How to destroy your brand in one easy step!

Going woke doesn't have to mean going broke, unless you get it THIS wrong.

I wrote about unfocused celebrity sponsorships recently. They’re ultimately harmless, if a waste of money.

But what happens when a brand chooses someone who actively damages its reputation?

When Bud Light picked controversial TikToker Dylan Mulvaney to represent the brand on social media, they probably didn’t think that decision would blow up the way it did. 

You’ve almost certainly read all about it by now, but the unremarkable yet ill-fated campaign above caused one of the biggest boycotts in US history, and Bud Light’s sales have been down ~30% ever since, ending its two-decade reign as America’s bestselling beer. Oops. Probably not the result they were hoping for. 

And while that reaction is a bit extreme, it’s not difficult to see why the campaign didn’t perform positively. It’s not simply because Dylan is transgender, as the Daily Mail would have you believe. It’s because Dylan isn’t a good match for Bud Light. 

First of all, the entire reason why Dylan’s content is controversial is because some feel it focuses on regressive stereotypes about women. The entire shtick is (or, at least, it certainly was at the time) being a girly-girl bimbo, ditsy and clueless. It’s not my cup of tea, but Dylan’s 10.5 million followers clearly enjoy it. But where’s the link to Bud Light?

Let’s have a look at some old Bud Light ads to assess the image they’ve cultivated over the years. I’ll let you decide if you think someone dressed as Holly Golightly from Breakfast at Tiffany’s and pretending not to know anything about sports fits into that.

This one (2004) is about a horse farting onto an open flame and burning a woman’s hair off:

Here’s another one (2001) about flatulence. The joke is that men fart and that’s funny:

More fart jokes here (2008), wrapped up in innuendo this time:

That’s quite enough of that. How about a chimp trying to shag a human woman (2009) instead? 

As you’ve seen, Bud Light’s ads have revolved around puerile teenage stoner humour for quite some time. And though they may have matured since then, the core concept remains the same: blokes having a laugh, proud to be low-brow, unfussy and unpretentious. 

Those ads tell you that buying Bud Light means you’re a chilled out, laid back, down-to-earth guy. You don’t take anything too seriously, let alone yourself. You’re a bit of a slacker, but beautiful women are still interested in you and find your simple sense of humour charming and manly. While everyone else pontificates the merits of their poncey craft beers or prissy whisky cocktails, you’re chugging a lager and having a laugh. You’re a ‘man’s man’.

Now, what about Dylan Mulvaney tallies with any of that? 

Nothing. 

Dylan’s content revolves around identity, discovering who you’re ‘meant to be’ — in this case, an exaggerated, air-headed girly girl — with the freedom to dress and behave in a way that matches how you feel inside. 

The content itself may be tongue-in-cheek, but the right to self expression is treated with grave importance by Dylan and fans alike. Comments are earnest and supportive, and there’s an underlying swell of seriousness to it all. The message might be packaged in self-aware jokeyness, but it isn’t there to be mocked. I doubt Dylan would have been invited to meet Joe Biden to discuss civil rights if the content was purely just for laughs. 

With that in mind, I imagine that buying something from a Dylan Mulvaney-sponsored brand would make fans feel open-minded, whimsical, and in touch with themselves and their needs. They might feel like a progressive hero, a supportive sister, a freedom fighter — but in a fun way. They’re as ditsy as Dylan, they spend frivolously, and they’re proud to be a bit of a bimbo.

The problem is that the people who buy Bud Light to feel like the protagonist of a Seth Rogen film don’t want to feel that way. And one can only assume that those who enjoy Dylan’s frilly, flippant femininity don’t want to feel like the big hairy fart machines that Bud Light has repeatedly suggested its customers are. In other words, this partnership is futile, regardless of Dylan’s gender.

In the words of the great Judie Lannon:

‘Brand choices are part of the clues that define people in their own eyes and in the eyes of others. Brands are publicly shared aspects of culture. Their power derives from the shared public-ness of their various meanings.’

Simply put: would your customers want to be both personally and publicly associated with the way your ads make them feel? 

Given the disastrous impact of this very minor campaign, the answer is no.

It should go without saying that this doesn’t mean a brand aimed at blokey blokes shouldn’t dabble with LGBT-themed promotions. In fact, Bud Light has been running ads focused on gay pride and working in partnership with LGBT rights charities since 1998 without uproar.

And regardless of how you feel about Dylan’s content, anyone who gets THAT rattled by a small social media campaign needs to get a life. Sadly there will always be people who take the existence of someone they disagree with personally, and subsequently way too far. But it’s my belief that Bud Light could’ve avoided much of the vitriol by picking a transgender spokesperson who actually fits within their brand — someone with a better aligned sense of humour, someone with a reputation for ‘keeping it real’, or even someone with a bit of sex appeal.

Nevertheless, I’m sure Bud Light will think twice before sponsoring random people just because they’re blowing up online again, and hopefully everyone involved can move past this absolute storm in a teacup. Or should that be pint glass?