In recent years the marketing Emotional advertising based on adherence to consumer values has become a fad in the advertising world. So far, however, this type of procedure has always been “At no price” and without negative consequences for brands. A recent case by bud lighthas changed the cards on the table, however, making it clear that companies must now reconsider their strategies and decide whether to join a cause, as the price to pay could prove high.
The case of Bud Light: between inclusive marketing and polarization
bud light, The well-known American beer brand has sought to reach a new, younger audience through a marketing campaign involving well-known transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. However, the company’s sponsorship of a post on Instagram sparked a strong and unexpected negative reaction, leading to calls to boycott the product.
Following the boycott, the weeks that followed saw double-digit percentage sales declines compared to the same period in 2022. Additionally, Anheuser-Busch, owner of Bud Light, lost about 3% of its stock value in the past month Company more than $15 billion in value, while its competitors’ shares rose 20% (Molson Coors, owner of the Coors Lite brand) and 1.7% (Heineken).
This helps make the effectiveness of the boycott clearer than ever, resonates widely across the web and just how badly it has dealt a serious blow to the sales and image of the Bud Light brand itself. The initial response from Anheuser-Busch, Bud Light’s parent company, was linear but was described by many as lackluster.
The company has focused on placing the Mulvaney collaboration as one of many collaborations with the network’s key influencers; However, subsequent statements by CEO Brendan Whitworth, coupled with the resignations of campaign managers, were seen not only as lame but as an attempt to prove that “Janus with two faceswith no result other than drawing the wrath of both sides involved in the debate. For Bud Light, the decision to stick to values and polarizations far removed from those of its traditional target audience in order to develop a new market proved to be a mistake as historical consumers no longer recognized themselves in the brand.
A brand that, it should be emphasized, in no way positions itself as distinctive or decisive: Bud Light is a beer brand that can easily be replaced by other similar products. And perhaps this makes the situation even more thorny, as the market data not only shows the effectiveness of the brand’s boycott, but also shows how direct competitors Miller Lite and Coors Light have benefited from being Bud Light replacements for market share.
The success of Nike: shared values and brand strength
Taking a stand on social issues, even divisive ones, is not always a fiasco. Nike, the sportswear giant, argued in 2018 Colin Kaepernick, the world-renowned quarterback, as well as for his remarkable athletic ability, including giving the go-ahead Protest against American police violence about the black community kneeling to the tune of the inevitable national anthem before the game.
In this case, the protests and associated threats to abandon the brand have not hurt the brand’s value or market share, showing that a company can only resist criticism and boycotts if it stands firm and strongly emphasizes its values, as it wants defend. Values that, in this case, were strongly shared by customers. In this case, the brand has managed to amplify the message and create a perfect synthesis between its vision and the feelings of its customers.
The future of emotional marketing
Episodes like Bud Light lead to a deep reflection on the introduction of emotional marketing by businesses: Businesses need to carefully consider whether to continue following this trend or rethink their strategies to avoid dividing consumers and jeopardizing investments made in brand and product awareness.
The situation prompts considerations beyond simply adhering to positive or inclusive values, and as emotional strategies are no longer “free” they force more clearly articulated risk and impact assessments.
First, companies need to be aware that becoming a member or declaring empathy for any issue or societal value now comes with a tangible cost that is closely linked to the network’s amplification capacity: it is important to assess the potential impact understand Make decisions and plan appropriate strategies to deal with them.
Secondly, it is becoming increasingly important to analyze and understand the psychological and value profile of one’s customer segments: only in this way is it possible to develop marketing campaigns that authentically reflect the values shared with the reference audience and reduce the risk of alienation potentially disastrous consequences.
After all, companies have to deal with the polarizations in society and make a conscious decision as to whether or not to take certain positions. It also means being willing to accept the potential costs of the decisions you make and carefully balancing the balance between affirming your values and safeguarding your brand’s image and sales.
Emotional marketing is becoming more and more demanding. Businesses that are able to cleverly navigate between polarizations and remain true to the values shared with their consumers will be able to emerge victorious in an increasingly complex competitive environment and especially now that they adhere to some principles has one “Corporate effort” and will make it easier for the consumer to assess which brands are really sticking with emotional campaigns and which are instead forgoing it because, in the end, “business is business” applies…