Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

1.4K

Source. (nbcnews.com)

The controversy, now nearing its third month, has turned off a broader customer group than just those who characterize themselves as conservatives.

Sales of Bud Light continue to plummet, reflecting ongoing backlash to the brand's decision to hire transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney as a spokesperson.

According to data cited by the beverage industry trade publication Beer Business Daily, sales volumes of Bud Light for the week ending May 13 sank 28.4%, extending a downward trend from the 27.7% decline seen the week before.

[Source.](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/bud-light-sales-falling-amid-mulvaney-backlash-no-end-in-sight-rcna85832) > The controversy, now nearing its third month, has turned off a broader customer group than just those who characterize themselves as conservatives. > Sales of Bud Light continue to plummet, reflecting ongoing backlash to the brand's decision to hire transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney as a spokesperson. > According to data cited by the beverage industry trade publication Beer Business Daily, sales volumes of Bud Light for the week ending May 13 sank 28.4%, extending a downward trend from the 27.7% decline seen the week before.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (37).
[–] • 3 pts

So, to summarize, you are saying that AB-InBev created this crisis intentionally to short its own stock, knowing that eventually people will give up on the boycott and they'll rebuild the brand.

Did I understand your point correctly?

[–] • 3 pts

Sort of. It doesn't have to be InBev that is doing the shorting. These corporations are owned by larger corporations.

When working on such a macro scale, it can be profitable to liquidate a given asset (like InBev) in order to get the public to throw money into the market, or pull money out.

Think of it like InBev going to one of their bank friends and saying "hey we're having some branding issues/etc. and cannot maintain profitability over the next 10 years. Want to help us liquidate?"

The bank will say "sure! we can create a national ad campaign smearing bud light/InBev and it will get the public to sell their stock. We will short sell prior to this so as to capitalize on the price action."

Bing bang boom. Money in pocket.

You have to ask yourself, "if this major multi-national corp is going down, where is the money going?" It's not going to small independent companies. It's being siphoned into the hands of even fewer corps.

[–] • 5 pts

Dude, that's deep. I have to admit it didn't occur to me. I just assigned it to incompetence.

[–] • 4 pts

I just assigned it to incompetence.

I used to do the same. But, over the years, I began to realize that they are playing much larger games. It's brilliant because they get us, the public, to believe that they "made an oopsie". It works so well because we want to believe that we're "sticking it to the man" and "showing them who is boss". Yet, in spite of all the "pwnage", these corps only get bigger, and power continues to consolidate into the hands of fewer people.

The market is basically a big open-air casino. And the big dogs know exactly how to rig the slots.

[–] • 0 pt

That actually speaks well of you. Thinking like an evil little jew shit-stain is hard for people that aren't accustomed to it. To get the gears of your mind to turn like a jew's is work because it does not come naturally for honest White Men.

[–] • 1 pt

Sort of. It doesn't have to be InBev that is doing the shorting. These corporations are owned by larger corporations.

vanguard and blackrock are at the top but there are quite a few layers between in many cases.