Here we go again with the lip service

  • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yeah it’s lip service, but it’s lip service they pay due to feeling like we are a marketable demographic.

    They feel that advertising to us as a group and making the haters mad is more profitable than the alternative.

    • kamenLady.@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      The way bud light handled it, when kid rock started shooting bud light palettes with his machine gun…

      This is what you need to know.

      Never trust.

      • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        What’s your point in bringing bud light up? I’m not trying to start shit, genuinely curious. What is it that we need to know? What does “never trust” mean in this context? I can’t make heads or tails of anything you wrote

        • Omniraptor@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Last spring bud light sent trans influencer Dylan mulvaney a personalized beer can as part of a broad marketing push. This drew criticism/calls for a boycott from various prominent transphobes and caused a slight slump in sales. Bud light responded by laying off/“laying off” various senior marketing execs etc, and did not afaict support support mulvaney after it (no loud anti-transphobia pr statement). Very illustrative story of how corporate support of lgbt people under capitalism works

          https://archive.ph/PVQWS

        • SqueakyBeaver@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’m not op, so I’m just guessing here

          I think they meant a sort of “at the first sign of pushback, the companies will ditch LGBT people. Don’t mistake their gay logos as actually support”

        • kamenLady.@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Like SqueakyBeaver and omniraptor pointed out, it was last years campaign Budweiser made with dylan mulvaney. They featured her on some bud light special editions.

          Kid Rock made a video with him shooting the beer and the target demographic “cancelled” bud light making a big fuss about it online.

          Budweiser was short of apologizing on their knees for their “mishap”, the Creator of the campaign was fired, etc.

          People online were pretty harsh with dylan mulvaney. Budweiser dropped her like a hot potato. From what she posted afterwards, i figured they never contacted her or reached out to her in any way, in order to check if she’s ok.

          That’s what i meant, they invest in “inclusion” , because it brings them cash. It’s not like humans became enlightened over the past decades. There was progress, sure, very slow progress in all things around being inclusive of others. Corporations are adapting to a demographic that is growing and are potential future customers.