The Bud Light Boycott Is Working, Why?

[jamil]

They are still selling 75% of what they sold last year. That is still a lot of beer.

What with kid rick buying up a bunch of bud light to shoot, and people hiding it in Stroh’s packages, of course sales won’t reflect the grand success of the boycott.

Yep. Et tu, Brute?

Kid Rock spotted drinking Bud Light months after shooting up cans of it to protest Dylan Mulvaney partnership

Musician Kid Rock was allegedly spotted at a concert drinking a Bud Light just months after he shot up cans of it in protest of its Dylan Mulvaney partnership.

www.foxnews.com

Meh. He probably ran out of bullets befor he ran out of bud light. Why wouldn’t he drink the leftovers?

 

[Pepi]

Meh.
Some people are gonna buy it for the cheap price.
Some don't care

It's not cheap though. I buy Coors

 

[WebSnyper]

Outside of every talking head radio personality already saying that and it being the general focus of the narrative here... I will reiterate again, so I am absolutely clear.

A few families/hedgefunds own everything.

"They" are not bound by borders.

Money does not have borders.

They still made money and they do not care.

They made money. They made money. They made money. I don't care about a discussion of restructuring, layoffs... you name it. They made money and they do not care if a few people who deliver or whatever lost their jobs. They made money.

That's not how corporations work these days. They are looking for market share numbers, making more money than previous quarter, and how much more, etc. Lack of growth (not even shrinking market share, just less growth than expected) causes stock to fall, and heads start rolling. Live it every day, even at my lowly level in my company.

 

[Ingomike]

That's not how corporations work these days. They are looking for market share numbers, making more money than previous quarter, and how much more, etc. Lack of growth (not even shrinking market share, just less growth than expected) causes stock to fall, and heads start rolling. Live it every day, even at my lowly level in my company.

A lot of folks here still think business still works as they were taught in school in the 70’s…

 

[jamil]

You're wrong. Big corps care much more about stock price than profit.

Well, profit often drives stock price, among other factors. In the new stakeholder economy, is the stock price more important than social credit scores? Yeah. So far. I think the jury is mostly out on that though long term, though there is some good news. Last week I listened to an interview with Warren Buffet and one of his cohorts. They said there's no value to social reporting and ESG reporting shouldn't be considered an important part of public reporting by companies. Should still be the usual financials. So at least he's still sane on that.

But, "winning" pertains to Bud Light, I've been saying, the boycott hasn't done a fat lot of good other than making it's owners feel some pain? Has it changed their behavior considerably? Well, they still support woke ****. Of course, they're displaying two faces, trying to win back their old customers by pretending to be what their brand formerly represented, while also continuing to support woke ****.

What winning actually looks like: traditional institutions turned woke are either restored or are replaced by traditional ones. All that happened is people are buying beer from other companies, or even the same one, different brand, many of which are also woke companies supporting woke ****.

Making Bud Light feel pain may provide some entertaining freudenschade. We haven't actually won anything yet. Let's see Anheuser Busch fire their ESG related staff, drop DEI and stop giving money to pedophiles to groom children. That'd be a win. Or, let's see Anheuser Busch and its parent company go under and traditional company(ies) take its place. That'd be a win too. Net loss for wokies. That's a win.

 

[KLB]

Well, profit often drives stock price, among other factors.

Sure it contributes. My point is, profit is not their #1 priority. Stock price is. CEOs get and lose jobs because of the stock price, not because of profit or lack thereof.

 

[jamil]

Sure it contributes. My point is, profit is not their #1 priority. Stock price is. CEOs get and lose jobs because of the stock price, not because of profit or lack thereof.

I’m not sure it works that way now, at least stocks that are deep in the portfolios of Vanguard and Blackrock indexes. I don’t think ESG has taken over stock prices and profits and other important things companies put in their reports to investors. But that’s the goal. If you have a low ESG score you’ll be replaced by someone who makes it a higher priority, and you’ll have a harder time doing business with other companies.

 

[WebSnyper]

I’m not sure it works that way now, at least stocks that are deep in the portfolios of Vanguard and Blackrock indexes. I don’t think ESG has taken over stock prices and profits and other important things companies put in their reports to investors. But that’s the goal. If you have a low ESG score you’ll be replaced by someone who makes it a higher priority, and you’ll have a harder time doing business with other companies.

But outlook for future growth, and market share growth (now,but often that is factored in by the market already and expected) in the next quarter, etc is also popping stocks up. Profit is part of that. The other stuff is only to drive these factors and pull in investors who do factor in the "other stuff".

 

[KLB]

I’m not sure it works that way now, at least stocks that are deep in the portfolios of Vanguard and Blackrock indexes. I don’t think ESG has taken over stock prices and profits and other important things companies put in their reports to investors. But that’s the goal. If you have a low ESG score you’ll be replaced by someone who makes it a higher priority, and you’ll have a harder time doing business with other companies.

How much stock do you think they control of all of these companies? You guys talk like they have controlling interests in everything.

Owning less than 10% of the stock in a company does not give you control of how it is run.

Can someone please explain to me how Exxon hasn't gone woke? Vanguard and Blackrock are the two largest investors yet they have one of the worst ESG scores of any corporation.

 

[KLB]

But outlook for future growth, and market share growth (now,but often that is factored in by the market already and expected) in the next quarter, etc is also popping stocks up. Profit is part of that. The other stuff is only to drive these factors and pull in investors who do factor in the "other stuff".

When my company was still public, we had layoffs because that was what "the street" wanted. Low and behold, stock price went up afterwards.

 

[WebSnyper]

When my company was still public, we had layoffs because that was what "the street" wanted. Low and behold, stock price went up afterwards.

100% been going through this myself currently. The street wanted layoffs and various large competitors were doing it so my company did it too. Making money hand over fist, and layoffs, no raises, etc because that's the signal investors wanted to see.

 

[jamil]

How much stock do you think they control of all of these companies? You guys talk like they have controlling interests in everything.

Owning less than 10% of the stock in a company does not give you control of how it is run.

Can someone please explain to me how Exxon hasn't gone woke? Vanguard and Blackrock are the two largest investors yet they have one of the worst ESG scores of any corporation. is enough to put woke people on the board.

Jack Dorsey was ousted from Twitter and replaced with a woke CEO. Paul Singer, Vanguard, Blackrock were the biggest investors. Paul Singer wanted to get rid of Dorsey earlier but Dorsey managed to hang on until 2021 when he resigned. Musk bought it in 2022.

About Exxon, give it time. Activist fund managers will work on making the board woker. That’s what happened to other publicly traded companies.

 

[KLB]

Jack Dorsey was ousted from Twitter and replaced with a woke CEO. Paul Singer, Vanguard, Blackrock were the biggest investors. Paul Singer wanted to get rid of Dorsey earlier but Dorsey managed to hang on until 2021 when he resigned. Musk bought it in 2022.

About Exxon, give it time. Activist fund managers will work on making the board woker. That’s what happened to other publicly traded companies.

So, your example is a company that had a woke CEO that what, wasn't woke enough? Therefor a Republican billionaire that had been toying with ousting Dorsey got together with Vanguard and Blackrock and ousted him to make way for a even more woke CEO? It wasn't because Twitter stock was underperforming for years.

 

[Ingomike]

How much stock do you think they control of all of these companies? You guys talk like they have controlling interests in everything.

Owning less than 10% of the stock in a company does not give you control of how it is run.

Can someone please explain to me how Exxon hasn't gone woke? Vanguard and Blackrock are the two largest investors yet they have one of the worst ESG scores of any corporation.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

100% been going through this myself currently. The street wanted layoffs and various large competitors were doing it so my company did it too. Making money hand over fist, and layoffs, no raises, etc because that's the signal investors wanted to see.

INGO used to tell me that was fine because job creators and concern about income for working class was socialism. It's been interesting seeing the shift as purchasing power has decreased for more posters. Some folks are actually starting to realize that total money in the system drives inflation (if amount of goods to purchase remains the same) and not how that money is distributed.

 

[WebSnyper]

INGO used to tell me that was fine because job creators and concern about income for working class was socialism. It's been interesting seeing the shift as purchasing power has decreased for more posters. Some folks are actually starting to realize that total money in the system drives inflation (if amount of goods to purchase remains the same) and not how that money is distributed.

Too many $$, chasing too few goods, = inflation, which means reduced purchasing power generally

Pretty straight forward.

My points here are generally about companies being very short sighted in some cases to make quarterly numbers for this one and the next, to push stock price. It's one thing to start slashing people when cash flow, sales, etc really warrant it. It's short sighted when you do it at the expense of longer term projects, customer relationships, etc which have good potential, especially after these same companies were binge hiring not that long ago.

 

[KLB]

INGO used to tell me that was fine because job creators and concern about income for working class was socialism. It's been interesting seeing the shift as purchasing power has decreased for more posters. Some folks are actually starting to realize that total money in the system drives inflation (if amount of goods to purchase remains the same) and not how that money is distributed.

Laying people off is creating jobs?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Laying people off is creating jobs?

Obviously not.

 

[DadSmith]

UFC embraces embattled Bud Light beer brand with AB InBev partnership

The UFC and Anheuser-Busch have announced a partnership that will involve significant promotion of the Bud Light beer brand."UFC®, the world’s premier mixed martial arts organization and part of TKO Group Holdings ... together with Anheuser-Busch ... today announced a new multiyear marketing...

www.theblaze.com

 

[actaeon277]