Understanding the Bud Light Controversy through the Lenses of Tocqueville and Bernays

In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that in the young American democracy, people had a propensity to repeat the majority's opinions. This "repetition" is an essential concept for understanding how public opinion is constructed, especially in the age of social media, which has amplified this tendency.

In his trip for 1800s New York, Tocqueville quickly realized that American citizens tended to have a generalist vocation, meaning they held generic opinions about everything based on limited information. Consequently, they gave the false impression of being well-qualified to speak on any subject. This was a stark contrast to the French aristocracy that he was coming from, which had far more free time to think deeply about issues, unlike the hustle and bustle lifestyle of New York. Tocqueville observed that American democracy left little room for thinking and daydreaming, a situation that has only worsened with the advent of digital mediums.

Public opinion, as opposed to the voice of the people, which is permeated by superstitions and ignorance, carries the connotation of being more qualified. The development of public opinion is closely connected with the creation of the media and the growth of cities, which made ideas travel far faster than ever before. So, if Tocqueville observed this phenomenom in the comparatively slow-paced 1830s New York, you can only imagine what he would say about 21st century America.

To comprehend the nature of public opinion, one must recognize how it manifests itself. Public opinion likes blood; it manifests itself in a violent manner (unless, of course, we’re talking about a catastrophe, which often bubbles up empathetic reactions, although not for long). The fresher the blood or the more immediate and new the issue is, the more appealing it is to the public opinion. This observation highlights the direct connection between the concept of lack of time to think and the ability to delve deeper into any given issue.

The marketing and advertising industry capitalizes on public opinion. Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud's nephew and a key figure in the history of advertising, considered himself a psychoanalyst of public opinion. He built campaigns to manipulate public opinion concerning what he believed was good versus bad, with Lucky Strike cigarettes as his crowning achievement. Bernays posited that by associating a seemingly good cause (women emancipation and public smoking) with a product (cigarettes), one could attract financing for their cause, as demonstrated by the "Torches of Freedom" campaign.

Bernays quickly realized that capitalism was too strongly tied to objects, and understanding the risk of saturation, he had an epiphany: if one could connect commercial activity with values and causes, they could make capitalism work for the good. As a result, today, capitalism still sells values and causes instead of objects, aiming to work for the good, as defined by the marketers themselves.

Fast forward to April 2023, and Bud Light finds itself at the center of a controversy. In early April, Bud Light sent transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney a handful of beers, which she used in a video celebrating both March Madness and her first year of womanhood. One of the can designs even featured an image of the 26-year old on it. This paid sponsorship and promotion for a sweepstakes challenge incited anger, with figures like Kid Rock notably shooting a gun at a pack of beers and declaring, "f**k Bud Light." This incident exemplified mob thinking at its finest.

The discontentment spread rapidly, and Anheuser Busch's CEO issued a public statement that failed to address the issue effectively. But here’s the thing: Bud Light has long supported the LGBTQ+ community, to the ignorance of most. As a result its association with frat boys has been a difficult shadow to escape, so this partnership with Dylan aimed to "slowly pivot towards a wider audience", as the VP of Marketing claimed. However, the attempt came across as performative and disingenuous, sparking backlash from both Bud Light's base and advocates for inclusivity alike, erasing nearly $4 billion in market cap from the company’s stock in a matter of days (although such market cap losses are likely not to be long-lasting).

This controversy underscores a significant issue within the marketing profession: marketers often inhabit the same circles and co-exist in a bubble, blindly following instructions from their consumers instead of interpreting their wants and needs through commercial lenses. The thread connecting Edward Bernays' work in the 1920s to modern marketing practices is evident, as both attempt to deem what is good versus bad and associate their products with the good. However, these short-lived initiatives often fail to make a genuine impact.

Bud Light will not continue to exist without the support of its base, but at the same time its future depends on convincing the LGBTQ+ community (which possesses at least $3.7 trillion in global purchasing power) and other marginalized groups that their products are for them too. Attempting to tackle this monumental task in a single act proved to be a misstep.

You see, this was never about inclusivity, this was about capitalizing on what’s currently in the spotlight of the American culture wars. There will always be a segment of society that is anti-[insert group] and it’s a shame, but those are not who you’re trying to convert. Trying to convert hardliners is naive, and attempting to do so only leads to your efforts backfiring. Instead, Bud Light’s attempt at “slowly pivoting towards a wider audience” could have been as simple as allocating more budget towards its legacy LGBTQ+ initiatives or as complex as implementing a more strategic multi-year campaign appealing to people beyond frat boys. But, by lazily targeting in one fell-swoop a single segment of this wider audience (transgender women), Bud Light inadvertently put itself right in the middle of the circus and alienated multiple demographics, coming across as disingenuous and unauthentic.

The Bud Light controversy illustrates Tocqueville’s perils of public opinion and the challenges faced by marketers in an increasingly polarized society. The line between activism and commercial activity has gotten a lot blurrier since the times of Edward Bernays, and in a world dictated by social media trends, incidents like this often unfold in a flash, far before any campaign metrics can identify the smoke signals. Public opinion is always hunting for fresh blood, and marketers must navigate this reality carefully to avoid becoming the next target.

PPA