Bud Light tanking

1995 Views 120 Replies 11 Participants Last post by ALW, 9 d ago

Buckmark

Discussion Starter · 1 mo ago

I wonder if people think the latest marketing venture for Bud Light is actually working ??? Bud light sales dropped by an “ASTONISHING” (not my description) 17% !!!! . The VP of marketing is on a leave of absence, and just recently, her boss, also took a leave of absence. Who in their right mind thought that stunt was gonna get more good old americans to drink more Bud light ?????

Reactions: 1

1 - 20 of 121 Posts

Tyson10gauge

· #2 · 1 mo ago

I find it hilarious , they take a can of water posing a beer ( CheapO stuff IMHO ) and allow some dress up social media clown that Is clearly male and Put it on a can and allow it be a spokes person for WOMEN wtaf ! Was that marketing exec think was going to happen ? Really , trying to reach out she says , to whom her long lost college girl friend !

To each their own do as they plz , but stop cramming it down throats of those who go the traditional M/F relation ship and have their own values . Them loosing money hurt their image , their brand and opened up a can of worms that can never be closed back up .

People spoke up with their wallets , now other brands that trying the same stunt are starting to claw back before they loose , I mean seriously , take a regular straight guys beer and get a [email protected]#$# to be spokesperson .WOW !

I am far from homophobic , but keep it to themselves , don't care , don't tell me , just don't ! I don' t say why are you that way and really care less .

She got Canned and her boss got canned for hiring her , someones head had to roll for this fiasco .

See less See more

Reactions: 1

3macs1

· #3 · 1 mo ago (Edited)

Yep killing them their stock closed at 66.20 today

way over their previous 52 week high of $64.78 Tanking ??? not even remotely close Also lets clarify the 17% a one week snap shot vs the same week last year BIG deal

Sales of Bud Light in the U.S. fell 17% during the week ending April 15 compared to the same week last year, according to Robert Ottenstein, an analyst with Evercore ISI, an investment banking advisory firm in New York.
But he cautioned against drawing snap conclusions from these weekly numbers, which were reported by Beer Business Daily and other trade outlets.

“Short periods of time tend to be noisy and may not accurately reflect underlying trends,” Ottenstein wrote.

Carry on

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BUD/

Bud Light and Dylan Mulvaney: Why the Stock Market Doesn't Care - Business News

It is often said that the values and concerns of Wall Street and Main Street are not the same. It looks like Anheuser-Busch is messing around with InBev, as

biz.crast.net

See less See more

Buckmark

Discussion Starter · #4 · 1 mo ago

3macs1 said:
Yep killing them their stock closed at 66.20 today way over their previous 52 week high of $64.78 Tanking ??? not even remotely close Also lets clarify the 17% a one week snap shot vs the same week last year BIG deal

Sales of Bud Light in the U.S. fell 17% during the week ending April 15 compared to the same week last year, according to Robert Ottenstein, an analyst with Evercore ISI, an investment banking advisory firm in New York.
But he cautioned against drawing snap conclusions from these weekly numbers, which were reported by Beer Business Daily and other trade outlets.

“Short periods of time tend to be noisy and may not accurately reflect underlying trends,” Ottenstein wrote.

Carry on

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BUD/

Bud Light and Dylan Mulvaney: Why the Stock Market Doesn't Care - Business News

It is often said that the values and concerns of Wall Street and Main Street are not the same. It looks like Anheuser-Busch is messing around with InBev, as

biz.crast.net

And why do you think sales dropped by 17%, Einstein ???? Why is it so hard for you accept the fact that, this Dylan stunt did absolutely nothing to help their bottom line ???? Why did the VP and her boss step away ??? If the company is doing so wonderful ... why are they both on a leave of absence ???

Reactions: 2

3macs1

· #5 · 1 mo ago (Edited)

Buckmark said:
And why do you think sales dropped by 17%, Einstein ???? Why is it so hard for you accept the fact that, this Dylan stunt did absolutely nothing to help their bottom line ???? Why did the VP and her boss step away ??? If the company is doing so wonderful ... why are they both on a leave of absence ???

It was a one week comparison of a previous week of the same year could be anything or a combination of many things if one had to taken the time to check they would see it was just a snapshot meaning NOTHING And it is too early to tell what Dylan has done and said that 1000 times needs at least a year to really see
Why is their stock the highest in a year that is all that matters . Einstein I am not but sure smarter than a 5th grader and not naive enough to think a bunch of old beer drinking cavemen with a boycott can hurt a multi billion dollar international company They can't and won't and the stock price proves it
Stocks don't grow in companies tanking that is all I have to accept and that is not BS or cnn or cbc
Did you even read the link

“We think the recent reaction in some parts of America to Bud Light’s new ad campaign with Dylan Mulvaney has paid off.” writes Citigroup analyst Simon Hales.

You guys suffer from Transphobia which is not cool and should get help for it Not 1970 regardless how hard a few try to keep living there Those days are gone forever accept it

Since you asked on the 17% all brands were down during those weeks and bud was actually up 15% over the others so what effect did the boycott have HELLO
Not my words
During the March 18-April 1 survey period, which included the NCAA basketball tournament – a major driver of on-premise traffic – Bud Light outperformed over all other brands of light lager rate of sale by +15%, according to BeerBoard. During the April 2-15 period, when conservative boycotts began

Enjoy you day minus 3 right now

and a ton of babies to take care of
Cheers

See less See more

Buckmark

Discussion Starter · #6 · 1 mo ago

3macs1 said:
It was a one week comparison of a previous week of the same year could be anything or a combination of many things if one had to taken the time to check they would see it was just a snapshot meaning NOTHING And it is too early to tell what Dylan has done and said that 1000 times needs at least a year to really see
Why is their stock the highest in a year that is all that matters . Einstein I am not but sure smarter than a 5th grader and not naive enough to think a bunch of old beer drinking cavemen with a boycott can hurt a multi billion dollar international company They can't and won't and the stock price proves it
Stocks don't grow in companies tanking that is all I have to accept and that is not BS or cnn or cbc
Did you even read the link

“We think the recent reaction in some parts of America to Bud Light’s new ad campaign with Dylan Mulvaney has paid off.” writes Citigroup analyst Simon Hales.

You guys suffer from Transphobia which is not cool and should get help for it Not 1970 regardless how hard a few try to keep living there Those days are gone forever accept it

Since you asked on the 17% all brands were down during those weeks and bud was actually up 15% over the others so what effect did the boycott have HELLO
Not my words
During the March 18-April 1 survey period, which included the NCAA basketball tournament – a major driver of on-premise traffic – Bud Light outperformed over all other brands of light lager rate of sale by +15%, according to BeerBoard. During the April 2-15 period, when conservative boycotts began

Enjoy you day minus 3 right now and a ton of babies to take care of
Cheers

Ok. Yeah ... you're right again ... as always. The 2 top officials that took a leave of absence, must have been so proud of their work, and so proud that they were able to grab that peice of the market share, that they thought they would take a much deserved vacation. Oh my .... sometimes I worry about you.
And no .... I am not transphobic. I am just a person who doesn't like having it jammed down my throat 24-7. And yes ... this is not 1970. We live in a time where it's not cool to make fun of one's speech impediment (stuttering) right ?????

Reactions: 1

3macs1

· #7 · 1 mo ago (Edited)

Buckmark said:
Ok. Yeah ... you're right again ... as always. The 2 top officials that took a leave of absence, must have been so proud of their work, and so proud that they were able to grab that peice of the market share, that they thought they would take a much deserved vacation. Oh my .... sometimes I worry about you.
And no .... I am not transphobic. I am just a person who doesn't like having it jammed down my throat 24-7. And yes ... this is not 1970. We live in a time where it's not cool to make fun of one's speech impediment (stuttering) right ?????

Once again nothing to do about being right but that seems to now be the only response I get from those who cannot debate or support their comments or research before they start to quack or are wrong oh yes I am a liberal is the other when I don't agree but have no fear your pals are there for you as always for support

Just just sharing fact stock market trumps all boycott BS and it is not me you have to worry about worry about yourself Wonder if you and I went to the head doc who would get the pills That would be interesting you think

and no they didnot take a leave they were moved out stream lining the marketing team which is not uncommon in a restructure Stuttering?? If not transphobic cool then stop supporting others who clearly are

“Today, we communicated some next steps with our internal teams and wholesaler partners. First, we made it clear that the safety and welfare of our employees and our partners is our top priority. Second, Todd Allen is appointed Vice President of Bud Light reporting directly to Benoit Garbe, U.S. chief marketing officer. Third, we have made some adjustments to streamline the structure of our marketing function to reduce layers so that our most senior marketers are more closely connected to every aspect of our brands activities. These steps will help us maintain focus on the things we do best: brewing great beer for all consumers, while always making a positive impact in our communities and on our country.”

See less See more

Buckmark

Discussion Starter · #8 · 1 mo ago

Lets forget all about stock numbers for now . Why did those two head honchos take a leave of absence ??? Pretty simple question. If this latest stunt with this Dylan character, didn't have a negative impact, why did those two take a leave of absence?? You can post all you want about numbers, but this obviously had a negative impact of some sort with Anheuser-Busch.

3macs1

· #9 · 1 mo ago (Edited)

Buckmark said:
Lets forget all about stock numbers for now . Why did those two head honchos take a leave of absence ??? Pretty simple question. If this latest stunt with this Dylan character, didn't have a negative impact, why did those two take a leave of absence?? You can post all you want about numbers, but this obviously had a negative impact of some sort with Anheuser-Busch.

I just showed you they didnot take a leave they took a mandatory leave HUGE difference so they could eliminate levels of the marketing team No idea why nor how much the dylan stuff played a role that none of us know or will ever know. Short term impact sure which is common long term not a bit
Think maybe the death treats they were getting might have had something to do with it just maybe Look at this line they stated
First, we made it clear that the safety and welfare of our employees

Statik

· #10 · 1 mo ago

Disagreeing with a direction some of society wants to head does not make one irrationally fearful of it. Name calling those who do not 100% support certain lifestyles is bullying and I stand against all forms of bullying. 3macs1, calling those who oppose Bud's advertising transphobic is inappropriate. As is Buckmark calling you Einstein.

As for the numbers being compared, the reason they compare the same week per year is because sales generally follow a seasonal pattern. Composting subsequent weeks for gains/losses may hide marketing trends. It would be interesting to see the same two weeks in the previous years. For there to be a 17% drop over the same week last year tells us only a little. What about the difference between the week before the advertising campaign and the same week the year previous. Was it also down? Or, 3macs1's point about the stock gain on the next week means nothing without comparing the previous year as well.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Reactions: 2

3macs1

· #11 · 1 mo ago (Edited)

Statik said:
Disagreeing with a direction some of society wants to head does not make one irrationally fearful of it. Name calling those who do not 100% support certain lifestyles is bullying and I stand against all forms of bullying. 3macs1, calling those who oppose Bud's advertising transphobic is inappropriate. As is Buckmark calling you Einstein.

As for the numbers being compared, the reason they compare the same week per year is because sales generally follow a seasonal pattern. Composting subsequent weeks for gains/losses may hide marketing trends. It would be interesting to see the same two weeks in the previous years. For there to be a 17% drop over the same week last year tells us only a little. What about the difference between the week before the advertising campaign and the same week the year previous. Was it also down? Or, 3macs1's point about the stock gain on the next week means nothing without comparing the previous year as well.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

No 3macs point is no way in hell would a stock be growing for the last month to record levels after a 4 week boycott if the boycott was working Plain and simple don't need any previous years data for that and on the bullying I suggest you read from post one here then tell me there is no transphobic happening here or better the original trend on this with the same individuals posting
Cheers

Statik

· #12 · 1 mo ago

Stock can lag sales.
I see no transphobia in post 1.

3macs1

· #13 · 1 mo ago (Edited)

l

3macs1

· #14 · 1 mo ago (Edited)

3macs1 said:
lag By 4 weeks ?? of a boycott NOPE I said all posts and the previous trend same individuals I base my views on all comments made

TrueGrit

· #15 · 1 mo ago

I base mine on all comments made as well.

Reactions: 1

TrueGrit

· #16 · 1 mo ago

Statik said:
Disagreeing with a direction some of society wants to head does not make one irrationally fearful of it. Name calling those who do not 100% support certain lifestyles is bullying and I stand against all forms of bullying. 3macs1, calling those who oppose Bud's advertising transphobic is inappropriate. As is Buckmark calling you Einstein.

As for the numbers being compared, the reason they compare the same week per year is because sales generally follow a seasonal pattern. Composting subsequent weeks for gains/losses may hide marketing trends. It would be interesting to see the same two weeks in the previous years. For there to be a 17% drop over the same week last year tells us only a little. What about the difference between the week before the advertising campaign and the same week the year previous. Was it also down? Or, 3macs1's point about the stock gain on the next week means nothing without comparing the previous year as well.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Great post, Statik!
It is all part of the game of divide and conquer.
If opposing voices can be stifled, for fear of being labelled a racist, transphobe etc then that agenda gets to progress unimpeded without addressing the opposing sides concerns.

Reactions: 1

TonyM

· #17 · 1 mo ago

This argument, and that's what it is, is pointless.
None of us has enough information to say with 100% accuracy that the boycott will hurt A-B Inbev in the long term. It appears to have hit Bud Lite sales in the short term but even that may not be as serious as it would appear OR even be 100% as a result of the boycott. None if us can say. No one factor operates in a vacuum, they're all interrelated to some extent.
None of us can or should rely on statements made by A-B Inbev to support our views on the subject. They will lie through their teeth to cover their real agenda when and as it suits them.
Hell, even stock price can be manipulated both short and long term (to a much lesser extent) by the company itself, short sellers, financial analysts, large shareholders or groups of smaller investors.
Two years from now it may, may, be possible to declare that this whole mess really hurt or didn't.

Reactions: 2

3macs1

· #18 · 1 mo ago

TonyM said:
This argument, and that's what it is, is pointless.
None of us has enough information to say with 100% accuracy that the boycott will hurt A-B Inbev in the long term. It appears to have hit Bud Lite sales in the short term but even that may not be as serious as it would appear OR even be 100% as a result of the boycott. None if us can say. No one factor operates in a vacuum, they're all interrelated to some extent.
None of us can or should rely on statements made by A-B Inbev to support our views on the subject. They will lie through their teeth to cover their real agenda when and as it suits them.
Hell, even stock price can be manipulated both short and long term (to a much lesser extent) by the company itself, short sellers, financial analysts, large shareholders or groups of smaller investors.
Two years from now it may, may, be possible to declare that this whole mess really hurt or didn't.

Exactly but IMHO one year would be the min to see two as you say would be better and more accurate all I know is the stock price manipulated or not is very
positive right now and the highest in over a year and IMO would not expect that at this stage with all so called loss of sales being reported
Cheers

TonyM

· #19 · 1 mo ago

3macs1 said:
Exactly but IMHO one year would be the min to see two as you say would be better and more accurate all I know is the stock price manipulated or not is very
positive right now and the highest in over a year and IMO would not expect that at this stage with all so called loss of sales being reported
Cheers

I mentioned this in an earlier post about this mess, but its worth mentioning again so here goes. Even though Bud is likely a very big seller for A-B Inbev, it is only one of probably at least 25 if not 50 brands they sell literally around the world. So actually, a steep drop in Bud Light sales will not hurt them as much as you would think at first. Yes the numbers are enormous to us and any change is meaningful to them. But, they have huge sales from many brands and in many countries. I'll bet that what has not been mentioned in the news is that some at least of the people not drinking Bud Light are drinking other A-B Inbev products driving up sales of those products thus offsetting the Bud Lite hit.

3macs1

· #20 · 1 mo ago

TonyM said:
I mentioned this in an earlier post about this mess, but its worth mentioning again so here goes. Even though Bud is likely a very big seller for A-B Inbev, it is only one of probably at least 25 if not 50 brands they sell literally around the world. So actually, a steep drop in Bud Light sales will not hurt them as much as you would think at first. Yes the numbers are enormous to us and any change is meaningful to them. But, they have huge sales from many brands and in many countries. I'll bet that what has not been mentioned in the news is that some at least of the people not drinking Bud Light are drinking other A-B Inbev products driving up sales of those products thus offsetting the Bud Lite hit.

For sure Just thinking out loud about working the stock I bet even that is quite limited on what they can do what do you think I bet many don't even know they are still supporting A-B Inbev

drinking the other products

1 - 20 of 121 Posts