Decisions made at that level can have an incredible impact in the world. People other than InBEV/AB are being hurt by this decision and the resulting backlash. Let's walk this back.

In most states (Michigan included) beer is sold openly but distribution is controlled by state licenses.

The average American buys beer from:
- Local bars
- Liquor stores
- Gas stations
- Convenience stores (7-11, etc)
- Grocery Stores
- Big box retailers (Costco, Sam's, Walmart, Kroger, Meijer, etc)
- Etc.,

All of that beer is purchased from the beer distributor and stored in coolers shelves, in back store rooms, etc,. It is owned by the local store. Anything they don't sell, is money they lose.

All of that beer has to get distributed. If the beer isn't moving at point of sale, there is no need for replenishment. No need for the beer trucks to be loaded, no need for the drivers to deliver and stock. What do they do with no routes to run?

The local beer distributors are in many states privately owned, in others state owned. They buy the beer from the brewery and sell it to the point of sale locations. If beer is not being sold, their stock stagnates and they are losing money too.

There are drivers that take that beer from the brewery to the local distributors. No distributor wants to order more beer when they have a warehouse full that isn't moving. If they don't get orders to deliver, the drivers stall as well.

Finally it backs up into the breweries. I've worked inside these facilities. They produce cans and bottles of beer at a volume that most of you cannot comprehend. Hundreds of high speed conveyor lines feeding 40 or 50 high speed palletizers working non-stop. They throw away more beer in busted cans and cases than most people will drink in their lifetime. That eventually will all stop, and THEN... THEN the company that started this gets to feel the financial crisis.


As I said in the beginning, decisions like this have a massive impact that hurt way more people than just the brewers. It's the people that are likely just as irritated by the decision as the consumer that get hurt first.

This is why decisions at the corporate level like this need to be made VERY VERY carefully.

For those that think it's cool to buy it and smash it.... trust me. InBev/AB doesn't care what you do with it as long as you pay them for it. If you already own it and want to trash it to make room for something else fine, but that is symbolic at best, they already have your money.

quote:

Decisions made at that level can have an incredible impact in the world. People other than InBEV/AB are being hurt by this decision and the resulting backlash. Let's walk this back.

As HRK pointed out on the last page: This is how we stop ESG.
I think this decision, by millions of people all at once, to NOT BUY a product, is the biggest spontaneous backlash to wokeism and ESG since all of this crap began years ago.
This is a good thing.

$4 Billion Wiped from Anheuser-Busch’s Value amid Bud Light’s Dylan Mulvaney Backlash

https://slaynews.com/news/4-bi...ign=daily-newsletter

Brewing company Anheuser-Busch has seen a staggering $4 billion wiped from its value amid the backlash over Bud Light’s new ad campaign featuring transgender Dylan Mulvaney.

The beermaker has suffered a bloodbath in sales over the controversy that has seen music stars, sports fans, bars, liquor stores, and events boycotting its products.

Consumers nationwide have been revolting against the nation’s top-selling beer brand after it stepped “recklessly” into the culture wars last week, according to bar owners and beer-industry experts around the country.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Decisions made at that level can have an incredible impact in the world. People other than InBEV/AB are being hurt by this decision and the resulting backlash. Let's walk this back.

As HRK pointed out on the last page: This is how we stop ESG.
I think this decision, by millions of people all at once, to NOT BUY a product, is the biggest spontaneous backlash to wokeism and ESG since all of this crap began years ago.
This is a good thing.

And while that's certainly true, as Rightwire points out, this absolutely does impact a huge swath of people that couldn't care less about ESG, DEI, CEI, or any other acronym group.

The impact on some of those points will be small and short lived. For example bars, stores, grocery, etc. Nobody is drinking LESS beer, they are just drinking DIFFERENT beer. Sure that's an inventory problem but not an overall sales problem in all likelihood.

Now the example of the distributors, etc. is definitely legit in the near term since there's probably not a lot of commonality/crossover amongst brands in that part of chain. Even more at manufacturer level.

The commenters in the video on that Fox Business link ibanda posted thought this brewhaha would probably blow over.

I'm not so sure.

There's a group of guys I sometimes hang out with. Some "kinda family," others friends or employees of theirs. Bud Light was their beer of choice. The key word there being "was." These guys are mostly pretty hard-driving guys. They hunt, four-wheel, snowmobile. You name it. They're mostly in the construction trades, tree services, and stuff like that. And they party. Boy, do they ever party.

"DBAP" is their watch-phrase.

I think these guys will hardly be drinking Bud Light anymore

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
If major public companies band together that they are not going to participate in the Blackrock/Democrat ransom ESG programs, those plans cease to be viable.

This is how we stop ESG.

Easier said than done.

ESG is about forcing companies who are seeking additional capitol, investment and financing to bow to the demands of non-business oriented principals that those lenders are insisting on. If you're a mid-sized food distributor, a drilling operation or, a trucking company looking to build a new facility or, expand your business, your options are going to be limited if you're looking to not adhere to the various ESG requirements.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

Easier said than done.

ESG is about forcing companies who are seeking additional capitol, investment and financing to bow to the demands of non-business oriented principals that those lenders are insisting on. If you're a mid-sized food distributor, a drilling operation or, a trucking company looking to build a new facility or, expand your business, your options are going to be limited if you're looking to not adhere to the various ESG requirements.

Those options are already limited, however if AB was to take a big hit by losing significant market share from the reduction of Butt-Light, and distributors start fighting back from loss of sales income, AB's board has to reconsider it's approach as it relates to ESG,

That means it becomes less of a impact that Blackrock et al can use to leverage compliance.

Large companies look at case studies, and they watch closely what their competitors are doing. If putting Transgender woman hating abusive he/she/wtf people in an advertisement kills of a line of your business, then they won't do it, for any ESG loan reason.

Will it happen, who knows, stranger stuff has happened, but until the voters take over and oust the leaders who push this and change DC, the only weapon to fight back is the wallet.

Unless you are Kid Rock, then you can shoot your Bud-Light with a fully auto pistol....

Like Old Glory Bank - how long before a non ESG capitol investment and financing group comes along? There are conservative billionaires - they're just quiet so you don't know who they are.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Will it happen, who knows, stranger stuff has happened, but until the voters take over and oust the leaders who push this and change DC, the only weapon to fight back is the wallet.

Unless you are Kid Rock, then you can shoot your Bud-Light with a fully auto pistol....

You're not wrong, right now most companies are managing what they've agreed upon back in '21 and '22 when their budgets and business plans were approved. This whole Bud Light/Mulvaney fiasco was approved and put together well over a year ago. Will be interesting if this was presented or, made mention during an investor call or, it was just another line-item in the ad budget.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
Firing her would be a total joke.

That's not true. Firing her would not be a joke; it would be just.

It's just like Lori Lightfoot. It doesn't matter that she's being replaced with someone as bad (I refuse the "worse" claims because there's no way you could do worse than that).

What's important is that she is replaced because she is responsible for her actions. It doesn't matter if there are others involved in these decisions. She helmed the ship and the responsibility of these decisions is hers.

If they shitcan this twit, do you think the next person to hold this position will turn around and do the same thing? Of course not.

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:
The impact on some of those points will be small and short lived. For example bars, stores, grocery, etc. Nobody is drinking LESS beer, they are just drinking DIFFERENT beer. Sure that's an inventory problem but not an overall sales problem in all likelihood.

Now the example of the distributors, etc. is definitely legit in the near term since there's probably not a lot of commonality/crossover amongst brands in that part of chain. Even more at manufacturer level.

Here is the challenges for businesses. Say you own a bar or liquor store. You buy from the 3 of the 4 major beer companies in the world. InBev, Heineken, Carlsberg. You are all stocked up with $15,000 in beer (sell price), roughly $5,000 of each or 1/3 of your stock space per brewer.

People stop buying Inbev products. 1/3 of your inventory is now stagnant, shelves are full but product won't sell. The customers want other beer. Great, you can get it, but you still only have room to store $5,000 of Heineken and $5,000 of Carlsberg product. Great that they want more, you can still only supply $5,000 between deliveries as it is all you can store. Your distributor is in the same boat, on a much larger scale. 1/3 of their warehouse is stagnant inventory, taking up space they can't use to house the increase volume that people want. The only option is increase turn over and deliveries which drives up costs.

Are you willing to throw away $5,000 in inventory so you can make room for other types of beer? Maybe you can rent storage space somewhere and move it temporarily but it won't last forever. That is still cost you have to bear as the business owner.

I'm not saying the boycott is bad by any means. My point is those in corporations that make decisions like this need to understand the ripple effect of the response.

The video was captured by Armando Nieblas back on February 28 and shows roughly 87,000 cans and bottles of beer that were destroyed by the local government in Mexicali, Mexico. The beer was confiscated at the U.S-Mexico border during the covid-19 pandemic.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:
The impact on some of those points will be small and short lived. For example bars, stores, grocery, etc. Nobody is drinking LESS beer, they are just drinking DIFFERENT beer. Sure that's an inventory problem but not an overall sales problem in all likelihood.

Now the example of the distributors, etc. is definitely legit in the near term since there's probably not a lot of commonality/crossover amongst brands in that part of chain. Even more at manufacturer level.

Here is the challenges for businesses. Say you own a bar or liquor store. You buy from the 3 of the 4 major beer companies in the world. InBev, Heineken, Carlsberg. You are all stocked up with $15,000 in beer (sell price), roughly $5,000 of each or 1/3 of your stock space per brewer.

People stop buying Inbev products. 1/3 of your inventory is now stagnant, shelves are full but product won't sell. The customers want other beer. Great, you can get it, but you still only have room to store $5,000 of Heineken and $5,000 of Carlsberg product. Great that they want more, you can still only supply $5,000 between deliveries as it is all you can store. Your distributor is in the same boat, on a much larger scale. 1/3 of their warehouse is stagnant inventory, taking up space they can't use to house the increase volume that people want. The only option is increase turn over and deliveries which drives up costs.

Are you willing to throw away $5,000 in inventory so you can make room for other types of beer? Maybe you can rent storage space somewhere and move it temporarily but it won't last forever. That is still cost you have to bear as the business owner.

I'm not saying the boycott is bad by any means. My point is those in corporations that make decisions like this need to understand the ripple effect of the response.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say? I should buy Budweiser product against my principles so bars and distributers don't lose money? None of these companies are too big to fail. Their failure is not going to be my problem to worry about.

In that case, the retailer will just stack it in the middle of the store with a big sign that marks it down at or near the wholesale price. Downward trend or no, that shite will disappear.

Then the retailer will just say nothing for me, thanks when the AB truck shows up next time. The beer guys will also note to their bosses just how much beer cooler space they lost at that store, how many can/bottle faces. The distributors live and die by that factor.

I don't drink Bud-Light, never really have. If I drink a commercial light beer, it is usually Coors Light; I call it "Lawn Cutting Beer". Coors should really take advantage of this downturn in Budweiser and pounce on an opportunity to cater to the traditional demographics of this kind of product. When Coca Cola came out with a new formula, the other companies dogged them in ads and commercials, Coors and others could do the same.

Reminds me of the masculine toxicity campaign with Gillette. Only in that case, the company reported a net loss of $5.24 billion and an $8 billion write-down overall for the brand. These figures were cumulative for Gillette for the first half of 2019, 5.5 months after launching their idiotic ad campaign. Gillette was enjoying a nice profit margin leading up to the deviant branding.

https://www.dailywire.com/news...illion-james-barrett

To this day, I refuse to buy Gillette products.

Oh and it's the libtards teacher's unions behind all this. Who do you think is ultimately telling the PE firms to push the ESG agenda? Why do you think the GDCs in the gov't made such a case for investment funds to make ESG a viable consideration, giving them coverage from potential lawsuits? Who do you think the largest LPs are for Blackrock and others? Let me clue you in.... Public Pension Funds, which are dominated by teachers' contributions.

Private equity doesn't suddenly wake up one day and say "hey, let's push ESG and lose money." Nope, doesn't work that way. Instead, they want to continue with their fund mgmt fees (in addition to possibly carried interest) and obtain capital from other institutional fund-of-funds (such as CALPERS), who then tell them what their primary focus NEEDS to be or what it MUST consist of.

I’ve never been a Bud lite guy, so it’s easy to avoid.

What else does Budweiser make & sell? I know regular Bud, but do they have an assortment of stuff? I’d hate to buy any by accident.

quote:

Originally posted by sourdough44:
I’ve never been a Bud lite guy, so it’s easy to avoid.

What else does Budweiser make & sell? I know regular Bud, but do they have an assortment of stuff? I’d hate to buy any by accident.

Bud, Bud Light, Kona, Michelob, Stella, Estrella, Busch, Natural Light, Landshark, Presidente, Hoegaarden, Shock Top.... Among others.

And a laundry list of Craft beers, including Red Hook.
https://www.anheuser-busch.com/brands

And that's just AB US, it doesn't include all things InBev, which even includes Corona. Best I can tell though, by far their biggest seller is/was BL.