Case Study Paper - Power, Profit, and Media

1 Case Study Paper - Power, Profit, and Media Mount Royal University BMST 4404-001: Case Studies Media & Society Brad Clark March 2nd, 2025 2 The Bud Light Boycott (2023) Case Introduction A single can. That is all it took to ignite one of the biggest corporate backlashes in recent history. The Bud Light case emerged as the focus of a major cultural and political conflict in April 2023, when it partnered with a trans activist with a large social media following, Dylan Mulvaney for a small social media promotion. What should have been a routine marketing move quickly escalated into a nationwide boycott after conservative media and political figures took up the cause. Sales plummeted, brand loyalty fractured, and Bud Light became a symbol of the growing divide between corporate inclusivity efforts and consumer backlash, creating one of the most enduring boycotts. This case study examines the role of media framing, agenda-setting, and cultural hegemony. It explores how public opinion was influenced by media coverage, the impact of corporate responses, and the wider ramifications for representation in advertising. Overview/Background The Origins of the Controversy Bud Light connected with Dylan Mulvaney as part of its wide-ranging advertising approach to reach younger consumers who prioritize social issues. Bud Light celebrated Mulvaney with a custom-made can to mark her first anniversary of producing the "Days of Girlhood" social media transition video series (Holpuch, 2023). However, the minor partnership between Bud Light and Mulvaney caused criticism from conservative commentators, prominent celebrities, and political figures, arguing it was an unnecessary foray into divisive social issues. The anti-Bud Light movement gained momentum when popular musician Kid Rock released a viral video of himself shooting Bud Light cans in protest. At the same time, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis criticized Anheuser-Busch, 3 demanding greater financial transparency from the company (Institute for Public Relations, 2024). Social media users and right-wing media platforms viewed the marketing campaign as a pointless political move that sparked protests against the company. Sales and Business Impact The boycott had serious financial consequences. According to the Harvard Business Review, Bud Light suffered a 28% decline in sales within three months after the boycott, explicitly affecting mostly Republican-leaning regions (Liaukonyte et al., 2024). As a result, Modelo Especial, a Mexican beer brand, claimed the position of America’s top-selling beer, which Bud Light had previously held. LGBTQ+ advocates criticized Anheuser-Busch because the company failed to express public support for Mulvaney during the controversy. Conservative consumers remained dissatisfied, viewing the response as insincere. In an effort to recover, the company dropped two marketing executives and aimed its advertising focus toward traditional American themes, such as sports and Americana. In addition, the boycott reshaped Bud Light’s retail presence. Retailers and distributors reacted to the negative sales trend by reducing their shelf space for Bud Light (Liaukonyte et al., 2024). Anheuser-Busch also lost its short-term stock market value as a result of the controversy. The incident illustrates how purchasing campaigns ("buycotts") and abstention campaigns (boycotts) of chosen brands can apply intense market pressures that affect big businesses. Analysis Media Framing and Agenda-Setting Agenda-setting theory (McCombs & Shaw, 1972) suggests that the media shapes public opinion by deciding what issues to highlight (Sun, 2023). By depicting Bud Light's deal with 4 Mulvaney as a "woke" marketing debacle, the right-wing media set the agenda for public outrage, shaping consumer opinion and stoking the boycott. Right-wing media outlets here magnified indignation by leading with reports that confirmed their audience's existing views on corporate 'virtue signaling.' This framing positioned Bud Light as a prime example, directly influencing consumer behavior and intensifying the backlash. Gatekeeping theory (White, 1950) further explains how media outlets control the distribution of information as they push some stories and suppress others. Conservative gatekeeping media disproportionately promoted anti-Bud Light sentiments and pushed negative messages from conservative celebrities, like Kid Rock's viral video. Simultaneously, these outlets downplayed and suppressed positive messages from LGBTQ+ supporters and allies (Mertanen, 2024). This selective reporting reinforced the anti-Bud Light narrative and contributed to the boycott’s persistence. Bud Light failed to counter this narrative in time, allowing conservative media to shape public perception before the company could establish its own messaging. Corporate Interests and Market Forces Bud Light's response to the consumer outrage displayed the conflict between marketing to wider audiences, fulfilling market demands, and maintaining loyalty among existing customers. The beer industry has traditionally relied on a male, conservative consumer base, and Bud Light’s partnership with Mulvaney challenged this established market identity. The backlash showed how brand perception can be deeply tied to cultural and political affiliations, making consumer shifts more volatile. One key factor that intensified the boycott’s impact was brand interchangeability. Bud Light competes in a market with highly substitutable products, such as Coors Light and Miller 5 Lite. Because these alternatives offered nearly identical taste, price, and availability, dissatisfied consumers could easily switch brands without inconvenience (Liaukonyte et al., 2024). This low switching cost accelerated Bud Light’s sales decline. Anheuser-Busch showed the challenges of maintaining social consciousness by breaking ties with Mulvaney while failing to win back its conservative customer base, depicting the challenge of balancing social consciousness with market demands. Brands that try to appeal to younger, progressive demographics risk losing current customers if they fail to do so with a proper transition strategy (Liaukonyte et al., 2024). The financial consequences stemming from the controversy worsened because of supply-chain disruptions, including diminished retail placement opportunities and nervous distributors, both of which prolonged the company’s struggles. Public Relations and Crisis Management The public heavily criticized Anheuser-Busch for its unclear and indecisive crisis management. The company started with an ambiguous message about inclusivity while avoiding specific responses to public criticism. This lack of a definitive stance allowed negative media narratives to dominate public discourse. In an attempt to control the situation, CEO Brendan Whitworth issued a second response, stating that Bud Light wanted to "bring people together over a beer” (Institute for Public Relations, 2024). However, this ambiguous approach failed to appease conservatives seeking an apology, nor did it reassure LGBTQ+ advocates who wanted more support for Mulvaney. Businesses that encounter backlash must step up their responses according to crisis communication strategies by responding while being open about actions and maintaining a steady approach. Anheuser-Busch's slow, ambiguous response to the controversy sustained 6 public focus on negative media stories that took control of public opinion (Holpuch, 2023). While Bud Light’s controversy was unintentional, its failure to communicate a firm response left it vulnerable to prolonged criticism. This case highlights that, whether a controversy is planned or unexpected, companies must come up with a cohesive and confident response to maintain control over their brand image. Cultural Hegemony and Gender Representation Cultural hegemony, as theorized by Gramsci (1971), refers to the dominance of ruling ideologies in shaping societal norms and values. In this case, the Bud Light controversy reflects this as traditional conceptions of masculinity and gender roles clashed with the brand’s attempt to modernize its identity. The backlash was not merely about a marketing decision; it reflected more profound cultural anxieties surrounding changing gender norms and corporate participation in social issues (Gogoi, 2023). The boycott suggests that the dominant cultural group—primarily conservative consumers—viewed Bud Light's campaign as challenging their values. By rejecting the brand, they effectively reasserted their ideological dominance, reinforcing the existing hegemony of traditional gender expectations in mainstream advertising. With businesses caught in the conflict of changing societal norms, this just goes to show they can end up in the middle of cultural debates because of their own actions and behaviours. According to Judith Butler's (1990) gender performativity theory, gender is not a natural identity, but rather a regular action that is motivated by social norms (Luo, 2022). Mulvaney openly sharing her transition journey directly challenged traditional gender norms, making her visibility in a mainstream beer advertisement particularly polarizing. The backlash against Bud Light's campaign shows that many people are still uncomfortable with changing gender norms, 7 particularly in corporate branding. Rather than merely objecting to the partnership, many consumers were reacting to the broader cultural shift toward transgender visibility and acceptance. This shows that corporate marketing is not just about selling products, it is tied to social and political conversations. When brands promote inclusivity, they have to be very mindful of different viewpoints and find a balance between reaching new audiences along with keeping their existing customers. Discussion The Bud Light boycott shows the significant challenges that companies face when addressing sensitive social and political issues. Unlike typical controversies, this one lasted for months due to intense media coverage, consumer activism, and the company’s hesitance to act decisively. This extended boycott shows an important lesson for companies today; they need to handle inclusivity thoughtfully and be adept at crisis management while also addressing customer expectations, particularly in a divided market. The backlash against Bud Light is a clear example of brand controversies that stem from social and political issues. These situations often reveal patterns in consumer reactions, media framing, and company responses. By analyzing this case alongside others, we are able to get a clearer image of how businesses can manage consumer expectations during moments of crisis. In 2018, a Nike commercial featuring Colin Kaepernick generated strong opposition from rightwing consumers because he protested racial inequality by kneeling during the national anthem. Many conservative consumers boycotted Nike, but the company stood by its decision, reinforcing its progressive brand identity. As a result, Nike’s stock value increased, and its sales surged, depicting that brands willing to take a firm stance can strengthen consumer loyalty, even 8 during controversy (Cosentino, 2019). In contrast, Bud Light’s indecisive response alienated both sides—it distanced itself from Mulvaney, angering progressive consumers, while also failing to satisfy conservatives calling for an apology. Another case that offers insight is Goya Foods’ 2020 controversy, in which its CEO publicly backed Donald Trump in an endorsement that generated strong consumer political reactions (Liaukonyte et al., 2024). Progressives organized a boycott against the company, yet conservative supporters started a "buycott" campaign, actively purchasing Goya products to protect the brand. Goya’s strong position towards its political endorsement resulted in higher sales from Republican-leaning customers. According to the Institute for Public Relations (2024), brand loyalty showed increased strength through political support. Unlike Bud Light, which tried to remain neutral, Goya strengthened its relationship with a specific audience, depicting that brands can sometimes benefit from political alignment if they remain consistent in their messaging. Similarly, the 2023 LGBTQ+ Pride merchandise controversy at Target delivers additional understanding about this issue. Target first stood behind its inclusive policies, yet faced backlash from both conservative and progressive consumers after removing LGBTQ+ Pride merchandise from stores due to employee safety concerns (Gogoi, 2023). The decision lost support from progressive and conservative customers because it failed to satisfy either group, similar to Bud Light’s response. This goes to show that half-measures often worsen a crisis rather than resolve it and companies in today’s market must balance their social responsibilities against customer demands to avoid alienation from all slides. Social media coverage was the main factor that boosted the Bud Light boycott movement. The speed at which misinformation spreads and viral outrage campaigns prove that 9 digital platforms serve as places for societal and political disagreements. In terms of agendasetting theory, in this case, the right-wing media outlets, conservative influencers, and social media personalities played a significant role in setting the agenda by framing Bud Light’s partnership with Mulvaney as an example of corporate “wokeness” gone too far. Social media echo chambers further fueled the outrage, as users primarily encountered content that reinforced their existing beliefs. The boycott of Bud Light gained momentum when conservative figures, including Kid Rock and political commentators, used Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to spread their campaign (Liaukonyte et al., 2024). Users could choose which content to share due to these platforms, which led to the dominance of negative Bud Light messages that deepened public anger. The case also showed celebrities' influence, especially right-wing social media figures, facilitated the spread of misinformation. Kid Rock gained widespread popularity through his viral video footage where he destroyed Bud Light bottles to show defiance against the beer company, thus proving how social media activism affects consumer purchasing decisions. LGBTQ+ activists increased their criticism of Bud Light because the company did not support Mulvaney, which worsened the crisis that spread across both political sides (Holpuch, 2023). In addition, memes and satire served as fundamental components that kept the controversy active. Users on the internet created mocking memes about Bud Light’s management decisions, which helped spread the boycott throughout popular culture, making it harder for the brand to recover quickly. This case depicts that in today’s digital world, once a brand’s reputation is caught in a viral cycle of outrage, crisis management becomes exponentially more difficult. This agendasetting effect ensured that the controversy dominated headlines, shaping consumer sentiment and influencing purchasing decisions. Studies on media influence suggest that when high-profile 10 figures repeatedly push a particular narrative, audiences perceive the issue as more urgent and widespread than it may be in reality (Sun, 2023). This effect was evident in the Bud Light case, as conservative media continuously reinforced the idea that Anheuser-Busch had betrayed its loyal consumers, encouraging mass participation in the boycott. At the same time, gatekeeping theory (White, 1950) explains how media outlets control the flow of information by deciding which perspectives to amplify and which to suppress. While right-wing media aggressively promoted anti-Bud Light sentiment, consistently highlighting conservative outrage and celebrity backlash, progressive perspectives and LGBTQ+ advocacy supporting the brand were largely ignored on these platforms. This selective reporting created an echo chamber effect, reinforcing negative perceptions of Bud Light while minimizing counternarratives that could have balanced discourse. As a result, the boycott appeared more widespread than it actually was, fueling consumer activism and prolonging Bud Light’s financial struggles (Mertanen, 2024). By allowing conservative media and influencers to define the narrative before responding, Bud Light lost control of its public image, making it even harder to shift consumer perception. The brand’s delayed response left negative media framing unchallenged, allowing agenda-setters to dictate how the controversy was perceived by the public. Beyond media influence, the Bud Light fiasco also revealed changes in how consumers segment themselves into different groups. The criticism of Bud Light showed clear differences in views between younger and older people on inclusivity. Younger generations like Gen Z and Millennials favour LGBTQ+ representation and choose brands reflecting their social values. Meanwhile, older and more traditional consumers usually respond negatively and often reject companies involved in activism. 11 This generational gap shows the struggle for cultural influence, reflecting Gramsci’s (1971) theory of cultural hegemony. Historically, major companies and their advertisements have aligned with the main values of society, reinforcing traditional gender roles and conservative ideals. However, as younger generations push for greater inclusivity, brands face resistance from established consumer groups who seek to maintain the existing cultural hierarchy. The backlash against Bud Light was not just about a marketing decision—it was a reaction to shifting power dynamics in mainstream advertising. This generational divide also presents a challenge for brands attempting to modernize their image. Should they cater to their existing consumer base or shift toward younger audiences with different values? Research shows that companies that support their customers' values gain younger consumers' long-lasting loyalty (Gogoi, 2023). However, this shift inevitably disrupts the dominant cultural order, leading to ideological pushback from groups who perceive corporate inclusivity efforts as a threat to traditional values. What Needs to Change? The Bud Light boycott serves as a critical case study for media professionals, brand strategists, and crisis managers. One of Bud Light’s biggest missteps was failing to define a consistent brand identity in response to the backlash. When addressing social concerns, brands need to predict how consumers will respond. Nike succeeded because it reinforced its existing progressive brand identity, while Bud Light failed because its audience was not prepared for this shift. Nike firmly aligned itself with social justice causes, however, Bud Light attempted to distance itself from both sides, alienating both conservative and progressive consumers. Brands that adopt a political or social position need to be totally dedicated to it. Sustaining consumer trust requires a genuine and consistent brand voice. 12 Additionally, anticipating consumer reactions through better market research is crucial. The controversy revealed a disconnect between Bud Light’s marketing team and its core consumers. Had Bud Light anticipated the strong pushback from conservative consumers, it could have prepared a more strategic rollout or gradually introduced brand inclusivity efforts over time instead of making a sudden shift. Brands must also control the narrative before it controls them. Agenda-setting and framing theories demonstrate how media coverage shapes public perception. Bud Light allowed right-wing media to define the crisis before issuing a clear response. In order to set the tone before false information spreads, brands need to take charge of the narrative early on and utilize proactive communication techniques. Instead of letting viral indignation take over, companies can assist shape the public narrative by making quick, unambiguous public statements that uphold brand values and interacting directly with customers through company-controlled channels like press releases and social media. Furthermore, handling conflicts requires a more robust crisis communication plan. When Bud Light encountered criticism, their vague messaging made situations worse. On the other hand, Nike managed the Kaepernick controversy more effectively by responding swiftly and clearly, which helped them retain customer trust. Moving forward, companies facing a crisis should have a team ready to quickly track social media news updates, anticipate various customer reactions, and provide clear, strong messages rather than remaining neutral. Finally, businesses today should understand the significant role that social media plays in consumer activism and the importance of handling misinformation properly. Social media has the capability to intensify customer dissatisfaction like never before, which means companies need to engage directly with their audience. Bud Light’s boycott serves as an example of how 13 viral content, such as videos and memes, along with online communities, can intensify public outrage. To keep misinformation from getting out of hand, companies should actively connect with consumers on social media. They should also partner with trusted influencers to challenge negative stories and use tools like fact-checking and transparency reports to correct any false information before it spreads widely. In terms of media content creators, the Bud Light case depicts the need to understand how media stories can shape what the public thinks. As a media professional, it is very important to realize how stories are presented affects how people see corporate actions. This requires being clear and considering different viewpoints. False information spreads quickly on social media, making it very important to check facts and reports responsibly and with detail. Whether in journalism, public relations, or digital marketing, I need to think about how content influences consumer behavior, avoid falling into echo chambers, and create open and honest conversations with audiences. In media and branding, taking control of the story early and ensuring the message is genuine is very important to maintaining trust and credibility with the audience. Conclusion The 2023 Bud Light boycott is a clear example of how media influences corporate decisions and how consumers rally around activism. Anheuser-Busch faced a major boycott after mismanaging the situation, and media framing along with agenda-setting only intensified the situation, showing shifting cultural attitudes and consumer expectations. This situation shows that businesses need to handle sensitive political issues carefully and make sure that they communicate their responses strategically to maintain trust. 14 References Cosentino, A. (2019). Risk and reward: An analysis of# BoycottNike as a response to Nike's Colin Kaepernick advertising campaign. Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 10(1), 54-63. https://eloncdn.blob.core.windows.net/eu3/sites/153/2019/05/06_Cosentino.pdf Gogoi, P. (2023, June 28). How the Bud Light boycott shows brands at a crossroads: Use their voice, or shut up? NPR News. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/28/1184309434/bud-lightboycott-lgbtq-pride Holpuch, A, (2023). Behind the backlash against Bud Light. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/article/bud-light-boycott.html Institute for Public Relations, (2024). The Anheuser-Busch response to Bud Light boycott. https://instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/https___page.org_wpcontent_uploads_2024_04_CRACKING-OPEN-A-CASE-The-Anheuser-Busch_case1.pdf Liaukonyte, J., Tuchman, A., & Zhu, X. (2024). Lessons from the Bud Light boycott, one year later. Harvard Business Review, accessed, 07-17. https://hbr.org/2024/03/lessons-fromthe-bud-light-boycott-one-year-later Luo, X. (2022). Cultural representation of female images in advertising. Open Access Library Journal, 9(5), 1-20. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=117072 15 Mertanen, M. (2024). A critical discourse analysis of Anheuser-Busch's crisis management strategy during the Bud Light boycott (Bachelor's thesis, University of Oulu). https://oulurepo.oulu.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/53394/nbnfioulu-202412187429.pdf? sequence=1&isAllowed=y Sun, B, (2023). Psychological theories describing how the media can help influence people's beliefs and perceptions on political issues. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 13(3), 45-60. https://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_13_No_3_August_2023/5.pdf