• TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    from a business point of view, no. they are solely there to make profit for the next quarter. and follow the law to a minimum to reduce costs.

    • MimicJar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      So that’s sort of a shit response and far from accurate. I currently don’t drink Budweiser. Budweiser was attempting to market to a new crowd. From a business point of view having more customers is a good thing. If this little bit of marketing had caused Budweiser to double their sales they would have doubled down and released an article like this.

      In fact in their response they said they still wanted to focus on “controversial” stuff. “I want to enjoy it with my friends. I want sports, I want music. I want fun.”

      Sports is controversial. What sports? Will they sponsor Chess? Quidditch? Horse Dressage?

      Music is controversial. Which music? Taylor Swift? Kid Rock? Jazz? Tap Dance? Country? Juggalos?

      Budweiser will absolutely continue to advertise “controversial” things because if they don’t they die.

      If the only thing that matters is profit next quarter then they need either current customers to buy more or new customers, but ideally both. If you only rely on current customers you’re fucked since eventually they die.

      Sure Budweiser might be quiet for a few years, but they’ll be back because they’re not stupid at running a business, but their customers are.