Bud Light, Modelo, and the third rail of marketing
I've found the Dylan Mulvaney / Bud Light fiasco genuinely interesting. It highlights how hard marketing is in a polarized media environment — one where narratives catch fire and engulf deductive reasoning, where the intersection of brand and consumer gets redirected to fuel an invented "culture war." So let me do what I do: analyze the flaws in attributing the sales decline to a single Instagram ad, and pull out the lessons Bud Light should actually take.
Maybe the best place to start is a moniker I came across on Twitter.
"Go Woke, Go Broke."
Most likely minted by the Twitter Right — and admittedly it's phonetically pleasing — but it expresses more aspiration than reality. Merriam-Webster defines woke as "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)." Try finding a business leader who believes it's good for the bottom line to be blind to societal facts and issues. (Granted, the Twitter Right's interpretation is probably aimed selfishly at progressive causes only.)
Critiques of how brands respond — or don't — exist on both sides. The left has rebuked brands for race insensitivity: think the H&M monkey hoodie, or the Gucci blackface sweater. Consumers should feel empowered to hold brands accountable for being insensitive to societal facts and issues. And brands should feel equally empowered to see past the critiques of consumers who are aggrieved merely by the presence of another human. Brands that thoughtfully orient around societal issues benefit — as a byproduct of providing value to the consumer.
The story behind the number
It was reported that Bud Light had been surpassed by Modelo, and many linked the Mulvaney controversy directly to the decline — and to Bud Light losing its "America's Top Beer" title.
So naturally, I start to hypothesize.
Hypothesis 1 — prices are up. Inflation adds, on average, about $0.61 to every $15.00 spent. That breeds a general sentiment that things are expensive, and people focus their disposable budget on essentials. Families could be cutting Bud Light because beer isn't an essential category — which would make Bud Light consumers price-sensitive and the product high in price elasticity.
Hypothesis 2 — market pressure. Bud Light may not be everyone's favorite, but it's the favorite of many beer drinkers, and the leader is the one most poised to erode as competition intensifies. Mix that with overall beer sales being down ~15% and you get multiple downward pressures at once. The other pressure is substitution — hard seltzers have climbed steadily for years.
Hypothesis 3 — demographics. When I'm at the bar, I'm usually asking for a Modelo Negra; if they don't have it, I'll take the regular. I think it tastes better than Bud Light. I'm not the whole consumer base — but economists point out that Modelo's growth is fueled by growth in the Hispanic drinking-age population, who may have grown up seeing the brand and carry an affinity for products hecho en México.
Understanding which factor weighs most is hard even with the most complex attribution model. And when we conflate cultural issues with business outcomes, we invite observer bias. A myopic view usually ends in the classic fallacy: mistaking correlation for causation.
Retrospect on strategy
Focusing on value to the consumer is a durable strategy. Drawing an intentional through line between marketing and value dilutes ambiguity in a polarized environment. I fundamentally don't believe in the apathetic "everyone is our audience" strategy — for any brand, in any category. There should be core consumers who anchor sales and growth markets that expand them.
I'd deduce Bud Light's average consumer is white, came to the brand through collegiate or blue-collar experiences, and is astutely aware of the difference between Coors Light and Bud Light. They probably skew more patriotic, more religious, more likely to watch right-wing media. I'm over-generalizing — but only contradictory data would convince me otherwise.
So the real question: how do you keep that core base while growing into new markets, in an environment full of third-rail cultural issues?
The third rail of a nation's politics is the metaphor for an issue so charged and untouchable that any official who broaches it suffers for it — named after the high-voltage rail in some electric railways. Extend it to marketing, and the lesson is that marketing departments must have a defined approach to third-rail issues — intentionally positioning the brand to provide value, with a well-executed strategy.
My argument is that Bud Light's execution served neither goal: it didn't truly serve the LGBTQ+ community, and it didn't minimize downside risk with the core audience. I say that mainly because of the flailing response to the backlash, and the fragility of the support once it was tested. Imagine instead an execution that went beyond a single Instagram ad — a digital map of every Anheuser-Busch activation that summer, inviting everyone to have a conversation over a beer. Strategies with a clear through line of value have a stronger foundation to repel critiques from.
It's a reality that some third-rail issues are more likely to ignite the core audience. That's exactly why it's imperative to have culturally nuanced opinions with a seat at the table — including the right-leaning white guy.
Moving forward
Bud Light's new campaign leans on beachgoers and cookouts with a '70s track underneath. Safe, but on-brand. They have a whole portfolio under Anheuser-Busch to leverage for more forward-leaning work — I hope they haven't gotten too shy. Modelo, meanwhile, runs ads with a gravelly-voiced narrator and modest celebrities speaking to the hard work of Middle America. Also safe — but effective.
Bud Light knows its newest Gen Z consumers expect it to be on the right side of equality and to create value. It took one on the chin, even though the direction is the appropriate one. The declining sales weren't caused by the activation — they were correlated with it. Taking calculated risks is what moves brands forward, and being on the right side of history is good for the bottom line in the long run. A keen eye toward societal trends and a balanced approach to value is what grows sales.
I don't believe every societal issue requires a campaign to validate a brand's stance. But when brands do decide to cross the third rail, they should do it with intention — and with value.