just needs to stabilize and slowly get back some of the lost sales.
 
#57
#57
Do I get a 12" medium pizza with buy one get one free or one large 16" pizza for the same price?
Now that is marketing to a dumb public.

The square pizza was abolished for this reason. Why they call it pi as well. True!
 
#65
#65
volinbham said:
haven't heard that claim but did see the VP of Marketing for Bud Light taking ownership of the strategy change and given she was replaced it's hard to consider her a low level staffer.
Click to expand...
In the immediate aftermath there were multiple reports that senior leadership “didn’t know” and that the decision had been made by a “low level staffer”.

I didn’t know the VP had commented. What did she say?
 
#67
#67
85SugarVol said:
In the immediate aftermath there were multiple reports that senior leadership “didn’t know” and that the decision had been made by a “low level staffer”.

I didn’t know the VP had commented. What did she say?
Click to expand...

I believe it was before the outcry but came out - she was on a Zoom (public?) and discuss how BL sales had been declining and their traditional strategy of humor, silliness, fratty was old and stale and they were switching to a more inclusive strategy which included reaching out to all sorts of influencers including the fateful one.

once the outcry started this was dug up and it served to confirm that it wasn't just a side shout out to the T community but a larger strategy to change image
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#68
#68
85SugarVol said:
In the immediate aftermath there were multiple reports that senior leadership “didn’t know” and that the decision had been made by a “low level staffer”.

I didn’t know the VP had commented. What did she say?
Click to expand...
Basically saying the goal was to expand Bud lights consumer base as the current one was fading. Wanting to reach a new audience outside of frat boys. Along those lines
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#71
#71
volinbham said:
I believe it was before the outcry but came out - she was on a Zoom (public?) and discuss how BL sales had been declining and their traditional strategy of humor, silliness, fratty was old and stale and they were switching to a more inclusive strategy which included reaching out to all sorts of influencers including the fateful one.

once the outcry started this was dug up and it served to confirm that it wasn't just a side shout out to the T community but a larger strategy to change image
Click to expand...
Yes I saw that.

My bad. I read it as she had commented, after the fact, owning the mistake
 
#72
#72
I had a conversation with my daughter about this situation. And it fits with something I posted elsewhere.

A lot of Mulvaneys's followers aren't really supporters. He/she is simply acting, is over the top and appears contrived. Many watching it are just watching for side show effect, or simply the entertainment.

I think BL thought this would be contained to a the intended audience they targeted with this endorsement. The fact they failed to grasp the timing and subject matter would be controversial for the vast majority of their consumers is surprising.

This isn't just a failure by the VP of marketing, others failed to apply the necessary direction and gaurd rails to keep this publicity stunt on point. They let Mulvaney take the reigns, not faulting him/her here as they are over the top as part of their schtick. BL should have known to keep this endorsement contained and limited.
 
#73
#73
KB5252 said:
I had a conversation with my daughter about this situation. And it fits with something I posted elsewhere.

A lot of Mulvaneys's followers aren't really supporters. He/she is simply acting, is over the top and appears contrived. Many watching it are just watching for side show effect, or simply the entertainment.

I think BL thought this would be contained to a the intended audience they targeted with this endorsement. The fact they failed to grasp the timing and subject matter would be controversial for the vast majority of their consumers is surprising.

This isn't just a failure by the VP of marketing, others failed to apply the necessary direction and gaurd rails to keep this publicity stunt on point. They let Mulvaney take the reigns, not faulting him/her here as they are over the top as part of their schtick. BL should have known to keep this endorsement contained and limited.
Click to expand...
Yes Mulvaney comes across as a cartoon character, like a less likeable Woody Woodpecker in drag.
There would have been no way to contain such an endorsement. With hindsight, and as noted, any foresight, it would have been better to have not made those cans.
 
#74
#74
EasternVol said:
Yes Mulvaney comes across as a cartoon character, like a less likeable Woody Woodpecker in drag.
There would have been no way to contain such an endorsement. With hindsight, and as noted, any foresight, it would have been better to have not made those cans.
Click to expand...
Or allow the endorsement as a whole. At the time Mulvaney was getting ripped for taking endorsements for women's products. One of which were tampons. It was a toxic decision. Haven't there been old videos resurfacing with Mulvaney complaining about not getting any work in acting and mentioned this as a possible character? It was a few weeks ago....
 
#75
#75
To me I think they could have gone the DEI/Mulvaney route if they had been smart with it. As VB mentioned, part of the issue was perception vs reality. Just because BL added Mulvaney didn't mean they were necessarily dropping the middle America base. But the perception was Mulvaney was now the face of BL, and that may not have been the case. A more broad campaign that introduced Mulvaney alongside a, or a series of, more typical BL personas would have largely avoided the perception that BL was dropping middle America.

But the impression got out that Mulvaney was the new face, and the sudden transition, pun slightly intended, didn't go their way. If they had taken their time, brought Mulvaney into the "lexicon" of BL marketing while also maintaining their existing image it would have been far more passable.

Maybe some of the typical commercials with Mulvaney just making a cameo. Maybe just the clink of the beer cans at the end of video, or standing around the cooler talking. Introducing her as a standalone character/persona was going to change the narrative regardless of anything the VP said, imo. They could have gradually built her up into her own ad-persona and most people wouldn't have cared.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store

Back
Top