“The Mulvaney campaign has unleashed a torrent of negative publicity for Anheuser-Busch,” reported the New York Post (4/24/23)—and by “the Mulvaney campaign,” they mean the company sent some personalized product to a social media influencer.
The “controversy” started when Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender actress, shared a video on Instagram for “Bud Light as part of a partnership with the beer,” where she’s “dressed as the Breakfast at Tiffany’s character, Holly Golightly” (Washington Post, 4/6/23). Bud Light also issued novelty cans—not for sale, just for her use on social media—carrying Mulvaney’s picture (Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/11/23).
That’s it. That’s the “controversy.” A transgender woman promoted a product and now, judging by the tabloid frenzy, it’s a cultural schism that has ripped apart a nation.
The New York Post (4/24/23) gloated that Bud Light sales are down as a result of a right-wing boycott, which it called the “Dylan Mulvaney controversy.” The Murdoch-owned New York Post is obsessed with this story, publishing dozens of stories about Mulvaney in the month of April, largely on how numerous right-wing celebrities slammed the partnership with Bud Light.
‘Shakeup after controversy’
Barron’s (4/25/23) tried to explain the “controversy” over “a social media promotion for its Bud Light beer featuring a transgender influencer.”
Keep note of the word “controversy” to describe what happened here. The New York Times (4/25/23) noted the “controversy has had a negative effect on Bud Light’s sales.” Barron’s offered “Bud Light’s Controversy Over Dylan Mulvaney, Explained” (4/25/23), while Ad Age (4/21/23) used the headline “Bud Light’s Marketing Leadership Undergoes Shakeup After Dylan Mulvaney Controversy” when it covered how the right-wing assault on the brand led to a management shake up at Bud’s parent company, Anheuser-Busch.
Alissa Heinerscheid, Bud Light’s vice president of marketing, and Daniel Blake, vice president for marketing for the whole Budweiser group, were placed on leave as a result of the right-wing campaign (CBS, 4/25/23). That’s a powerful indication that the company took the pressure campaign seriously—and that its commitment to trans inclusion is not so serious.
The word “controversy” is defined as “a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views,” but that is hardly what is happening. While consumer rights advocates, trade unionists and environmentalists have boycotted products, they’ve targeted corporate policies that have tangible impacts on actual people (Guardian, 7/23/03, Environmental Journal, 2/6/20). Here, boycotters aren’t angry about a company’s grip on social policy, but merely its choice to associate its image with a trans person.
Whether these boycotts, angry videos denouncing the brand, and stories in the right-wing press will have long-term impact on Anheuser-Busch—which is part of the multinational conglomerate AB InBev, which also brews Corona, Beck’s, Stella Artois and hundreds of other brands—remains to be seen. However, the organized right-wing campaign has kept Mulvaney and her short-lived partnership with the beer brand in the corporate press, especially in the business pages (Wall Street Journal, 4/24/23; CNN, 4/25/23).
A telling declaration
The New York Times (4/25/23) reported that Anheuser-Busch “stepped into a polarized America” by treating a trans influencer the same way it would treat a cis influencer.
The aforementioned Washington Post story had reported Mulvaney’s name “was mentioned in disparaging and often in transphobic terms nearly a dozen times over the next three days” since the campaign launch “by right-wing media figures, including those on Fox News.” The New York Post editorial board (4/12/23) celebrated the backlash to Bud Light, but added: “This response isn’t anti-trans, by the way. It’s anti-indoctrination: Don’t make my beer into your political statement.”
The Post’s declaration of innocence is telling. Bud Light made no political statement; it simply featured a trans person in a very limited role in its marketing. For the Post, the mere acknowledgment of the existence of trans people is an extreme political imposition. That is anti-trans bigotry in its essence.
Unlike right-wing media that engage in outright anti-trans hysteria, more centrist media treated it mostly as a business story, with a focus on what anti-trans activism might mean for corporate profits. The New York Times (4/25/23) profiled how Anheuser-Busch’s public relations persona has swiftly moved from traditional Americana to the bugbear of conservatism; it noted that just two years ago, the famous Greenwich Village gay bar Stonewall Inn refused to sell Anheuser-Busch’s products throughout Pride weekend because of the company’s support for anti-LGBTQ lawmakers.
Though the story was covered by national political reporter Charles Homans, not a business reporter, it was treated as mainly a story of concern to corporate America. Though the headline engaged in word play (“bitter aftertaste”), it also framed the right-wing backlash as a serious “warning” to businesses—as in, don’t make the same mistake.
The focus could have been on the growing danger of anti-trans intolerance, but that fell by the wayside.
Research assistance: Conor Smyth
The post Calling Bud Light Saga a ‘Controversy’ Falls Flat appeared first on FAIR.
This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Ari Paul.
Ari Paul | Radio Free (2023-04-28T21:14:10+00:00) Calling Bud Light Saga a ‘Controversy’ Falls Flat. Retrieved from https://www.radiofree.org/2023/04/28/calling-bud-light-saga-a-controversy-falls-flat/
Please log in to upload a file.
There are no updates yet.
Click the Upload button above to add an update.