3 ms·
> but that outrage wasn’t actually based on anything real What? This is marketing, if the customer stops buying, nobody gives a flying fuck if it's "real". You
by matrix87 2y ago
> but that outrage wasn’t actually based on anything real
What? This is marketing, if the customer stops buying, nobody gives a flying fuck if it's "real". You think the VP's boss or the shareholders cared if it was "real"? If your job is to sell beer, and you're selling less beer, that's about as real as it gets in this context
- afavour 2y agoI was saying “real” as a comparison to the article this thread inspired. If you change the price of your product there is a “real” difference: your product now hits your customers wallet differently. It’ll change your position in the market when compared to your competitors. Same when a product starts using cheaper ingredients, you ruin the taste, yadda yadda. The difference here is that the Bud Light product hasn’t changed one iota. You’re right that the sales figures are real but the outrage was an entirely manufactured thing.
- kelipso 2y agoThe feeling you get when you drink a particular beer is very real I would say. All of those light beers are basically the same and the reason advertising exists is to make you like that particular brand. You wouldn't have all this advertising competition between bud light, coors, pbr whatever without that difference in how the brand is perceived.
- matrix87 2y agoThe thing with bud light though, the beer is so bad that they have to compensate for it with some kind of marketing. Pretty sure someone mentioned nike above, the same people boycotting bud light are probably still buying nike. Even though nike is clearly a more socially progressive company (or at least, tries to come off that way). Why? Maybe because their products aren't as mediocre or replaceable