re: Why did Bud Light get the boycott but Jack Daniel's didn't?

quote:

---

Townedrunkard

---

quote:

---

I drink Miller

---

Checks out.

quote:

---

I think you and others understand this but the two above don’t. It’s all companies and ubiquitous in society now that trans is okay. But we’ll laugh over tranny fluid and ignore everyone else.

---

One at a time. It's hard to boycott all of these companies, but if even one major corporation takes a big time tumble from a right wing boycott, it might make other corporations think twice about diving into social issues.

quote:

---

Because the vast majority of the people speaking out aren't doing so about the actual can. They're doing so because the BL exec came out and shite on their entire customer base, dinkus.

---

The insults directly named and maligned the actual target market. BL should have put the face on the can and marketed more tactfully. But no, BL had to say a condescending FU to their actual consumers.

Jack Daniels drinkers were already gay and/or trans.

I was done with JD when they appointed that nasty skank, Mila Kunis, as their spokesman and put her in all their commercials.

I must have missed the part where Jack Daniels said their customer base was an issue and wanted to take the brand in a different direction by jettisoning them for a new customer base.

Not sure many people know but Jack Daniels is owned by British company Brown and Foreman. Has been for over a quarter of a century. It's still produced in the original location though. Brown and Foreman owns several US distilleries.

Mulvaney's audience is primarily minors based on his tik tok metrics. He promotes transitioning to kids. A beer is using an individual popular with kids to promote their product. I am guessing that is why the backlash is worse.

The difference between a boycott and “cancelling” is supply side vs demand side.

In a boycott, the product or service is still available to the public. It is the consumer who chooses whether or not to consume that product or not.

When a product or service is “cancelled”, it is the supplier that is acting. It is a bank refusing financing, a web hoster refusing server space, a tv network or movie studio pulling the plug on a project, or an online store or retailer removing a product from the shelves. The end consumer of the product doesn’t actually get a choice in whether or not they want to consume that content. The choice is being made for them at the top based on the perception that enough of the consumer audience will boycott it.

It’s interesting that the left embraces supply side cancellation yet demand side economics while the right endorses the inverse.

As for why BL is being cancelled and JD isn’t, it’s because BL went out of its way to insult their customers and make them known that they were hated. JD tries to be inclusive of everyone, and doesn’t demean the lion’s share of their customers. Even if a lot of folks don’t agree with sponsoring drag queens, that was only a part of the issue. The real issue was BL explaining why they did it was because they hate the people who currently drink their product. That’s what caused all of this to not just blow over after a day or two.

A lot of boycotts fail because it is nearly impossible to find a competitor. You can’t boycott your electricity utility. It can be very difficult and costly to switch banks, web hosting services, ISP’s, or any number of industries with significant consolidation or regional monopolies have developed. Beer isn’t like that. The alternatives are everywhere, and BL doesn’t even taste good. As soon as people had a reason to try something else, they finally realized what an inferior product they were consuming.

quote:

---

There is also some supportive gamesmanship in BUD stock trading. Around the time of the Mulvaney crap, BUD stockprice ... increased. It hit 2023 highs as sales first faltered. On 4MAY23, the day of its Q1 earnings report, even though BUD missed estimates, the stock price bumped back up to challenge its 2023 highs.

---

Sales hit a record level in Q1 if I can remember correctly. They're doing really, really well around the world outside of the US.

Our models usually indicate that these kind of boycotts don't really last for a long time and ABI has such a vast product range that a decline in Budd sales isn't going to be that big of a hit.

So the boycotts are 'priced' in.

quote:

---

None of that makes sense. My guess is there's an ESG-related investment rescue prop involved. Perhaps, a major liberal-run fund-group(s) buying up BUD shares, concomitant with shorts purchased against the box to hedge the Q2 numbers.

---

I mean all of it makes sense to me.

Our models indicate that these boycotts won't last + their drinks portfolio is so well-diversified that even a hit on Budd isn't that bad.

quote:

---

Does that make me a retard in your mind, mot87?

---

I mean it makes you look slightly conspiratorial.

The stuff I read on here and other communities about financial firms makes me baffled.

There's no 'liberal' firm running interference - it's just that ABI has been doing fantastically except for this slight hiccup.