Quote Originally Posted by Tater View Post
Just chiming in with an extremely loud incorrect buzzer.

BUD the year and a half before the commercial had stock price fluctuation from $44 to $67 (with the peak week of $67 being right when the commercial was released, which had more to do with hedge funds making money against the general public). BUD the year and a half after the commercial has had price fluctuation between $49 and $68 with the peak week being May this year though it did scrape $66 right during the start of NFL playoffs last season.

AB InBev owns more than Bud Light. It was hilarious to see people boycott Bud Light by going to Michelob, Miller, Modelo, etc. People have no idea who actually owns which beer anymore and the point is it's gotten so murky that AB owned all 3 of those at different points (yes i know they sold miller to Coors - but do you? does the general public know?).
Why would the fact that AB InBev owned any of those brands in the past matter for their bottom line when people switch from beers they own now?



Quote Originally Posted by Tater View Post
Boycotting AB would take someone just boycotting beer altogether to be safe which obviously wasn't happening. Bud Light was back in the hands of people spouting to boycott it less than 6 months later (Kid Rock being the most notable).
Not really. Pretty much any miller coors beer plus Modello in the US is safe. If you're drinking a lot of Budlight, you're probably not having to keep track of which "craft" labels they own. Even if you drink both, if you cut out the ones easily identifiable, that still costs ABInBev revenue.

And I think a "soft" boycott is still pretty effective. I avoid buying Nike when I have a somewhat similar alternative. They're just annoying as shit and they make sports worse by injecting politics in it and giving ass hats like the spoiled p*ssy whipped QB a microphone, but I don't make my life worse over it. If it's meaningfully better for me, I'll buy it. If it's not, I won't. If a significant number of people do that, it makes it painful for companies to be ass hats. You genearlly don't want to be in a position where you lose all the close calls as a company, particularly in retail. Same with Target. If there is something I need at Target that I can't get somewhere else easily, I'll get it. But generally, Walmart is slightly less obnoxious with the woke stuff (and significantly less obnoxious on the child sexualization stuff and probably most importantly, inviting men into women's bathrooms), that Target only gets leftovers. Not a big deal, but again, when you are in a space as competitive as retail, small things can have a pretty sizeable impact. There's lots of things that have probably caused Walmart's outperformance of Target's stock over the past year, and Target's insistence on annoying a portion of its customer base is probalby only a small part of it. But if your stock is down in a year where your biggest competitor is up 81% and the stock market in general is up over 20%, do you really want to be antagonizing any of your customers?