As a long-term holder of BUD stock, I was stunned by the recent furor over Dylan Mulvaney and Bud Light. BUD's original "local dominance" and "scale" advantage grew because BUD was able to leverage its size into more general TV spend into more size. It was a perfect brew for an advertising compounding cycle in the era of a scarcity of media outlets.
As cable TV and then the internet developed, a splintering in beer markets occurred - there were simply more opportunities for smaller players like Sam Adams and then lots of microbreweries to gain market share. BUD appeared to adjust by having a few large brands with specific following - Corona for parties, Amstel for dinners and Bud for kicking back after work. These were basically a one size for as many as possible approaches. Then BUD had regional leaders and even niche products - totaling to nearly 500 over all.
BUD had so many brands that could be brought to support Dylan Mulvaney's journey, why would they have used one of their plain, vanilla "one-size fits all" brands? While it may be an attempt to make Bud Light more appealing, I simply can't see that passing the risk test to a major brand. It seems to me that some consultant armed with a statistical analysis made a compelling argument. If true, it does show the likely risks of future AI generated ad campaigns.
No comments:
Post a Comment