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

©2024 Poal.co

225

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).
[–] • 4 pts

Nobody

Incorrect. A common illusion most people are under is that these mega-corps are "dated" and "out of their element". This is untrue. These corproations didn't establish a multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation to last decades by being a bunch of morons.

These PR stunts are playing a longer game. Do you know how much money a corporation can make by shorting bud light/A-B stock? You think it's a coincidence that this short sell has been persisting for so many months?

You need suckers to buy from you in order to make money in the stock market. What better ay the an "unexpected PR mishap" that lasts for months?

Childs play.

[–] • 4 pts

@picman's razor: Don't attribute to incompetence what can be explained by the machinations of scheming kikes. :)

[–] • 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.

[–] • 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.