Accepted Thoughts

I am a product of the 80s.  Born in 1972, my Wonder Years were literally at the height of Wonder Years.  My pop culture roots are unapologetically grounded in the age of the mullet.  I glory at the sight of a bike with mag wheels, the sound of a cassette tape sliding into place, and the smell of Aquanet wafting through the air.  It was the dawn of the age of unabashed consumerism.  And in that context, the Superbowl commercial became the star of the show, with the primary actors, as I remember it, being light beer.  First, it was the Miller Brewing Company’s introduction of Miller Lite with the “Tastes Great, Less Filling” campaign.  Not to be outdone, Budweiser eventually swung into action with their own light beer, Bud Light.  Their campaign slogan was “Give Me a Light, Bud Light”.  I am not going to go into great detail about what these commercials looked like or which one was my favorite.  Let me just borrow a term from today’s common parlance and say IYKYK.  It was awesome. . . totally awesome!

In the mid-eighties I could not legally drink beer, but I loved beer culture.   More specifically, I loved the beer culture war.

The Best Little Culture War in America

Yes America, once upon a time, there was a culture war worth having – that involved beer – and it was fun.  My dad drank Miller Lite – and had a cold one pretty routinely sitting right next to him as he lounged on the couch while simultaneously reading the sports page of the Indy Star, watching the news in anticipation of the sports report, and listening to play by play of the Reds or Hoosiers on a transistor radio plugged into one ear.  (He was a man of many talents when it came to sports media consumption.)     I was younger, which meant that by virtue of being younger, I was more hip.  Miller Lite, as I remember it, was “less cool” than Bud Light.  Other than the fact that (by my observation) Bud Light was the choice of “cooler” people and had better commercials, it was also the son of Budweiser! 

The self-proclaimed “King of Beers” was the real titan in this culture war.  In my adolescent brain, the Budweiser logo became synonymous with several things – many of them manly – most of them patriotic.  The colors were Red, White, and Blue.  The lettering was some old-style calligraphy type print that made it seem like it had been around since the founding of the nation.  And there was something about Budweiser that was just straight-up masculine.  It was a bit rough.  It somehow translated to hard work.  Admittedly, Miller did this too.  Because my dad drank Miller Lite, they were both working-class beers as I saw it.  But, Budweiser added a dimension.  It did not simply mean “working hard”.  It also meant “partying hard”.  When I gazed upon the Budweiser logo, I saw three things – America, Hard Work, and Good Times.  (I am quite certain that this is an image that was carefully cultivated by the “King of Beers”.)           

The Budweiser logo was everywhere.  It was on billboards, magazines (may they rest in peace), and bumper stickers.  If you went to the local pizza parlor, chances are you would see a neon Budweiser or Bud Light sign on the window.  At sports events and concerts, Budweiser was on full display in programs and on posters, and who could miss the sonic incantations of the roaming beverage vendor shouting “Ice Cold Beer! . . . Buuud-weiser!”.  Put simply, if you were being entertained or dining in America, Budweiser was on the menu.  And it did not stop there.                  

My cousin had a partly Budweiser-themed bedroom.  (I was envious.)  There were people with Budweiser shirts and hats.  When I was old enough to save my own money, I bought myself some knock-off Chuck Taylors emblazoned with the Budweiser logo.  I may not have been able to drink the beer myself, but by God, I could advertise it.  Many of us did.  And not just in the eighties.  I was too young in the 70s to remember anything about beer culture, but I know the 80s, 90s, oughts, and 10s. . .  were all full of it.  Even as the average American beer drinker developed a more sophisticated pallet (me included) and started experimenting with IPAs, Porters, and Stouts, and microbreweries began to take over the country, the premier beer-fluencer in America remained Budweiser and the number one beer – apparent to any casual observer – was Bud Light.

A Carefully Cultivated Identity

Whoever ran the Budweiser and, specifically Bud Light advertising campaigns through those time periods were truly genius marketers.  I can still remember specific commercials and advertising campaigns from those time periods.  My personal favorite from the 80s featured two unlucky astronauts that had crash-landed on a planet full of beautiful women and endless supplies of Bud Light.  When told they can never leave, they respond, “We can handle that”.  Somewhere in the mid-nineties, the Budweiser “frogs” premiered – and it was not long before they were everywhere. 

Around 1999 the ultimate “bro-code” commercial hit featuring a group of 20/30-something black men calling each other on the phone from various locations (all of them masculine, if I remember correctly).  They would call and simply say one little phrase in a drawn out, somewhat gravelly tone . . . “WHAASSUUPP!”    (You just heard that in your head, I know.)  My second son was born in 1999, and I kid you not – “WHAASSUUPP!”  was his first word.  (That commercial also featured what was probably one of the last sightings of a wall-mounted, corded telephone as a tool of the contemporary world.) 

It was also around this time that the “Real American Heroes” campaign began.  This is one of those campaigns that works just as well on the radio as it does on tv, and people actually anticipated it.  It featured a rockstar-type vocalist belting out the words “Real American Heroes” followed by the dulcet tones of the quintessential masculine voiceover saying something to the effect of “this one’s for you Mr.  (insert phrase describing an average American male stereotype)”.   The narrator would describe Mr. (stereotype) in some tongue-in-cheek and quite comical fashion that we could all relate to while chuckling a bit about ourselves.  It was an instant hit.  And there was a series of these commercials.  But, a problem quickly arose.  We became a country at war.

Suddenly, using the term hero in a comedic manner became very unpopular.  Our country had been attacked.  Many people had died, hundreds of heroic first responders and civilians among them.  We were embarking on a very long and protracted conflict that would cost many more lives.  I was an active-duty Soldier at the time, still in the early stages of a 24-year military career.  Though it still makes me a bit queasy about becoming one of the ‘protected’ class, I understood the sudden sensitivity to any comedic projections upon our “real American heroes”, no matter how innocuous.  And you know what? So did those genius marketers of Budweiser.  They quickly and confidently pivoted away from “Real American Heroes” to “Real Men of Genius”.

The ever-so-slightly re-imagined campaign did not miss a beat.  In fact, as I remember it, the commercials got even better.  There was probably some form of apology in there somewhere too.  But I do not really remember one.

Speckled throughout those decades, and especially after 9/11, were also more serious commercials, mostly featuring the Budweiser Clydesdales.  The iconic Clydesdales captured the hard-working American spirit as well, or better than any other advertising campaign I can imagine.

A Very Strange and Unexpected Turn                 

After decades of manly, patriotic, blue-collar cultivation, The King of Beers did a proverbial U-turn with the Clydesdales and started heading toward the Softer Side of Sears.  Here are 5 things Sears got wrong that sped its fall (cnbc.com) 

When this whole Dylan Mulvaney silliness broke, I was more than a bit surprised. 

For those who are somehow unaware of this situation (translate:  living under a rock), Dylan Mulvaney is a transgender lightning rod who was gifted a set of Bud Light cans with Mulvaney’s face on them, all dolled up like Audrey Hepburn. 

SIDE NOTE:  Lest I be accused of misgendering this person, let me say that I use no pronouns when describing Mulvaney because I question whether or not Mulvaney is actually transgender.  After looking into Mulvaney a little, it appears to me that this person is just an effeminate male who likes to play dress-up and loves attention.  I do not think the same about other popular transgender women like Blaire White or Caitlyn Jenner.   

I know many, if not most, people who have reacted to this Bud Light/Dylan Mulvaney controversy have done so in the most basic manner – pro, against, who cares.  I first became aware of it on YouTube.  A video popped into my feed showing a teary-eyed Kid Rock taking a shotgun to a case of Bud Light.  I thought that reaction was just a bit strong. 

I like Kid Rock.  I have a few of his songs on my Spotify playlist.  I like the fact that he is unapologetically pro-American.  I met him briefly in Iraq when he was on a USO tour with Robin Williams and Lewis Black.    He seemed genuine.  But. . .  a shotgun?  Tears?  This video came off as theatrical virtue signaling.  Nevertheless, it did have what I suspect was the desired effect.  Because I immediately looked this whole mess up to figure out what had created such a strong reaction from Mr. Rock.

I agree that the Mulvaney promotion is totally off-brand for Bud Light.  In fact, it is in complete opposition to what Bud Light had become in the American psyche.  As illustrated in the first several paragraphs of this article, Budweiser had carefully cultivated an unashamedly masculine image that had become synonymous with hard work, good times, and America.  Why would they promote Mulvaney?  It made no sense.   Then I found the video of Bud Light Vice President Alissa Heinerscheid declaring that Bud Light, even though it was the best-selling beer in the world, was a brand in decline. 

I am not an Ivy-League-Trained marketing strategist.  This may explain why, if someone told me at any time in the last dozen or so years that Bud Light was a “brand in decline,” I would not have been surprised that the Bud Light sales were down relatively, though I would not likely have considered advertising to be the responsible party.  The phrase “brand in decline” itself is probably not the descriptor I would have chosen, nor is the sentiment that the word “decline” implies.  I would have assumed that Bud Light and brands similar to Bud Light were receiving a decreased market share due to the American fascination with craft beers and microbrews.  Though I have no spool of voluminous data or an 80-column spreadsheet breaking down the macros and illuminating the micros, I still believe this to be true.  I think it is relatively obvious, at least to me.  But, apparently, not to the people at “The King of Beers”. 

Bud Light Vice President Alissa Heinerscheid also stated in a video interview on a show called Make Yourself at Home hosted by Kristin Twiford (recorded weeks before the Mulvaney kerfuffle) that she had a mandate to make some big changes. 

I found a pretty good breakdown in Newsweek.  Who Is Alissa Heinerscheid? Bud Light’s VP of Marketing Amid Trans Debate (newsweek.com) 

“So I had this super clear mandate,” she said. “It’s like, we need to evolve and elevate this incredibly iconic brand. And my…what I brought to that was a belief in, okay, what does evolve and elevate mean? It means inclusivity. It means shifting the tone. It means having a campaign that’s truly inclusive and feels lighter and brighter and different and appeals to women and to men.”

Heinerscheid argued that “representation is sort of the heart of evolution. You’ve got to see people who reflect you in the work. And we had this hangover—I mean, Bud Light had been kind of a brand of fratty, kind of out-of-touch humor, and it was really important that we had another approach.”

This is where it went off the rails.  There is nothing like telling the group of people that you built your brand on that they are “out-of-touch” (translate to no longer good enough for you). 

SIDE NOTE:  I have to be honest.  I have not purchased Bud Light more than a handful of times in the last dozen or so years.  It has not been my beer of choice since . . . wait for it . . . I was in college!  I was never in a frat, but I guess I really did love that “fratty” humor.  And still do.  Dilly, Dilly!!!

I have nothing against Ms. Heinerscheid, and I am not being facetious.  I am sure she is a fine lady.  I understand she is a wife and mother, probably excellent and honorable in both regards.  And she has a first-class education, so she is obviously very intelligent.  She has also held high-level positions at other major companies where she must have done pretty well, or she would not have been hired to be the VP of Bud Light.  There is no reason to believe she was in over her head or miscast.  So, what happened here?

It appears that the King of Beers decided to leave the beer culture wars for the real culture wars.  But, I think that is a little too simple.  And, I think the overall reaction that we have had to the situation is also too simple.  The virtue signaling, the boycotting, the rapt attention paid to Bud Light sales across the country.  Something seems a little fishy to me. 

And Here We Go

This is going to sound like a conspiracy.  So, brace yourself and take a deep breath because I think there is something to it. 

Ms. Heinerscheid is a patsy.   

Yea, yea, yea.  I know.  Tin foil hats.  Bright lights. Blah, Blah, Blah!! 

Ms. Heinerscheid did not just appear out of thin air with her mandate.  She was hired by someone.  And that someone, at the very least, gave her the impression that she had the mandate to fix the iconic brand that had become culturally out-of-touch.

SIDE NOTE: Like my dad (APPLEßTREE, yada yada), I am an avid connoisseur of professional and amateur sports.  As a consummate voyeur of such, I can tell you that when there is a particularly egregious penalty lobbed at an individual or individuals resulting in an “altercation”, it is often the second or third violator who is ultimately held responsible.  The actual progenitor of said egregiousness sometimes goes completely overlooked, having created the chaos that a different person or group gets blamed for.

I went down the rabbit hole.  And what I found was shocking – to me – as an American!

Turns out the King of Beers, the most American of all American brands to 14-year-old me, is under the control of a foreign entity.  And just like in the Manchurian Candidate, Bud Light is not the driver, just the vehicle.

The real Wizard Behind the Curtain in this story is a company called International Beverage Group or InBev. 

You read that right!  A group of foreigners, probably plotting to take over America, purchased our beloved in 2008.  We are under attack!

I am, of course, being a bit facetious here – but just a bit.  Because I think there really is something to this.

Love and Hate 

When love becomes envy, hate is on the march.

I am not, nor will I pretend to be, the quintessential world traveler.  I have only been to a few foreign countries in any leisurely fashion.  However, the military has brought me into personal contact with several individuals from other “allied” nations with whom I became acquainted during our service (both civilian and military) to our respective nations.  By and large, my interactions with all these individuals have been very pleasant. 

I imagine there are actually very few people in the civilized world who truly hate America or Americans.  Yet, I do believe the sentiment is gaining steam.  

It is the classic Kane and Able story writ large on a worldwide scale.   

For so many around the world America has been and still is a shining city on a hill.  This is not just some phrase that Ronald Reagan dreamt up for a political speech.  It is an honest and enduring sentiment.  Democratic freedom, technological progress, general prosperity, and a true sense of security have spread throughout the world due to the guiding light of American Exceptionalism.  However, each of these ideals has been obtained through the soft power of American Diplomacy, secured by the hard power of the American Military, ensured by the propagation of American Capitalism, and proliferated through the not-so-subtle indoctrinating forces of American Pop Culture.   

Take another deep breath.

SIDE NOTE: I find it vitally important at this point in the rambling to reveal to you, dear reader, that I, in fact, have a superpower.  I kid you not.  I possess the incredible ability to walk and chew gum at the same time!!  This ability has led me to develop a personal philosophy in which whenever anything goes wrong, no matter what it is, I look at myself first and determine what responsibility I personally had in said failure.  Thus, if I was suddenly struck by lightning, I may conclude that not only was I incredibly unlucky, but also should have checked the weather before walking across an open field carrying a large piece of metal.  As it turns out, when you possess the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time, you also possess the ability to believe that two things can be true at once.

Elementary-level physics has taught us that every action is met with an equal and opposite reaction.  (I learned that somewhere.)  So, it is with that in mind that I state the following: worldwide envy of the United States is and always has been inevitable.  The danger lies in what follows.  And the barbarians are at the gate.

When anyone gains a great deal of success, regardless of how that success was obtained, someone somewhere is enduring the opposite condition either directly or indirectly due to the perceived machinations of the successful.  There simply cannot be haves without have-nots.  And, unfortunately, there will always be a number of have-nots who correlate most or all of their misfortune to the intention of the haves.  (I could write endlessly on this issue but I will save that for another rambling.)  Growing up in the working class, I came to understand the nomenclature of this entity as The Boss, The Man, or simply They.   Heard it all the time.  Mostly They.   

They raised the prices.  They cheated us.  They moved our jobs overseas.  And yet, deep down, We wanted to be Them because They had what We wanted.  At least, We thought They did.  This is what Marx accurately termed The Struggle.  (I do not subscribe to Marxist theory.  In fact, I find it lazy.  Just like he was. Karl Marx Was a Pretty Bad Person – Intellectual Takeout)

The truth about The Struggle Against They is that it is a scapegoat.  It somehow gives us (human beings) a level of comfort to perceive an outside source as the reason for our condition when we are struggling rather than focusing on our own actions. 

 —–To Be Continued