Like our Gobbledy Guide, I’m conflicted on this topic, although for different reasons.
Corporations may have a moral responsibility not to cause overt harm to their customers or to the broader planet, but the definition of what constitutes harm is so malleable that it can be difficult to arrive at a consensus, let alone to hold decisions to a moral standard.
We could agree it’s probably a bad idea to replace all of the rainforests in Brazil with hop fields. But is it harmful to promote alcohol as a social lubricant when it’s known that doing so may result in binge drinking?
On the other end, it seems equally difficult for corporations to promote genuine social good. They’re imperfect vessels of morality because they are ultimately beholden to their shareholders. Sure, there may be benevolent companies like Patagonia, which seems to strike a balance between selling good stuff and doing good stuff, and ties its charity convincingly with its brand story. But most companies aren’t innately built on a foundation of charity. Which means that, although they may embark upon genuinely beneficial social-good campaigns, they have a difficult time coherently connecting their causes to their brand, and they’re willing to support them only to a point. And that point is when their shareholders get mad.
As a result, corporations tend to glom on to well-trodden social issues, and in such hackneyed ways that their efforts ring hollow. Mars introduces a purple M&M for International Women’s Day. Will it make a difference to the plight of disadvantaged women? No, but it’s not going to ruffle any feathers.
Despite the weird association of light beer with trans rights (huh?), I wish A.B. hadn’t buckled. But they did, and in the process showed the weakness of their initial support and the suckiness of their marketing (messaging gobbledy?). And that’s a tragedy, because it’s a cause that could truly benefit from broad backing and social normalization. Oh, well.
In the end, A.B.’s mission is to improve people’s tipsiness, not their lives. And when your mission is that deeply ingrained, a halfhearted marketing campaign isn’t going to change it.
I look at this far more simply, which is not surprising because, as our host knows, I'm quite simple. The progressive left isn't pounding Bud Light at a tailgate or Falls Sports Lounge. By engaging in whatever they did, they violated a basic tenet of business: don't piss off your customer. That customer has dozens of other equally mediocre options at the same price point. Very few people (read, no one) are thinking, "Bud Light tastes way too good, I can't possibly switch brands, despite the fact that they kick puppies."
AB's job is to do what it's put here to do: get people hammered at house parties. Sorry, I meant to say, to put out a consistent product and provide returns for its shareholders. That's their legal obligation. Yes, they can and should be good corporate citizens while doing that, but if they decide to wade into the shallow waters of the culture wars, they've strayed from that core function, obviously at great risk to their bottom line. And because a few people at AB thought they were smarter than the average bear, they got what they got cause they pissed off their customer. Now, who needs a cocktail?
It's difficult. I think people are overreacting to what was not an official position or a full campaign for the beer. The crazy people (hey, it's just beer, and it was a TikTok video) are gone anyway (they won't drink Bud Light) so as CEO you might as well take the opportunity to make a statement.
Companies have an ethical and a moral obligation to do the right things to the community. First, with their own behavior, second with the topics that are core to their business (i.e. drinking and driving or underage drinking for a beer company), and third (and least) with 'general' issues.
Good examples of the first one, are Dick's Sporting Goods removing guns from their stores, and CVS removing cigarettes. These are logical, important, and directly tied to the things the company does.
On the other extreme you have Chick-fil-A, who was founded by someone who was very Christian, and holds strong Christian values that are demonstrated in their behavior. I know people who won't eat Chick Fil A and companies who won't offer their food in their cafeterias because they disagree with their stand. But that's OK. Companies are not meant to appeal to everyone, and I appreciate their position, even if I don't agree with it 100%.
Thanks, Gerardo. I'm curious - DO public companies have a moral obligation to do the right things? Their first duty is to their shareholders - the decision to do this campaign, while I would argue is morally correct, led to a 21% drop in sales. I'm not sure as a public company that they should make decisions that lead to huge drops in revenue. But - and maybe this is your point - that's true up to a point. And what I think is so interesting in this case is - trans rights are being discussed in an open way we didn't see even 5 years ago (3 years ago!). But it's still controversial for many. What do you do in this case? (I really find this story fascinating...)
Like our Gobbledy Guide, I’m conflicted on this topic, although for different reasons.
Corporations may have a moral responsibility not to cause overt harm to their customers or to the broader planet, but the definition of what constitutes harm is so malleable that it can be difficult to arrive at a consensus, let alone to hold decisions to a moral standard.
We could agree it’s probably a bad idea to replace all of the rainforests in Brazil with hop fields. But is it harmful to promote alcohol as a social lubricant when it’s known that doing so may result in binge drinking?
On the other end, it seems equally difficult for corporations to promote genuine social good. They’re imperfect vessels of morality because they are ultimately beholden to their shareholders. Sure, there may be benevolent companies like Patagonia, which seems to strike a balance between selling good stuff and doing good stuff, and ties its charity convincingly with its brand story. But most companies aren’t innately built on a foundation of charity. Which means that, although they may embark upon genuinely beneficial social-good campaigns, they have a difficult time coherently connecting their causes to their brand, and they’re willing to support them only to a point. And that point is when their shareholders get mad.
As a result, corporations tend to glom on to well-trodden social issues, and in such hackneyed ways that their efforts ring hollow. Mars introduces a purple M&M for International Women’s Day. Will it make a difference to the plight of disadvantaged women? No, but it’s not going to ruffle any feathers.
Despite the weird association of light beer with trans rights (huh?), I wish A.B. hadn’t buckled. But they did, and in the process showed the weakness of their initial support and the suckiness of their marketing (messaging gobbledy?). And that’s a tragedy, because it’s a cause that could truly benefit from broad backing and social normalization. Oh, well.
In the end, A.B.’s mission is to improve people’s tipsiness, not their lives. And when your mission is that deeply ingrained, a halfhearted marketing campaign isn’t going to change it.
I look at this far more simply, which is not surprising because, as our host knows, I'm quite simple. The progressive left isn't pounding Bud Light at a tailgate or Falls Sports Lounge. By engaging in whatever they did, they violated a basic tenet of business: don't piss off your customer. That customer has dozens of other equally mediocre options at the same price point. Very few people (read, no one) are thinking, "Bud Light tastes way too good, I can't possibly switch brands, despite the fact that they kick puppies."
AB's job is to do what it's put here to do: get people hammered at house parties. Sorry, I meant to say, to put out a consistent product and provide returns for its shareholders. That's their legal obligation. Yes, they can and should be good corporate citizens while doing that, but if they decide to wade into the shallow waters of the culture wars, they've strayed from that core function, obviously at great risk to their bottom line. And because a few people at AB thought they were smarter than the average bear, they got what they got cause they pissed off their customer. Now, who needs a cocktail?
It's difficult. I think people are overreacting to what was not an official position or a full campaign for the beer. The crazy people (hey, it's just beer, and it was a TikTok video) are gone anyway (they won't drink Bud Light) so as CEO you might as well take the opportunity to make a statement.
Companies have an ethical and a moral obligation to do the right things to the community. First, with their own behavior, second with the topics that are core to their business (i.e. drinking and driving or underage drinking for a beer company), and third (and least) with 'general' issues.
Good examples of the first one, are Dick's Sporting Goods removing guns from their stores, and CVS removing cigarettes. These are logical, important, and directly tied to the things the company does.
On the other extreme you have Chick-fil-A, who was founded by someone who was very Christian, and holds strong Christian values that are demonstrated in their behavior. I know people who won't eat Chick Fil A and companies who won't offer their food in their cafeterias because they disagree with their stand. But that's OK. Companies are not meant to appeal to everyone, and I appreciate their position, even if I don't agree with it 100%.
I wish more companies were held accountable for their decisions. For example, those who support racism or worse with their advertising dollars. This is the point I made here https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-letter-marketers-advertisers-gerardo-a-dada/
Thanks, Gerardo. I'm curious - DO public companies have a moral obligation to do the right things? Their first duty is to their shareholders - the decision to do this campaign, while I would argue is morally correct, led to a 21% drop in sales. I'm not sure as a public company that they should make decisions that lead to huge drops in revenue. But - and maybe this is your point - that's true up to a point. And what I think is so interesting in this case is - trans rights are being discussed in an open way we didn't see even 5 years ago (3 years ago!). But it's still controversial for many. What do you do in this case? (I really find this story fascinating...)