Bud Light Competitors See Massive Sales Jump

The Daily Mail reports that "Bud Light's hangover gets worse: Rivals Coors Light and Miller Lite sales SPIKE 18% in wake of Dylan Mulvaney debacle as flagship brand suffers a 17% dip and industry insiders call crisis 'an extremely difficult scenario'."

    I'm glad to see this. One of the reasons that the woke corporations are afraid of leftist groups is that they can be very effective at organizing boycotts. Conversely, one of the reasons that woke corporations have no problem with screwing over their conservative customers is because conservatives have, traditionally, been very poor at organizing boycotts or taking other unified action against woke corporations. The only real exception to this are gun owners and the difference can be seen in the results: while conservatism is generally on the retreat, gun owners have actually been able to take back ground from the gun grabbers over the past few decades. I hope the Bud Light reaction is a sign of things to come rather than a mere flash in the pan.

    As you probably know, Bud Light's marketing vice president Alissa Heinerscheid--the one everyone is pointing fingers at for teaming up with Mulvaney--has been put on a leave of absence. A second  executive, Daniel Blake, who oversees marketing for Anheuser-Busch’s mainstream brands, has also "stepped back" from his role. Fox Business has also reported that "[t]he company has also hired two consultants with experience in Washington, D.C.'s conservative circles"--Origin Advocacy consultants Sean McLean and Emily Lynch--"to advise the brand moving forward." 

    For all of her talk of diversity, Heinerscheid's marketing team appears to all be young (i.e., inexperienced), white (or Jewish), and overwhelming female. And certainly all young urban professionals. Exactly the wrong type of people to have the pulse of the company's customers. Which may be one of the reasons that the team was so interested with replacing that customer base with a different one.

    At American Thinker, Thomas Lifson has some additional thoughts in his article "Decoding the Bud Light disaster as marketing VP Alissa Heinerscheid 'takes leave of absence'." He writes (bold added):

    The exact nature of that mistake is what makes this incident so fascinating and meaningful.  I believe that the political ramifications are profound.

    The first point to make is that nobody at Bud Light or A-B had a clue that many of their customers would take exception to transsexual "influencer" Dylan Mulvaney getting his picture on cans of Bud Light and serving as a marketing agent.  The company points out that only a few cans were produced and sent as a gift to Mulvaney, but as soon as pictures were available online of Mulvaney with his visage reproduced on a product that males place in their mouths and swallow, a homosexual connotation became attached to the product in the minds of many males who drink beer.

    It is not at all clear who signed up Mulvaney.  It might have been V.P. Heinerscheid, but given that the company says it has "hundreds" of influencers," it is possible that one of her staff came up with the concept, in which case she probably signed off on the idea, perhaps without giving much thought to any adverse consequences.

    Marketing is a discipline that uses a lot of research, normally, which makes the failure to understand the psychology of large numbers of Bud Light drinkers so curious.  I can only assume that, in her daily life, she associates with her peers: highly educated, affluent professionals, many of them from Ivy League schools, none of whom would ever dream of saying anything negative about transsexuality.  No blinking red light appeared in her mind to caution that not everyone approves of the trans movement, and that the trans extremists who bully and physically attack campus speakers like Riley Gaines, who insist on males showering with teenage girl athletes, and who have caused mass shootings, might have caused a powerful counter-reaction.

    The reality is that the ruling class in the United States are so full of contempt for what they regard as the lower orders of society that they feel no moral imperative to understand them.  The proper reaction to "transphobia" is contempt, because, after all, such retrograde views are "on the wrong side of history" and soon will be extinguished, just as resistance to homosexual "marriage" has vanished from the public sphere.