VP responsible for the bud light boycott is out

And, there it is there. Bud Lite had a big consumer base built on a particular market segment that identified with the product. This VP threw that out the window and replaced it with an out-of-touch, really radical Leftist viewpoint using a spokesperson that represents less than 1% of America and was the antithesis of the previous views of the customer base. A negative reaction should have been expected.

It wasn't Bud Lite's consumer base that was out-of-touch, but rather the VP who was stupid enough to think that they could rebrand Bud Lite to compete with niche products like Zema (aka "Queer beer") rather than focus on selling to like-minded persons in their existing market segment that were now drinking competing light beers, like Miller-Coors, and that the whole exercise would have only a positive impact on sales.
 
Damocles said:
Sorry, look up "fratty" and "out of touch humor" and you will find the quote, or you can look up "video vp of marketing" and watch it yourself. As a VP of Marketing, it is her job to understand that her words will affect the brand.

Her actual quote: "We need to evolve and elevate this incredibly iconic brand." she then goes on to mention "evolve" or "evolution" six times while describing "inclusivity" then says, "Bud Light had been kind of a brand of fratty kind of out of touch humor and it was really important that we had another approach".

Again, stating that they need to evolve and elevate the brand and that the current folks who like the brand are "fratty" with "out of touch humor" and they needed to stop reaching them. What you say has meaning, especially so as the VP of Marketing of one of the most popular beer brands out there. This video was her way of telling folks why she did this, doubling down after it became apparent that the campaign was backfiring.

https://www.facebook.com/oldrow/vid...es-down-on-her-extreme-woke-/526420466361940/

What people hear in the video is her telling folks how the current customer base were no longer good enough and she wanted it to change.
Click to expand...

So she did not say... "that their customers were not good enough and that they wanted a new class of customer. " They simply said they wanted to add more customers and be more inclusive, right?
 
Damocles said:
Anyway, for Jarod:

I feel a bit sorry for the VP of Marketing who is going to lose her job, she did what they told her to do and is a scapegoat IMHO.

As for my second statement: There are actual cans with Dylan's face on them that were stocked in places as part of the ad campaign that began this controversy (what truly caused it was the VP who will likely be fired deliberately stating they didn't want to appeal to the "frat boys" who actually were the base customers for the product). Those will be taken back and they will restock with normal cans. This will make those cans rare and, like Billy Beer, I would like to have some of the rare cans that began this controversy, not to drink the swill, but to add to my collection next to my Billy Beer.
Click to expand...

Anyway, For DAMOCLES.... No such cans were put in stock.
 
Jarod said:
Yup, you are misrepresenting what she said. I saw the video, the whole conversation was about adding new consumers to the brand, not leaving any or changing to a different class. You are getting your info from a bad source. Is there some citation you can provide, because the video I saw she did not say what you are claiming.
Click to expand...

I am not misrepresenting anything. I am telling you what people heard when she said these things. Alissa Heinerscheid, as a Marketing Executive, fully understands that her words mean things. Most lawyers also understand this, especially the good ones. What you infer when you speak, especially as a Marketing executive, will be heard.

The reality, this VP of Marketing made it clear what she thought of the customer base, and they returned the favor.
 
Jarod said:
So she did not say... "that their customers were not good enough and that they wanted a new class of customer. " They simply said they wanted to add more customers and be more inclusive, right?
Click to expand...

The cancel culture, politically correct Trumpers don't agree. They want it their exclusive way and only their exclusive way.
 
Damocles said:
Yes, really. She noted that she wanted the customer base of "frat boys" and "partiers" to "evolve" into a better class of customer. I've mentioned it several times in here, even quoting you so you would know I had answered this question in the past. The reality is, as a VP of Marketing she should understand that her actions and words have weight that others would not have. Being dismissive and degrading to the current customer base did not serve her (or the product) well, even if she "meant it" in a "different way" (she has not stated that, I'm just guessing what her apology might entail), it is literally her job to speak on behalf of the brand and to do better than this.
Click to expand...

Do you have a citation for her having "literally said they wanted a different class of customer buying their product"?
 
Jarod said:
So she did not say... "that their customers were not good enough and that they wanted a new class of customer. " They simply said they wanted to add more customers and be more inclusive, right?
Click to expand...

I'd say that was their intent. But that intent was based on a complete misreading of their current customer base. The result was instead of adding customers, they saw their customer base flee the brand for competitors. This, I would postulate, is because the VP holds Leftist views and that means she had no real clue what the values the existing customer base held. That complete lack of empathy and understanding resulted in an advertising debacle.
 
Damocles said:
I am not misrepresenting anything. I am telling you what people heard when she said these things. Alissa Heinerscheid, as a Marketing Executive, fully understands that her words mean things. Most lawyers also understand this, especially the good ones. What you infer when you speak, especially as a Marketing executive, will be heard.

The reality, this VP of Marketing made it clear what she thought of the customer base, and they returned the favor.
Click to expand...

So are we discussing "what people heard" or what she "literally" said?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
And, there it is there. Bud Lite had a big consumer base built on a particular market segment that identified with the product. This VP threw that out the window and replaced it with an out-of-touch, really radical Leftist viewpoint using a spokesperson that represents less than 1% of America and was the antithesis of the previous views of the customer base. A negative reaction should have been expected.

It wasn't Bud Lite's consumer base that was out-of-touch, but rather the VP who was stupid enough to think that they could rebrand Bud Lite to compete with niche products like Zema (aka "Queer beer") rather than focus on selling to like-minded persons in their existing market segment that were now drinking competing light beers, like Miller-Coors, and that the whole exercise would have only a positive impact on sales.
Click to expand...

I figured you for a Bud Light drinker before the 2020 election. Each to their own.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I'd say that was their intent. But that intent was based on a complete misreading of their current customer base. The result was instead of adding customers, they saw their customer base flee the brand for competitors. This, I would postulate, is because the VP holds Leftist views and that means she had no real clue what the values the existing customer base held. That complete lack of empathy and understanding resulted in an advertising debacle.
Click to expand...

That is your interpretation, its literally not what she said. You wanted to be offended so you pretend she said something she did not say. I understand.
 
Jarod said:
So are we discussing "what people heard" or what she "literally" said?
Click to expand...

I did explain that. I used literally as to her meaning in what she said, then posted a link to the video. So, yeah. I gave you a link to what she literally said. You tried to pretend that she "meant" something other than what she said and pretended I "misrepresented" what she said, but in reality I simply noted her words and put quote marks around "evolve", "fratty" and "out of touch", etc.

Since you want to pretend that I am some perfect example of language, though you yourself fail at this hourly on this board, I will maintain what I said and repeat it. She literally stated that the customer base needed to "evolve" and that the "fratty" and "out of touch" base was not good enough for her. She failed at her one job and lost the customer base. She lost her job, and I almost felt sorry for her. Now, not so much. She was terrible at her job, clearly out of touch with and dismissive of the customer base.
 
Damocles said:
Yes, really. She noted that she wanted the customer base of "frat boys" and "partiers" to "evolve" into a better class of customer. I've mentioned it several times in here, even quoting you so you would know I had answered this question in the past. The reality is, as a VP of Marketing she should understand that her actions and words have weight that others would not have. Being dismissive and degrading to the current customer base did not serve her (or the product) well, even if she "meant it" in a "different way" (she has not stated that, I'm just guessing what her apology might entail), it is literally her job to speak on behalf of the brand and to do better than this.
Click to expand...

Is this the video where you claim she "literally said that their customers were not good enough and that they wanted a new class of customer. "

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-fratty-branding-days-Dylan-Mulvaney-ad.html
 
Jarod said:
Is this the video where you claim she "literally said that their customers were not good enough and that they wanted a new class of customer. "

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...e-fratty-branding-days-Dylan-Mulvaney-ad.html
Click to expand...

I know what I said. And I repeated it after you pretended that the word 'literally' meant the same thing as "quote/unquote" (hint: it doesn't). I quoted what she said, and added the literal meaning of the words she put together in the video. Where she told us she wanted to "evolve" the brand away from the current customer base who were "fratty" and "out of touch". Yes, I reported what she literally said.
 
Jarod said:
That is your interpretation, its literally not what she said. You wanted to be offended so you pretend she said something she did not say. I understand.
Click to expand...

Get a load of this, a leftist saying someone else wants to be offended. Leftists look for reasons to be offended.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Yet you are dictating to a company how to market products you just admitted you don't use.

If a Lefty did that, what would you call it?
Click to expand...

Nah, he's explaining why folks who did drink the swill stopped drinking the brand after their VP of Marketing told them they needed to "evolve" a new (better) customer base because the current brand reached out to those (lowlife Bud Light drinking jerks) who are "fratty" with "out of touch humor".

Should they want to continue in that "voice" they can. Nobody suggests that they should go to jail for the "crime" of stupid marketing ploys. My guess is you won't see many VPs acting like Alissa did in the future. It kind of makes for a short employment record.
 
Damocles said:
I know what I said. And I repeated it after you pretended that the word 'literally' meant the same thing as "quote/unquote" (hint: it doesn't). I quoted what she said, and added the literal meaning of the words she put together in the video. Where she told us she wanted to "evolve" the brand away from the current customer base who were "fratty" and "out of touch". Yes, I reported what she literally said.
Click to expand...

Literal means literal. I think word you were looking for was "effectively".

Example; Kid Rock literally said "Fuck Bud Light and Fuck Anheuser-Busch" but he effectively admitted he was a pansy-assed Bud Light drinking metrosexual.
 
Damocles said:
Nah, he's explaining why folks who did drink the swill stopped drinking the brand after their VP of Marketing told them they needed to "evolve" a new (better) customer base because the current brand reached out to those (lowlife Bud Light drinking jerks) who are "fratty" with "out of touch humor".
Click to expand...

Wasn't she correct? Only lowlifes and wimps drink Bud Light. Effectively, they're all gays or trannies. As such, why not market directly to gays and trannies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top