Controversy
Bud Light's Controversial Ad Label |
The company
responded to the incident with this: “It’s clear that this message missed the
mark, and we regret it. We would never condone disrespectful or irresponsible
behavior.” This statement, by Alexander Lambrecht—VP of the company, addressed
the issue and was followed by a promise to stop producing the label immediately
and to halt circulation of bottles sporting the controversial slogan. Further,
it seems the company’s marketing department is ignorant of the suggestive and
offensive nature of many of their advertising efforts. Barely a month before
the latest “Up for Whatever” controversy, the company was forced to retract yet
another offensive tweet associated with the ad campaign. The tweet read: “On
#StPatricksDay, you can pinch people who don’t wear green. You can also pinch
people who aren’t #UpForWhatever.” The ad campaign seems to leave the company susceptible
to a host of controversies surrounding their marketing efforts under such an
inherently suggestive theme: up for whatever.
Stakeholders
The stakeholders involved and
affected by this scandal are many, considering the span of the customer base
Bud Light has as a mainstream alcoholic beverage company. Many of the consumers
of Bud Light have been offended and disappointed by the marketing stunt, and
therefore have been affected by the scandal. Bars who may have purchased the controversial
bottles likely experienced backlash from their own subsequent customers as the
backlash from social media trended. Further, the company itself was affected by
their own decision to market a possibly offensive and deliberately misleading
ad which they knew had the possibility of offending their consumers. The
company and its board members lost the respect of many and the business
ultimately made a poor decision that negatively affected millions, which will
go on to hurt sales and profits as well as the shareholders of the company.
Individualism
Individualism poses that ethically
“business actions should maximize profits for the owners of a business, but do
so within the law,” (Salazar, 17). Considering poor advertising
decisions are not a violation of the law, this marketing mishap would
technically be considered ethical as it did not break the law. Ultimately, the
uproar and attention the slogan caught brought the company more attention but
many consumers chose to boycott the company and its products until the slogan
was removed, so it failed to maximize profit. Over time, a poor brand
perception can lead to significant decreases in sales and ultimate demise for a
company if the situation is not rectified. BudLight’s “buzz” score decreased
dramatically in the aftermath of the ad. Positive brand perception is integral
to successful businesses and to profit maximization. The ad negatively impacted
profits, but luckily for the company not for long. Simply put, the decision of Bud
Light to publish the offensive slogan led consumers to have a negative consumer
brand perception of the company which failed to maximize profit in any way,
which would not be supported under the Individualistic ethics principle.
Utilitarianism
"The Perfect Beer For Stepping Outside For Some Old School Fun"--one of the campaign's tamer slogans. |
Kantianism
Kantianism
revolves around the ideal that a company should “always act in ways that
respect and honor individuals and their choices. Don’t lie, cheat, manipulate,
or harm others to get your way,” (Salazar, 17). Bud Light violated two out of
the four specifically indicated measures to not violate by advertising their
controversial slogan. The company, in a way, harmed consumers who have been
affected by rape and the popularization of rape culture by suggesting an
alcoholic beverage could be the key to such encounters. Such consumers were deeply
offended and suffered emotional damage from the insensitive slogan. They
additionally manipulated their consumers by using a slogan that suggested the
beer had the power to decrease rejection and increase willingness in women. By two
counts, Bud Light’s ad campaign would be considered unethical to a Kantian. Further,
the ad itself failed to respect and honor individuals and their choices. By
literally promising that BudLight will remove no from your vocabulary, the company
removed the right to choice
. The ad did not honor individuals in that it encouraged its consumers to pursue things, and women, who would usually—other than under the influence of BudLight—reject them. It set its consumers up to take unnecessary risks and to potentially put others at harm, which is unethical.
. The ad did not honor individuals in that it encouraged its consumers to pursue things, and women, who would usually—other than under the influence of BudLight—reject them. It set its consumers up to take unnecessary risks and to potentially put others at harm, which is unethical.
Virtue Theory
Virtue Theorists suggest that behavior is ethical when a business “acts so as to embody a variety of virtuous or good character traits and so as to avoid vicious or bad character traits,” (Salazar, 17). Virtue Theory involves four main virtues: honesty, courage, temperance, and justice. As for Honesty, Bud Light did not intentionally publish their slogan with the knowledge that it would be offensive, but as soon as they received news of the backlash it ignited, they rushed to apologize and agreed to remove the slogan. The company was Courageous when they owned up to the mistake and agreed that they understood where the slogan had missed the mark with consumers. As for Temperance, the company displayed unreasonable expectations and desires when they thought their ad campaign would be perceived agreeably by all consumers. The Justice in this case was fulfilled in that the company agreed to remove the slogans and apologized for their mistake. Virtue Theory also insists business decisions avoid vicious or bad character traits that will be associated with the company. The ad BudLight published associated the company with those w
ho support nonconsent and who promote rape culture. These are terrible and offensive traits for a company to have, and the ad directly aligned BudLight with such ideals. If such traits are sure to be negatively perceived when associated with an individual, the effect is amplified when they are associated with such a big company as BudLight. Overall, Virtue Theorists would concur that BudLight made a very unethical decision.
Virtue Theorists suggest that behavior is ethical when a business “acts so as to embody a variety of virtuous or good character traits and so as to avoid vicious or bad character traits,” (Salazar, 17). Virtue Theory involves four main virtues: honesty, courage, temperance, and justice. As for Honesty, Bud Light did not intentionally publish their slogan with the knowledge that it would be offensive, but as soon as they received news of the backlash it ignited, they rushed to apologize and agreed to remove the slogan. The company was Courageous when they owned up to the mistake and agreed that they understood where the slogan had missed the mark with consumers. As for Temperance, the company displayed unreasonable expectations and desires when they thought their ad campaign would be perceived agreeably by all consumers. The Justice in this case was fulfilled in that the company agreed to remove the slogans and apologized for their mistake. Virtue Theory also insists business decisions avoid vicious or bad character traits that will be associated with the company. The ad BudLight published associated the company with those w
ho support nonconsent and who promote rape culture. These are terrible and offensive traits for a company to have, and the ad directly aligned BudLight with such ideals. If such traits are sure to be negatively perceived when associated with an individual, the effect is amplified when they are associated with such a big company as BudLight. Overall, Virtue Theorists would concur that BudLight made a very unethical decision.
I really enjoyed reading your post! I thought it was well organized, provided good examples, pictures and defined everything in a clear way! Well done!
ReplyDeleteJocelyn - really great job on your blog! It was very informative along with it being very interesting controversy. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDelete