Bud Light poured decades of LGBTQ allyship down the drain—and now everyone’s mad

Picture this: A Bud Light commercial called “Labels” starring comedians Amy Schumer and Seth Rogen as candidates for a new (fictional) political party called The Bud Light Party. They deliver their stump speech behind podiums, in a bar, a factory, and even on horseback at a rodeo. The crux of their message?



“Gender identity is really a spectrum and we don’t need these labels!” says Schumer.



“Beer should have labels, not people! We don’t care: We’ll sell you beer!” shouts Rogen.



Right on! What a proud, definitive stance for a beer brand to take on a social issue. Upon its release, Anheuser Busch declared that the campaign “continues to champion the brand’s message of inclusivity among modern beer drinkers and bringing people together,” and this ad aims to encourage “unity among everyone—men, women, and people of all gender identities—for fun over ice-cold Bud Light.”



This wasn’t a bold, defiant response to the recent transphobic hysteria surrounding the brand for working with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney on a small social media promotion in April 2023.



This is from . . . 2016.



Now, almost seven years—and six Pride marketing campaigns—later, Bud Light has spent the past few weeks shrinking away from its bigoted critics.



Most of the focus and headlines these past few weeks has been on how much the promo with Mulvaney has cost Bud Light in sales, customers, and brand value among people who disagree with the company aligning itself with a trans person. What the brand should really be worried about, though, is the longer-term impact among the much, much larger audience it was coveting in the first place.



Beer sales overall have been on a steady decline for years, and beer brands have been forced to navigate the palates of younger generations steering increasingly toward spirits, cocktails, hard seltzer, and nonalcoholic options. Bud Light has long talked about the need to expand its brand audience to be younger and more diverse, especially given that this cohort is drinking less than previous generations, and identifies as LGBTQ much more.



In a podcast interview from March, just before this controversy erupted, Bud Light’s VP of marketing Alissa Heinerscheid spelled it out plainly. “If we do not attract young drinkers to come and drink this brand,” she said, “there will be no future for Bud Light.”



So what changed over the past few weeks?



My colleague Rob Walker wrote last week that these past few weeks have shown how brand protests and boycotts have evolved into something that’s less a critique of a brand, and more about serving as a promotional event for its critics. An event, as Washington Post political reporter Philip Bump wrote, “in which conservatives use Bud Light as a foil for their own demonstrations of their right-wing bona fides.”



This is why we see overhyped antics like less-than-relevant rockstar Kid Rock posting an Instagram video shooting up a few cases of Bud Light, sparking many imitators, and a former Trump campaign official launching a new beer brand called Ultra Right.



We’ve seen the same kind of apoplectic posturing in recent years against such companies as Carhartt, United Airlines, Nike, and Disney. Taken together, these have morphed into a broader “Get Woke, Go Broke” campaign against corporations and companies that exhibit anything resembling progressive policies. The noise behind it is considerable, but the impact on these companies’ bottom lines has, tellingly, been almost nothing.



Disney is a particularly compelling case, in that it initially remained quiet about Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill and was widely criticized for it by LGBTQ groups and advocates. Then-CEO Bob Chapek told employees, “You needed me to be a stronger ally in the fight for equal rights and I let you down. I am sorry.” Since then, Disney has spoken out and become a target for Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, in a dispute that has now moved beyond the media and into the courts.



On April 14, two weeks after the initial Mulvaney video, Anheuser Busch CEO Brendan Whitworth said in a statement, barren of any real meaning, “We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people. We are in the business of bringing people together over a beer. . . . Moving forward, I will continue to work tirelessly to bring great beers to consumers across our nation.” The only way that line could be funnier is if Rogen delivered it on horseback in a new Bud Light Party ad.



Beyond that, Bud Light has remained largely silent since then in an effort to stop losing customers over this controversy. AB InBev did not respond to Fast Company‘s request for comment. The Wall Street Journal reported that Bud Light sales fell 17% in the week ended April 15, compared to the same week in 2022. Its actions, however, have said plenty. On April 21, the company put Heinerscheid and fellow Anheuser Busch marketing exec Daniel Blake on leave. In yet another statement, the company said that was part of streamlining its marketing structure, so it can “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.”



These are the words of a brand striving for neutrality. University of Michigan marketing prof and Wieden+Kennedy’s head of strategy Marcus Collins told me this week that for any brand aspiring to be a part of culture in today’s landscape, neutrality is a myth. “The idea of being a part of culture and contributing to the cultural discourse, that comes from a place of conviction, what you believe,” says Collins, whose book For The Culture debuts May 2. “How do you see the world, and what are you willing to stand for? I know that seems challenging to brands, and that’s fine if you don’t have the appetite for it, but you also won’t be able to benefit from it.”



Bud Light has spent decades and billions of dollars making its brand a part of culture. The Bud Bowl—a Super Bowl-themed, stop-motion animated game between Bud Light and Budweiser—captivated beer drinkers in 1989. More recently, in 2018, the brand made the gibberish “Dilly Dilly” an unexpected part of pop culture that also boosted sales; and for the 2019 Super Bowl, mingled with Game of Thrones dragons. Then there’s its two decades worth of Pride advertising and partnerships with advocacy organizations like GLAAD, all positioning Bud Light as an ally to the LGBTQ community.









Beyond the 2016 “Labels” spot, the Bud Light Party campaign also included a fun ad about gay weddings. For Pride in 2020, Bud Light in Canada created an ad featuring three drag queens, including RuPaul’s Drag Race finalist Brooks Lynn Hytes, to raise awareness for Rainbow Railroad, an organization that helps LGBTQ+ people escape state-sponsored violence and persecution around the world. Last year, the brand made limited edition “pronoun-inspired” Pride cans. I don’t recall Kid Rock going full Yosemite Sam at the time.



Bud Light picked the side of tolerance and inclusion long ago, yet this month’s retreat and silence undermines these past efforts, and makes any future Pride or inclusion work looks like just another opportunistic marketer co-opting a movement.









This is AB f—ing Inbev, a company that has the scale of voice (and the budget behind it) to buy out an entire Colorado town for a campaign in 2014. They can drown out the likes of Kid Rock, whose truly mediocre catalog includes only one top-10 song that peaked on the charts 20 years ago. This is not a person they should be shrinking away from.



AB InBev is a truly elite marketer. There’s a reason it’s the first-ever company to win back-to-back Cannes Lions Creative Marketer of the Year titles. Instead of backing down, Bud Light actually had a unique opportunity to win over new customers and fans by embracing the ideals it has purported to have every Pride Month since 1995. And it wouldn’t have had to go as far as one enterprising TikToker, who mocked up fake Bud Light billboards that just said, “lol crybabies.”




Hah! Awesome. ????????#BudLight #trolling pic.twitter.com/NKHLMZAUBr — SnarkTank™ (@SnarkkTank) April 21, 2023




Instead of worrying about the impact on its sales of right-wing media and commentators, Bud Light should be considering the unintended impact of its silence.



Carrie Davis, chief community officer at The Trevor Project, says that it’s important to remember that young trans people are four times as likely to attempt suicide compared to their peers. Not because they are inherently prone to suicide, but because of increased bullying, rejection, discrimination, and violence. The Trevor Project estimates that each year, more than 1.8 million LGBTQ youth in the United States seriously consider suicide. That’s at least one attempt every 45 seconds.



“It is incredibly troubling to see major brands submit to bad-faith actors who will not be satisfied until transgender people are invisible from public life,” says Davis. “Right now, we need business leaders, corporations, and elected officials to send messages of hope and support to our young people, not to fuel dangerous rhetoric or entertain debates about the existence of trans people. Transgender people exist, we’re not going anywhere, and we deserve to live our lives without fear of mistreatment for simply being who we are.”



Back in March, AB InBev’s global chief marketing officer Marcel Marcondes told me that the most important lesson the company’s marketers have learned is that it’s a trap to think attention is the most important metric. “Just because something gets a lot of attention doesn’t mean it’s great,” said Marcondes. “The key elements we learned from our mistakes is that creativity is great only when it’s used to address real consumer and business problems.”



Right now, the company appears to have fallen for the trap of transphobic hysteria. Yet, despite its lack of response so far, AB InBev and Bud Light still do have the potential and opportunity to escape.



As Marcondes also told me, the most important thing in every creative process is to start with a clear definition of the problem. “If you don’t know the problem you’re trying to solve, you can get all the headlines in the world, but nothing really happens,” he said. “You’re not making any difference.”