Adventures in Marketing

Related Post Roulette

167 Responses

  1. Avatar Rufus F.
    Ignored
    says:

    If you’ve already agreed to drink Bud Light for the evening, I’d say ‘No’ is not a word you are familiar with, but should be.Report

  2. Avatar Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    So everyone at Annheuser-Busch is drinking way too much Bud Light.Report

  3. Avatar j r
    Ignored
    says:

    So… Everything is rape now, even the things that are quite obviously not about rape?

    This is like some folks insistence that “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” is about roofieing even though roofies weren’t invented until the ’60s and the song was written in 1944.Report

    • Avatar zic in reply to j r
      Ignored
      says:

      There is some history with alcohol advertising.Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to j r
      Ignored
      says:

      I figured someone would make this statement. The thing is that analysis and looking at things at a sub-textual level matters including looking for unfortunate associations even if they did not pass through the brains of the marketing committee. I do have a friend who works as a copy editor and she does do spot checks for this kind of stuff like an ad with a couple in a romantic post where the guy is wearing a ring but the woman is not.

      We are having huge issues with sexual assault especially among young people and on college campuses. A lot of this revolves around when one or both parties are too drunk to consent. There are also issues frats that think it is good to cheer stuff like “No means Yes. Yes means Anal” Bud Light is frequently drunken at college parties because it is cheap and therefore you can drink a lot of it.

      So something about how Bud Light is going to take away your ability to say no is problematic. Do they mean because you will be black out drunk? Do they mean because you will lose all sense of common judgment.

      FWIW it could also work as a bad message on drunk driving.

      So liberals are sometimes right in their critiques.Report

      • Avatar j r in reply to Saul Degraw
        Ignored
        says:

        Bud Light is frequently drunken at college parties because it is cheap and therefore you can drink a lot of it.

        Maybe they drink Bud Light at your fancy liberal arts college. Or maybe they only drink red wine and bottles of absinthe brought back from summer backpacking trips to Prague. Either way, Bud Light isn’t that cheap. We drank Beast at my state school.

        The idea that Bud Light, or something written on a Bud Light bottle, is more likely to be complicit in acts of sexual abuse is spurious at best. This is one of those statements that people make because it fits their ideological and aesthetic priors, but does not hold up to much actual investigation or scrutiny.Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to j r
      Ignored
      says:

      It’s not just sex, even if that’s the most obvious thing. Alcohol makes people do lots of stuff they’d say no to sober. Like telling your boss what you really think of him. Or seeing if you can get your speedometer over 100. Or seeing if you can really make that jump from your building’s rooftop to the next one over.

      Bud Light — the beer of unemployed convicts in traction.Report

    • Avatar j r in reply to j r
      Ignored
      says:

      Sorry folks, but I’m not seeing any explanations of why this is so bad that couldn’t also be used to justify why shampoo manufacturers need to put instructions on their bottles.

      I suppose that someone who is either stupid enough or determined enough can misuse both products to the point of serious injury, but at the end of the day the active ingredients are what’s in the bottle and not what’s written on it.Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to j r
        Ignored
        says:

        jr,
        Is it okay to advertise that you absolutely shouldn’t drink enough of this product to be unable to consent? (complete with picture of people having sex in the background?)
        [I actually think anti-ads are kind of a cool idea, using the warnings to get your message across.]Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to j r
        Ignored
        says:

        @j-r

        Because some men have used alcohol as a way to remove ‘no’ from women’s vocabulary when it comes to sex. I’ve known guys who said, “Let’s get the girls drunk so we can get laid.” Let’s not pretend this doesn’t happen.

        Did AB mean that? Almost certainly not. But that is part of the problem… no one seemed to have the good sense to realize the issue with this slogan. And I’d guess it is because everyone in that room was not the type of person people tried to get drunk and have sex with.Report

        • Avatar zic in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          @kazzy

          “Let’s get the girls drunk so we can get laid.” Let’s not pretend this doesn’t happen.

          Did AB mean that? Almost certainly not.

          Why would you think AB didn’t mean that, or that that wasn’t one of the potential meanings they had in mind?Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to zic
            Ignored
            says:

            @zic

            I think stupid not evil here. But I could be wrong.Report

            • Avatar zic in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              A basic of advertising is creating a space where the viewer can fill in whatever they want and identify with to connect with the product being advertised.

              So I’d guess this was completely intentional, and 1) they did consider that it would cause a ruckus and 2) such a ruckus reaffirms the connection between the product and the customer; someone who’s tired of being told it’s bad to do what you need to do to get lucky or get wild or have fun. Including sex.Report

            • Avatar Will H. in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              I seem to remember a somewhat recent questionable “suicide” that would suggest otherwise.Report

        • Avatar j r in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          @kazzy

          The last thing in the world that you can accuse me of is pretending that things don’t happen. I’m about as much of a realist as you can get. So, by the same token, let’s not pretend that some people, women included, don’t purposefully use alcohol to lower their inhibitions to do all sorts of things and feel all sorts of ways that they wouldn’t do or feel while sober. That’s the whole point of drinking, whether or not AB decides to call attention to it. If you’ve got a problem with that behavior, then go straight to it and stop nibbling around the edges.

          No one who doesn’t already plan to get drunk and make questionable decisions is going to be swayed to that behavior because of a poorly thought-out sentence printed on the side of the bottle. My objection is one of trying to make association trump efficacy.

          When you single out the act of calling attention to drinking to inebriation as a separate, and somehow more offensive, than the actual act of drinking to inebriation, you’ve entered the realm of self-delusion.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to j r
            Ignored
            says:

            @j-r

            A very fair point. It raises the question of to what extent does marketing (and other aspects of media/pop culture) drive society and to what extent do they reflect society?

            That this reflects society means we need to deal with this aspect of society beyond the reflection. But at the same time, if this does drive or reinforce this aspect of society, condemning it seems a reasonable, if incomplete, response.Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to j r
      Ignored
      says:

      Your not getting the criticism of “Baby, It’s Cold Outside”. It’s critics thing that the song is rape-y because the woman clearly wants to go home but the man is doing everything in his power to convince her to stay the night and have sex with him from advocacy to getting her a bit too drunk to leave. There is that line about something being in the drink but there were drugs that people put into drinks before roofies. The phrase slipping somebody a Mickey dates from the 1890s in Chicago, where a notorious saloon owner named Mickey Finn, also known as Hinky Dink because of his short stature, would allegedly drug male patrons of his saloon so he could rob them blind.

      According to the critics of “Baby, It’s Cold Outside”, the man should have just let the woman go home. I think they are being a punch of killjoys and its just an interesting duet about seduction but they aren’t saying that the song is about roofies.Report

      • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to LeeEsq
        Ignored
        says:

        Feminists contradict themselves when they assert simultaneously that a) we live in a culture that suppresses female sexuality through slut-shaming, and b) no means no, period. If a is even a little bit true, then it necessarily follows that “no” sometimes means “I just don’t want to look like a slut.” “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” is a song about the man giving the woman excuses to stay and providing social cover, in an era where that was a much bigger deal than it is today.Report

        • Avatar Kim in reply to Brandon Berg
          Ignored
          says:

          This is covered quite simply: A Woman May Change Her Mind.
          So she’s allowed to say no, 20 times, but when she says yes, why, go right ahead…Report

        • Avatar veronica d in reply to Brandon Berg
          Ignored
          says:

          @brandon-berg — Those don’t look contradictory to me. In fact, I wonder what kind of person would find those contradictory. Seems odd.

          In any case, yes means yes, and no means no, which means do not pressure people to have sex they don’t want to have, and respect that they might make decisions while drunk that they would not make sober. And if you just met a person at a party, and they are sober, and they say clearly, “No, I’m not interested in fucking tonight,” and then they get drunk and seem to change their mind —

          Don’t be a scumbag. OMFG! If the only way you can get someone to fuck you is to wait for someone to make bad decisions, then you are literal shit.

          Cuz this is business as usual for sexual predators — and hapless jackasses who don’t realize they are sexual predators, but who literally do not care how the targets of their attraction feel, or how that person will feel the next morning, or anything.

          Just get your genitals wet by any means.

          Fucking rapists is what those people are.

          I’ve had sex with my partners while drunk. But they know me and they know I like sex and they know (almost certainly) how I will feel in the next morning, cuz we’ve had plenty of mornings. And I probably could change my mind with my current g/f, although that hasn’t happened cuz I’m pretty happy to have tons of sex, but if it did, and if I was just a slobbering mess, I bet she would put it off, just cuz I was so far gone. Why would she even enjoy that? Sex is give and take, sex is passion, the big-bright wonderful. Reaming someone who is struggling not to puke is hardly the height of romance.

          But see, this one time I did feel really strange and vulnerable the next day, after a particularly adventuresome sexual episode. So I shared how I felt with my g/f (and the other woman who was there), and they were solid. Cuz this is how decent people do. This is what love, dignity, and respect look like.

          Not drunken hookups with strangers and tons of next day regret.

          Feminists know a thing or two about sexual predation. Talk less. Listen more.Report

          • Avatar j r in reply to veronica d
            Ignored
            says:

            In any case, yes means yes, and no means no, which means do not pressure people to have sex they don’t want to have, and respect that they might make decisions while drunk that they would not make sober. And if you just met a person at a party, and they are sober, and they say clearly, “No, I’m not interested in fucking tonight,” and then they get drunk and seem to change their mind —

            Don’t be a scumbag. OMFG! If the only way you can get someone to fuck you is to wait for someone to make bad decisions, then you are literal shit.

            This is a pretty broad statement that hinges on how exactly you define “get drunk.” Is it had a few drinks and feeling adventurous? Or is it fall down drunk and don’t even know where I am?

            You can yell at dudes for not recognizing the difference, but that only hides the fact that many women don’t know the difference themselves.

            The problem as I see it is that this debate gets caught up between two ideologically opposed sides who often refuse to listen to the other. So, the reactionaries are determined to always put the focus on women and their behavior and dismiss men’s bad behavior as “boys will be boys.” And on the other side, you have feminists who are determined to give female behavior the widest possible latitude even when it veers into the obviously risky, while expecting men to always know which side of a very fuzzy line they are on.

            To the extent that this remains largely an ideological conversation rather than a common sense risk mitigation one, things are not likely to change for the better.Report

            • Avatar Kim in reply to j r
              Ignored
              says:

              Common sense risk mitigation is “make sure that everyone’s sober, consents, and then ask again before/during the deed.” It’s simple, really. (Ideally, folks sign something contractual — even if it’s not legal, just to use as a statement of intent).

              I firmly believe that people should be taught about consent, how to recognize when someone is incapable of giving consent, when consent is questionable…etc etc etc.

              But people would rather teach abstinence. And dose their 9 year olds with chemotherapy drugs to prevent “premature” puberty.Report

              • Avatar j r in reply to Kim
                Ignored
                says:

                You can be not sober and still give consent.

                And the idea that people are going to come to prior agreement on clear ground rules in the bedroom seems like wishful thinking of best. It is especially so when you are talking about young people, who are still figuring out what their personal ground rules are or should be.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to j r
                Ignored
                says:

                If you are in an altered frame of mind, your consent should be treated as questionable at best. Certainly no doctor would remove your kidney because you asked him to after you had three drinks in you (and I don’t care how “mostly sober” you were).
                Perhaps we don’t need to give the strictest version of informed consent to sex, but we should try to move towards that direction.

                (and yes, prior agreements are totally wishful thinking.)Report

              • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Kim
                Ignored
                says:

                This seems like a really easy way to destroy any heat and passion in the moment. The sign a written agreement part is going to just destroy the enthusiasm of most people. Consent is necessary and it is good but we shouldn’t make sex like a commercial transaction.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                May I touch your shoulder?
                May I nuzzle your neck?
                May I whisper in your ear if you’d like to hear a secret?
                May I belch really loudly?

                Sign here, here, here, and initial here.

                Should we discuss the passing gas waivers or another evening?

                For the record, I think it is very important that we discuss them right now.Report

              • Avatar Chris in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                We’re at a moment when our concepts of consent are confused and fucked up, pulled in multiple directions for multiple reasons, but blaming the women who demand stronger concepts of consent for that is pretty fucked up. And that’s what we’ve seen here every time the topic arises.Report

              • Avatar j r in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                We’re at a moment when our concepts of consent are confused and fucked up, pulled in multiple directions for multiple reasons, but blaming the women who demand stronger concepts of consent for that is pretty fucked up. And that’s what we’ve seen here every time the topic arises.

                I actually do not agree with the first part of that statement. I think we know quite well what consent is, but that some people are unwilling to live with the ramifications and repercussions of what consent is. In other words, people want to create this space where young people are free to experiment and push their boundaries and make mistakes, but, at the same time, shield them from the consequences of those actions. It is a noble goal, but I question how realistic it is.

                To paraphrase Marlo Stanfield, we want it to be one way, but it’s the other way.

                And I get that you think “blaming women” is fucked up. I think it’s pretty fucked up that anytime someone makes a good faith argument in opposition to the feminist position on these issues, that person is likely to be accused of “blaming women” or being a rap apologist. That’s just what happens when people share contrary views.Report

              • Avatar Chris in reply to j r
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, I’m all for experimentation, but your own pet issue is not the only issue involved. The reason consent is messy is because it’s not merely something a person gives, it’s also something another person has to interpret. The reason some people want more stringent concepts of consent is because some failures of interpretation, malicious or not, result in rape. Your pet issue is the cases, real or potential, in which more stringent views of consent result in someone saying that their consent was not genuine, but the very act of focusing on those ignores the motivation for the more stringent ones (and attributes to that motivation dishonesty, even malice).Report

              • Avatar j r in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                Your pet issue is the cases, real or potential, in which more stringent views of consent result in someone saying that their consent was not genuine, but the very act of focusing on those ignores the motivation for the more stringent ones (and attributes to that motivation dishonesty, even malice).

                No. My pet issue is the belief that being well-meaning is never enough. If you want to do any good in this world, you need to be right.

                In this context, the idea that a sentence on the side of the bottle has some magical efficacy that the stuff inside the bottle does not is almost purely wishful thinking.Report

              • Avatar Chris in reply to j r
                Ignored
                says:

                To be honest, I don’t care at all about the marketing campaign. That’s Saul’s thing. I mean, the criticisms were predictable, so it was stupid, but I don’t find it offensive.

                But yeah, that is your pet issue. It’s the one that comes up every time the issue of consent comes up (and you’re not alone). Even if your critics admit it’s an issue, it’s still the only one (or the only species of issue) you’re going to raise (and again, you’re not alone) on the subject of consent. And that’s why it’s hard to take that broad position seriously, because it’s not actually serious.Report

              • Avatar j r in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                @chris

                If you’re not taking me seriously, that’s fine. You’ve no obligation to. And I care much more about making sure that my ideas conform to reality and have a reasonable chance at success than whether people them seriously or not for ideological reasons.

                Don’t pretend, though, that it’s because I’m obsessed with raising this “pet issue,” especially since here I am raising not this pet issue. Yes, I do care about false rape claims, and I have some pretty good historical reasons for that, but that’s not my only, or even primary, motivation.

                As I’ve said before, the whole idea that the way to stop rape and sexual assault is to make men more feminist writ large is spurious, because the empirical evidence suggests that most rapes and assaults are committed by a small minority of habitual and purposeful predators and not by a bunch of dudes just not being sufficiently indoctrinated in social justice theories.Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to j r
                Ignored
                says:

                As I’ve said before, the whole idea that the way to stop rape and sexual assault is to make men more feminist writ large is spurious, because the empirical evidence suggests that most rapes and assaults are committed by a small minority of habitual and purposeful predators and not by a bunch of dudes just not being sufficiently indoctrinated in social justice theories.

                This is true. However, it is also the case that their weapon of choice is alcohol, which is where the “drunk sex is rape” stuff comes from. Also the predators show patterns of “normalizing” rape behavior, by joking with other men, by saying precisely what they do to women, and getting other men to agree. They also routinely express terrible attitudes about women.

                So indeed an increase in social justice consciousness will make it more difficult for these men to operate, insofar as they will stand out as being particularly horrible men, in more visible ways, than is the case now where their terrible attitudes are openly expressed by men who are not predators.

                Plus, you know a lot of stuff happens between the poles of happy, healthy sex and rape. Many people have terrible approaches to their sexuality, and they either fumble around and don’t get sex, or they get terrible sex in bad conditions, where maybe she “gives it up,” but is a drunk hookup really admirable? Is this what you hope for?

                There are other ways to approach sex. They’re better.Report

              • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Consent might be sexy but contract formation is definitely not sexy.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                I hear some people find loopholes pretty sexy…Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, you just don’t know how to make a contract sexy!Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to Kim
                Ignored
                says:

                Good grief, no one is going to sign anything. Like, even in the most consent focus BDSM spaces no one ever signs anything.

                Well okay, BDSM is pretty big and you’ll probably find someone somewhere who signs stuff, cuz like maybe they have a signing stuff kink. Which is pretty weird, but YKIO.

                But guess what, consent is actually super easy. And like, you guys who rail against it are — well, this is gonna be kinda harsh, but your problem is you have such little experience and you’re talking about this stuff based on what you imagine. Stop doing that.

                First, body language is fine, but be honest with yourself. How good are you at reading body language?

                If you suck at it, then this is a weakness. We compensate for our weaknesses. One thing you might try is using your words.

                But what about “killing the mood”? Look, asking about sex stuff will not kill the mood, unless you suck at asking stuff. But then, that’s your problem, and if you are such a wet noodle dork that you cannot effectively ask, what makes you think your fumbling attempts at suave body language are going to work better? Like, which of you here is some master of physical seduction?

                Not to be mean or anything. But for real.

                (For the record, I can be a total dork in bed. Sometimes. Other times things flow well. My girlfriend seems to like me this way.)

                It’s okay to be a bit awkward. Just own it.

                You can ask to kiss a woman. Or you can “go in for the kiss.”

                No really, you can do this. It’s easy.

                See, there is this pause as you draw close, and this gives the target of the kiss a chance to deflect. Easy peasy. Just remember the pause.

                And give a smirk or something, and eye contact.

                “I’d like to kiss you now.”

                Maybe you’re holding her hand while you say it.

                Or even, “I’m GOING to kiss you now.”

                Kinda HAWT, right, some tall, attractive man with hazel eyes, telling me what I am about to do. Yes, yes yes.

                But don’t forget the pause. Be looking at her, reading her response.

                She can say yes with her eyes, her posture, the way she draws close.

                If she likes the kiss, keep kissing.

                Trust me, you’ll want to keep kissing. She’ll want you to keep kissing. Kissing is the bestest.

                Unless she does not. If she does not, she will communicate this.

                And here’s the hard shit, she might not be quite verbal, for all kinds of messy reasons, but if you don’t understand and accept this fact then you are a terrible human being. I wish none of you were like this, but some of you are. Stop being that way. You care about her, she is the person you are sharing sex with. You should care a fuckton about her feelings.

                Does she seem cold? Distant? Is she drawing away? Going limp? Looking off into space?

                How good are you at body language?

                If something seems wrong, use your words.

                But don’t be wishy washy or anything. Each woman is different, of course, but wishy-washiness is not HAWT. Make it clear what you want (hot fucking now!) and then make sure you understand what she wants.

                This shit is really common sense, but it gets tricky cuz people abuse other people, cuz they think they get to skip over the communication parts.

                Consent culture is trying to codify this, to varying degrees of success. It will never fully be codified. I know this. But there is a balance of power between predators and their victims, and folks get caught up in that.

                Too bad. Rape is the hard shit and your sad boner is not. Sorry.

                But if you have your communication skills down, then you can make it work. Tons of us do, right now, in social spaces that run according to full-on consent culture.

                I’m literally fucking autistic and I figured this out. Seriously.Report

              • Avatar j r in reply to veronica d
                Ignored
                says:

                And like, you guys who rail against it are — well, this is gonna be kinda harsh, but your problem is you have such little experience and you’re talking about this stuff based on what you imagine.

                What makes you think that?Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to j r
                Ignored
                says:

                @j-r — It’s mostly the comments such as “If you ask a woman to kiss you she’ll throw you out of bed!”

                Which, I suppose some woman might. But how are you asking? And, to be blunt, how successful are you really when you do not ask?

                Be honest.

                Cuz I’ve done the asking stuff and had it work. I’ve also done the non-verbal stuff and had it work. And the usual argument, “If we try this stuff we’ll be FOREVER ALONE!” is usually from people who are kinda forever-alone right now, even using their magic ambiguous consent practices.

                And that’s the point. The problem is not the verbal-versus-not-verbal stuff. It’s not about “clear consent” or “enthusiastic consent.” It’s about people who lack the basic social calibration to get any of this right.

                And maybe they clumsily make a pass at some woman and make a complete ass of themselves. Don’t be that person.

                Or maybe she gets a little too drunk, and she actually doesn’t wanna get sexy, but she is slobbery and you are horny — and most rapists are repeat predators, and most people would find her friends and make sure she gets home safe, cuz most people are totes righteous.

                But then, she’s there and she looks so good and you’re wanting it bad — and you fuck up.

                That’s rape.

                Regardless of what the law says, either way, she’s been raped and that damage is done.

                Don’t even get close to that path. Instead, work on the social stuff. Get that stuff down. Get it solid. Then you get to a place where people really want to fuck you hard, even when they’re sober, and then verbal versus non-verbal won’t matter that much.

                (BTW, I used “she” pronouns, cuz it makes the sentence structure better. But honestly, it’s not strictly gendered. Men can be raped. Nothing I said here changes regardless of which gender is on which side. I’ve been sexually assaulted by women.)Report

              • Avatar switters in reply to veronica d
                Ignored
                says:

                This seems to happen every time this subject comes up. Take alcohol out of the equation, and I’m guessing 99% of us would agree 99% of the time whether there was consent or not. Add alcohol and everything goes to hell. Mostly because of what alcohol does to one’s ability to give informed consent. The problem is, alcohol is typically an issue with the person claiming there was consent and the person claiming there wasn’t.Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to switters
                Ignored
                says:

                @switters — Precisely. My g/f and I have had sex while a bit tipsy. But we’re grownups and we’ve been doing this a while. Drunk young folks, on the other hand, mess up. A lot. And people with poor social calibration and who are desperate for sexual validation — from their friends who routinely joke about fucking drunk women — this is a recipe for the big bad fuck up.

                And heteronormative dating culture is a mess, with weird flirting games and weird status games, and the women who want to fuck don’t say it and the women who don’t want to fuck sometimes do say it — for dumb reasons. And the dudes are as bad, callous bros or nerdtastic little shits thinking they can learn something from “The Game.” Or whatever. It’s all really gross. Just stop.

                Get good a flirting, or at least decent enough. It’s okay to be awkward, but own it. And figure out which potential partners are worth your time. Who is awesome and admirable and smart and knows how to communicate and doesn’t play bullshit games. Tell them you like them. Maybe they’ll like you back.

                And if you do all that and you still don’t get sex? Well, that sucks. Keep trying I guess.Report

              • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to veronica d
                Ignored
                says:

                @veronica-d
                and the women who want to fuck don’t say it

                So after all that bitching at me, it turns out you agree with what I said, anyway.

                Maybe you should try listening.Report

              • Avatar j r in reply to veronica d
                Ignored
                says:

                @veronica-d

                @j r — It’s mostly the comments such as “If you ask a woman to kiss you she’ll throw you out of bed!”

                Which, I suppose some woman might. But how are you asking? And, to be blunt, how successful are you really when you do not ask?

                Be honest.

                I’m just trying to figure out if you are re talking to me, and if so, why you think that I struggle with these things.

                I know that @leeesq has made comments about certain dating issues that he's had, but if you're assuming that because I feel X way about these issues, then I must be having problems… well, that just doesn't follow.

                I'm not seeing where anyone made the "throw you out of bed" comment.

                For the record, I am broadly interested in and supportive of the idea of enthusiastic affirmative consent. However, this sort of thing does set off red flags for me:

                Regardless of what the law says, either way, she’s been raped and that damage is done.

                If we’re not using the legal definition of what does and does not constitute rape, then on what are we relying?Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to j r
                Ignored
                says:

                jr,
                Can we just use the legal definition of non-consensual sex? Use the medical “informed consent” if needed…
                Because I’d like to consider the idea that Both Parties didn’t consent…Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to Kim
                Ignored
                says:

                Both parties (or more for group sex) can fail to give consent. Both parties can be raped.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to veronica d
                Ignored
                says:

                I do wonder how we are supposed to punish two people who claim to have been raped by each other, and are showing obvious signs of mental health damage (or, good lord, physical as well).Report

              • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to veronica d
                Ignored
                says:

                @veronica-d has it ever occurred to you that jaybird and I might be having a little joke at what Kimmie wrote?Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to LeeEsq
                Ignored
                says:

                @leeesq — Does it matter? I saw what @kim said. I saw what you guys were saying. I’ve seen this topic get discussed before, along with other variants of “OMG how can I get explicit consent! It will throw off my master game!”

                And consent culture does not look like that. These are bizarre critiques made from a place of ignorance.

                Plus, talking about what consent actually looks like is worthwhile regardless of how the conversation began.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to veronica d
                Ignored
                says:

                My problem is that people are having sex with people that they wouldn’t be able to order a meal for.

                If you don’t even know what restaurant they’d want you to drive through (or, if older, get takeout from) after you Xed in their Y, you probably shouldn’t be Xing in their Y.

                No wonder people are getting hurt by each other.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                We’re living in a time where we’re trying to hold two contradictory thoughts at one time.

                Sex is something that is of no particular consequence.

                Sex is something that requires clear (if not enthusiastic) consent for every escalation into new territory lest one of the partners be sexually assaulted, or worse, raped.

                If it is possible to thread that needle, it requires more skill than most have (let alone most adolescents).Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                @jaybird — Sex is powerful. It’s the mating drive, something deep in our psyche. If you deny that you’re gonna fuck up.

                That said, this does not argue against casual sex, insofar as tons of people have all kinds of amazing casual sex, and I’m not sure if that’s notably worse than all the completely broken relationships people find themselves in.

                Warning: TMI, veronica’s tawdry life.

                Okay look, I have casual sex, from time to time. In fact, I had casual sex this weekend, with a smoking hot woman honestly a bit out of my league. And yeah, I probably could not order for her at a restaurant — but of course she’s a grown up and can no doubt handle ordering for herself.

                The thing is, yeah, it was casual. But it wasn’t meaningless.

                And that gets hard to talk about, without going waaaaay down the TMI rabbit hole. Just let me say that having sex in that time and place, with that woman, in the context we shared, was a really big deal for me.

                Did she find it meaningful? I hope she did. She certainly was affectionate the next morning. We’ve spoken since, and we agree a repeat performance would be really nice. There is some stuff we didn’t get to try we might try.

                I’ve never had meaningless sex. I hope I never do.

                Contrastingly, let’s talk a bit about my girlfriend. She has had meaningless sex. In fact, she used to work as a full service sex worker. She hated it. It was often grotesque and humiliating, and for each time she got a man she enjoyed being with, there were a dozen she did not.

                People exist who thrive doing sex work. I don’t know how or why, although I suspect they find a way to make the work somehow meaningful. Maybe they get to choose just certain kinds of clients, those who somehow shine.

                My g/f didn’t get to do that. The life of a tranny call girl can be pretty rough.

                The point is, sex is an enormous thing. But there ain’t one right way to do it, nor is there one kind of relationship where it can happily occur.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to veronica d
                Ignored
                says:

                I ain’t gonna tell you how to live.

                I’m more of a “it will all end in tears” kinda guy.Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                @jaybird — Maybe. We each step to the table and place our bets. But thing is, I know a lot of folks who bet on the “get married” square, who then ten years later are fighting tooth and nail to see who gets the china. So next they look around at the boundaries of their romantic lives, and maybe now is the time to start living.

                I don’t know where my romantic life will lead, but I’ve done the monogamy thing, the poly thing, the kinky thing, all kinds of things. I love my girlfriend, and yeah, the fact we’re both sexually adventurous is a big part of that.

                That’s for now. Maybe it’s for the duration. Don’t know.

                In the end I’m rotting in the ground like everyone, but at least I got to do some amazing things.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to veronica d
                Ignored
                says:

                You know, I’ve been thinking about this some more and I know that we are all the culmination of what has happened to us with a sprinkling of what we couldn’t help but do/be mixed in.

                Like any established computer lab, we’re a bunch of kludged kludges on top of kludged kludges and anybody can walk in and say “why in the hell did you do *THAT*?” as they point at established workarounds.

                Yeah, yeah. If you had control of the lab from the beginning, the wires wouldn’t look like that and we’d have virtualized years ago.

                But here we are.

                Anyway, I understand that we’re all trying to get through this vale of tears as best we can and “it’ll all end in tears” doesn’t taken into account the tears required to get us to this point.

                We just have to do the best we can with our meager moral agency and try to be kind to each other.

                Even if it will all end in tears.

                Good luck.Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                @jaybird — Ah. Got it. Yeah, that I agree with.

                Life is a veil of tears, except for when it isn’t.Report

          • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to veronica d
            Ignored
            says:

            @veronica-d If you want to write a response to the things I actually said, I’ll be happy to address that. Not going to waste my time on this, though.Report

      • Avatar j r in reply to LeeEsq
        Ignored
        says:

        It’s critics thing that the song is rape-y because the woman clearly wants to go home but the man is doing everything in his power to convince her to stay the night and have sex with him from advocacy to getting her a bit too drunk to leave.

        It could be that or it could be a song about a woman who wants to stay the night, but is concerned about not wanting to seem a slut and about what the neighbors will think of her for spending the night at a man’s house. People who read it as a song about date rape are choosing to do so, because of their own ideological priors.

        As for the “hey, what’s in this drink” line, that’s a pretty stock comic line from that era. Characters use it when they want to signal that they are getting carried away in the moment and doing something that they “normally wouldn’t.” In those situations, the answer to what’s in this drink is usually something like “nothing” or “water,” which is the punchline that confirms that the character is using the drink as an excuse.

        And yes, “slipping a mickey” has existed for some time, but as a way of robbing people or kidnapping. Funny that I’ve never heard anyone claim that line was a precursor to the man Shanghaiing the woman onto a steamer ship where she would be pressed into service as a merchant marine.Report

    • Avatar Vikram Bath in reply to j r
      Ignored
      says:

      I think the most normal interpretation of the line would be “This is the beer for people who when asked if they want another round say ‘sure!’ rather than ‘no, I have to go to work in the morning.'”

      I find it implausible that the writers actually meant the slogan to mean “Give this to people you want to sleep, and they won’t say ‘no’.”

      But that doesn’t mean someone shouldn’t have guessed that someone could interpret that way and killed it.

      But that in turn doesn’t mean someone would interpret it that way. Maybe only 1 in 10 slogans that have questionable interpretations are actually called out on them. It certainly seems that way for t-shirt slogans. It seems random to me when there will be an online backlash. Given this, I’m not a fan of the idea of having one person whose entire job is to be cynical about things.Report

      • Avatar Glyph in reply to Vikram Bath
        Ignored
        says:

        I think alcohol advertisers, like users of their product, have to walk a very thin line between one truth:

        1.) “This product is a social lubricant and inhibition-reducer, with which you can enjoy yourself, let go and have fun!”

        and another:

        2.) “This product is an inebriant and inhibition-reducer, that often makes various poor outcomes more likely, from missed work, hangovers and vomiting, to car accidents and waking up somewhere with no pants!”

        I agree they probably weren’t intending to throw “rape” in there; but they had one too many and edged towards 2 from 1 and got burned.Report

        • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Glyph
          Ignored
          says:

          @glyph

          I don’t know. Alcohol can also go on the taste (I’ve heard Sam Adams ads on Pandora which are all about taste and trying to reclaim status as a craft beer), Sophistication and Adventure, Relaxing at home or the beach or whereever (Corona does this). The perfect thing to go with certain kinds of food or events, the best spirit for cocktails, etc.Report

          • Avatar Glyph in reply to Saul Degraw
            Ignored
            says:

            Oh, I didn’t mean to imply it was the ONLY angle they could market on.

            But when they go for the “fun” angle, they have to be careful, because some of the exact effects that make alcohol “fun”, are also the parts that can make it dangerous in excess.

            I mean, think of the car commercials (DRIVER IS ON A CLOSED COURSE) that show some luxury car barrelling around at excessive speeds most drivers will never achieve.

            What if beer ads showed me, stumbling around and slurring after I polished off a case by myself?Report

        • Avatar j r in reply to Glyph
          Ignored
          says:

          I agree they probably weren’t intending to throw “rape” in there; but they had one too many and edged towards 2 from 1 and got burned.

          Isn’t that just another way of saying that Bud Lite’s real sin here is being honest about their product?Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to Vikram Bath
        Ignored
        says:

        Vik,
        If they wanted to not go with the “rapey” aspect, they’d have put this in print with people painting their feet and walking on the ceiling. (Or eating rocks out front)…
        There are ways you can do the “totally wild, crazy… and safe”Report

      • Avatar morat20 in reply to Vikram Bath
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m more cynical.

        Look, let’s take the number 1 truth of advertising here: Sex sells.

        Sex sells so well that it is used to sell practically everything. If it’s not the implicit “buy this and get her” it’s one step back “Buy this and be him, the kinda of guy that gets the girl”.

        That’s not a particularly difficult truth, or one that’s disputed. Sex is a huge lever. It’s a fundamental aspect of our nature, the drive to reproduce. Of COURSE it’s going to be used in advertising!

        Let’s step into another: Beer is, bluntly, no stranger to ‘sex sells’ as an advertising tactic. In fact, far more often than not it’s pretty blunt about it.

        So I’m not above thinking they were aware it could be read “Bud Light: It’ll change her mind!”. They were counting on it.

        Explicitly it’s “Bud Light: The party rolls on!”. Implicitly it’s “The party rolls on into your pants”. It doesn’t matter which one you subconsciously associate with it — more and longer-lasting fun and adventure or higher chances of getting laid. Having multiple associations is a benefit, not a drawback.Report

    • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to j r
      Ignored
      says:

      @j-r “So… Everything is rape now, even the things that are quite obviously not about rape?”

      No, not really. There are a ton of slogans I hear every time I watch one of the NBA playoff games, and no one’s claiming they are about rape.

      Did the people at the advertising firm Bud Light hired mean to make a joke about raping people? No, they didn’t. Should it have occurred to them that quite a lot of people would take it that way? Yes, it should have. It really, really should have. Especially considering the millions Bud Light no doubt paid them to make sure they could have a campaign that would be free of this kind of controversy.Report

      • Avatar j r in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        Should it have occurred to them that quite a lot of people would take it that way? Yes, it should have.

        I’m not so sure about that. It’s possible that the people who brew, market and drink Bud Lite simply are not as sensitive to the sort of social justice concerns that animate activist movements and certain corners of the internet. It’s also possible that they are aware and are purposefully courting controversy. I don’t know enough to know definitively.

        There is, however, a larger question that animates all these sorts of mini-controversies. There are different levels of awareness at work. At the first level is the awareness of knowing whether you are being offensive in a broad and fairly obvious way. The second level is awareness of whether what you are doing can be construed by some people, with a particular point of view, as offensive. And these is a third level of awareness as to whether what you are doing can be opportunistically twisted by people with obviously nefarious motives (ie can you be trolled?).

        You can argue that being caught out there on any level means that you’re bad at your job, but that rests on a particular kind of tautological argument. Personally, I find it unsatisfying, but then again, I’m the kind of person who sees what the Protein World people are doing and thinks, “right on!”

        We would probably agree that making mistakes at the first level is generally wrong and that leaving yourself open to trolling, at the third level, may be unwise, but it’s more of a mistake than an ethical misstep. So the question is how to think about that middle level.

        Personally, I fall back on the reasonable person standard and I think that insisting this particular Bud Lite slogan is about date rape is an unreasonable proposition.Report

        • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to j r
          Ignored
          says:

          “It’s possible that the people who brew, market and drink Bud Lite simply are not as sensitive to the sort of social justice concerns that animate activist movements and certain corners of the internet”

          Agreed, which is why they hire ad agencies — like the very one that developed this campaign — whose job it actually is to be sensitive to these things.

          A good (though admittedly not very practical) rule of thumb for any major advertising firm to use when judging the potential fall out of a new campaign slogan should be:

          “If it was pretty obvious to Tod Kelly at first blush how people were inevitably going to take this slogan, it really should have been a wee bit obvious to us.”Report

          • Avatar Kim in reply to Tod Kelly
            Ignored
            says:

            Hence why DD and I think this is just pure trolling.

            Chuck Norris – level trolling.Report

            • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Kim
              Ignored
              says:

              The Internet Occam’s Razor: Don’t first attribute to direct malice behavior that is adequately explained by trolling.

              Hellkitten’s Corollary: That doesn’t mean trolling isn’t malicious.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Lol. That actually is the World’s Occam’s Razor — considering that bibi really did have chuck norris endorse him.

                Political machinations of trolls are loads of fun to watch.

                Of course, being trolls, they’ll play both sides against the other. And then make a profit betting on the outcome.

                It is wise to never steal from a troll, nor make of one a personal enemy.
                A lesson the Kochs are still learning, I fear.Report

          • Avatar j r in reply to Tod Kelly
            Ignored
            says:

            @tod-kelly

            I think that this is just an area of disagreement. I think that people should learn to stop scanning the world for things to get offended about sooner than companies should be policing themselves for anything that could possible be found offensive by someone somewhere.

            Perhaps this is why I got out of marketing work fifteen years ago.Report

  4. Avatar Miss Mary
    Ignored
    says:

    At my previous job, she called herself “grandma Lex”. She was known for being the “practical” one who would always “throw the wrench in to the works”. In her defense, she was there long before us idealistic jerk-offs and she’s the only one still there after we’ve all moved on due to (what we call in the biz) cynical discontent.

    And that is a perfect example of the catch 22 of disability services .

    Aw, only you could ruin beer on a Wednesday night. 😉Report

  5. Avatar Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    You tell us we shouldn’t be surprised by this. So why is it newsworthy? I mean, if you want to talk about how a lack of women in decision-making powers inevitably leads to stupid ass decisions like this… okay, let’s talk about this. But to take a pot shot at an industry because it doesn’t bat 1.000? I just don’t get it.Report

    • Avatar switters in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      Kazzy – Is this your response to Saul’s OP? Is surprise required for newsworthiness? Is newsworthiness required of a subject for it be conversation worthy? Is this response based on the post, or the poster?Report

      • Avatar Glyph in reply to switters
        Ignored
        says:

        The day that “beer company picks terrible slogan with unfortunate associations” isn’t worthy of at least a snarky OTC post, is the day that I no longer understand the internet.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to switters
        Ignored
        says:

        @switters

        Probably both. And I’m okay with that. As a writer here, I’m concerned about the quality of the work we produce. Poking the eye of the marketing industry without offering much in the way of substantive criticism just feels weak to me. “Hahaha, you guys messed up! Idiots!” That is what this post feels like to me. And I feel like we, as OT, are better than that.

        If OTC becomes a running record of every mistake ever made by anyone… well, we’ll never want for content! But that feels boring to me. And if we’re only attacking the marketing industry… well, why? And if our criticism isn’t constructive… what is the point? Mocking? Again, I think we are better than that.

        I’m also curious if Saul himself is responding to the company behind the messaging or just the message itself. Would he have written this post if a micro/craft brewery made this blunder? He’s already gone after Budweiser before.Report

        • Avatar j r in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          If OTC becomes a running record of every mistake ever made by anyone… well, we’ll never want for content! But that feels boring to me.

          Plus, Gawker Media has already cornered that market.Report

        • Avatar Glyph in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          I posted a brief bit here once about a sports stadium design that inexplicably-resembled a huge toilet, because I thought it was funny that somehow professionals spent so much money and effort to achieve something so stupid. I think that Bud and their marketing team can handle the mockery. I’m not worried that Anheuser-Busch is going to commit suicide over it.

          What do you do with something that’s basically just a brief silly “hey lookit this”, but has just enough potentially-emotional content (whether you personally see the rape association here or not, it’s inevitable that somebody will) to preclude tagging it Mindless Diversions? OTC seems like a fine location.

          Why weren’t you all over Jonathan’s similar 12-word OTC post about “The Land of Rape and Honey”, that clearly inspired this one?

          https://ordinary-times.com/blog/2015/04/22/adventures-in-civic-marketing

          It’s just an OTC post. Don’t click or comment on it, if you don’t care about it at all. Or write your own response piece that you think is better. Or go to the editors and complain that OTC is being misused, and its good name besmirched by simple low mockery of multinational beverage corporations and their advertising teams.

          This just looks petty and personal.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Glyph
            Ignored
            says:

            @glyph

            See below but my main issue is making this about “marketing” without actually discussing what’s wrong with “marketing”. It’d be like me saying, “Hey… this plumber was a jerk. What’s wrong with plumbers?” and leaving it at that.

            Edited to add: The presence of morons in the advertising is not unique to that world. In fact, I’m sure they have a process by which ads are vetted. And that process can, will, and does fail. This piece implies there is something uniquely dumb about marketing/marketers and that they are uniquely in need of a “requirement” to prevent stupid slogans like this. Which, hey, might be true. But make that case with more than a single anecdote.Report

            • Avatar Kim in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              When your ad agency has someone in the bathroom crying Every Single Day, and you only spend 2% of your time on work related conversation, your ad agency has Problems.

              Not all Ad Agencies are like this, however.Report

            • Avatar Glyph in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              Please see the title of Jonathan’s post.

              Please also note that Saul’s post was longer and more substantive than Jonathan’s, questioning why no one on staff caught this, and proposing a solution to prevent similar ocurrences in future.

              Please also note that nowhere does Saul state that “Marketing” is the problem, and the word appears only once, in his title, which is ironic (the reader is given to understand that this is in fact a tale of MISadventure), and is also, again, a callback to Jonathan’s previous post, about marketing slogans that can be easily misconstrued.

              You’re reaching.

              (If *I* wanted to be petty, I’d point out the random capitalization and glaring typo in such a short post. Saul, you gotta proofread, please).Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Glyph
                Ignored
                says:

                The preview indicated we should not be surprised at yet another marketing failure.

                To quote: “You will not be surprised but a marketing team failed again….”Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                You are correct, it appears in the blurb as well. My bad.

                Thrice, then, including once in the body that I missed.

                Do you disagree that “a marketing team failed again”?

                If you knew that’s “not surprising”: why’d you click through?

                (A: Marketing!)Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to Glyph
                Ignored
                says:

                I should also say – I’m not comparing Saul’s piece to Jonathan’s to put Jonathan’s down, at all.

                I think both pieces were just fine for what they were – brief, interesting, just-a-little-absurd conversation-starters.

                That you want to treat very similar pieces differently, is the part I am interested in.

                Seems to me that’s about the author, more than anything else.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Glyph
                Ignored
                says:

                @glyph

                Jonathan didn’t generalize to civic marketers in general. He didn’t say we should not be surprised that they screwed the pooch. He said, “Woh, look at the screw up these guys made!” Which isn’t particularly great but for a giggle, sure, go for it.

                Saul went further in making it about marketing in general. That, to me, is different. And given his penchant for generalizing from very small things to grand social trends, I think push back is often warranted. To the extent that AB’s fuckup here plays into his confirmation bias that marketing is some inherently flawed ‘thing’, I’m challenging him to think more deeply about it. Whether he chooses to or not is up to him. He similarly dismisses just about any and all criticism I offer him out of hand because of who I am.Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                “a” marketing team is singular. One team does not the entirety of marketing make.

                “Again” likely refers back to the Jonathan piece, of nearly the same title and subject matter; though if it refers to other marketing snafus, who cares? Does anyone deny that they occur, and are amusing when they do?

                I fail to see some general swipe at marketing as a whole here. The piece makes no general claims.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Glyph
                Ignored
                says:

                I did not make the connection to Jonathan’s piece. If that was his intention, I totally missed it.

                If we shouldn’t be surprised that “a marketing team” failed again, doesn’t that indicate we shouldn’t expect success from marketing teams?

                I mean, if I wrote, “No surprise here… a black dude got arrested… Maybe we should assign them all babysitters…” surely you would object… no?Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Saying that “marketing and advertising departments” should be “required” to do anything is generalizing.Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t know if he went as far as “should” be required; he said it’d be “interesting” if they were. Reads as ruminating, to me.

                He doesn’t say it should be law; perhaps he is thinking of company policy, or best business practices.

                A marketing team screwed up (again), and Saul speculated there are maybe ways to avoid that. NBD, IMO.Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Kazzy: I mean, if I wrote, “No surprise here… a black dude got arrested… Maybe we should assign them all babysitters…” surely you would object… no?

                Well, yes, I’d object. ‘Cos that’d be straight-up racism, which has little if anything to do with anything here beyond the mere fact of utilizing generalizations (even conceding arguendo that Saul is generalizing to the marketing industry).Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Glyph
                Ignored
                says:

                @glyph

                I think we should avoid generalizing especially when being critical. Generalizing criticism is rarely a good thing. If I was in the marketing industry, I wouldn’t take kindly to a post that essentially felt like, “Look at how dumb marketers are. They practically need babysitters!”

                But, hey, if I’m alone in that regard, so be it.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                I think we should avoid generalizing especially when being critical.

                That’s an awfully broad statement. If I read about a college faking test scores to keep its scholarship athletes eligible, my reaction is going to be “Yeah, and what else is new?”Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Mike Schilling
                Ignored
                says:

                @mike-schilling

                And if someone pushed back, I’m sure you could offer evidence to support your position.

                Maybe I’m crazy, but are we all just accepting that marketers are idiots who need babysitting to keep their idiocy from going on full display?Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                There have been enough really stupid ad campaigns to conclude that that’s not uncommon. The thing that boggles me is the number of people who knew about this and had to sign off on it without even one saying “Are you people crazy?”Report

              • Avatar Chris in reply to Mike Schilling
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m never convinced that his wasn’t the goal. I mean, you’re Budweiser, how do you get attention for your ad campaign, and therefore your product? Pretty much any standard ad campaign is going to be ignored, because everyone already knows you, right? So if you want to make a splash and get noticed, get people thinking and talking about your brand, what do you do?

                How ’bout creating controversy? I mean, in 3 months, when Bud’s looking at their April and May numbers, is there any real chance they’re going to see a real hit from this? Is there a chance that the increased attention might actually cause a bump in those numbers?

                (See also Kolohe’s link.)Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                Chris: I’m never convinced that his wasn’t the goal….if you want to make a splash and get noticed, get people thinking and talking about your brand, what do you do?

                How ’bout creating controversy?

                So when it comes specifically to marketing, the usual “never ascribe to intent that which can be explained by stupidity” gets flipped around?

                [ducks from thread, before Kazzy goes nuclear]Report

              • Avatar Chris in reply to Glyph
                Ignored
                says:

                I said this in the McDonald’s thread with the same theme, so maybe I am too likely to attribute intention where stupidity would be a better explanation.Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                I was just teasing. I agree that when you are talking about advertising, which has the specific goal of getting people to think and talk about a product, and people are thinking and talking about the product, that the “mistake” was intentional is certainly a big possibility.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Glyph
                Ignored
                says:

                @glyph

                If @chris is right, wouldn’t that make this a success? Perhaps one worth criticizing, but along different lines than, “These guys are morons needing baby sitters.”

                There is room for a healthy conversation about the nature of advertising. I’d actually be REALLY interesting to read an insider’s perspective on it. My friend works in marketing and branding and I’m always amazed at the different things they think about.

                “Dude… it’s not what about we say in the commercial. It is about the color palette and the background imagery you don’t even know. But, also, yea, what we say is REALLY intentional!”

                Sometimes they are playing chess and we’re just playing checkers.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                2006: Someone ran a damn fine ad with 9-11 imagery in it (no one noticed, it was subtle — but devilishly effective).

                I did write something about marketing and nat’l charities, maybe I’ll see where I put it…Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Only the sales numbers will tell if it’s a “success”. It’s entirely possible they anticipated this kerfuffle, and people are going to snap up the bottles the way people collect misprinted coins.

                I can tell you that the slogan doesn’t affect my likelihood of drinking Bud Light – it’s certainly not my preference, but I’ll drink it if it’s what’s available.

                But I DO think it is a stupid slogan, even leaving aside the rape implication – if you are trying to sell beer, don’t cause people to call to mind all the dumb things that they have done or could do under the influence.

                That’s like advertising Night Train with “Gives You Wicked Hangovers!” printed on the bottle.Report

              • Avatar Chris in reply to Glyph
                Ignored
                says:

                I assume, and perhaps this is obvious, that the target of this add was not Glyph, or Chris, or even Kazzy, but the, er, 21-year old who’s, er, just entering the beer world or still trying to figure out the beer world, who doesn’t have a lot of money (so a real Belgian ale is right out), and who probably thinks the lack of inhibitions afforded by alcohol is a good thing. These folks are both new customers and, for a well-established product like Bud, the margins where advertising has an effect.

                For them, the campaign’s not stupid, and the extra attention likely just means more Bud being bought by, er, 21-year olds.Report

              • Avatar aaron david in reply to Glyph
                Ignored
                says:

                @glyph
                “But I DO think it is a stupid slogan, even leaving aside the rape implication – if you are trying to sell beer, don’t cause people to call to mind all the dumb things that they have done or could do under the influence.”

                I think @chris nails it, you (and I and for that matter anyone on this blog) are not the target audience. It’s the guy making a beer run, standing in the cooler aisle and quickly picking between Bud and Coors. Not 40-somethings who rarely have more than 2 beers on a given night and then usually grab an IPA or a wheat beer of some sort.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to zic
        Ignored
        says:

        Now think about the strength of this post if it included such things in the discussion? Thanks, @zic .Report

        • Avatar zic in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          @kazzy you’re welcome.

          Upthread, I linked another that adds similar value.

          And both are designed to add value in a different way; one’s from The Guardian, the other from Al Jazeera America.

          They are both doing an incredible job on reporting on US News, and deserve more reading and sourcing here.Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      @kazzy

      I first saw this story from James Hanley who issued similar snark and I linked to Slate which is a website with much more presence. If you have criticisms about my pieces, I’d rather you keep them to the League mailing list.

      And yes, I largely think your reaction to this is based on how you feel about me.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Saul Degraw
        Ignored
        says:

        I think disagreements and critiques should be handled in the comments section. That is what I understand them to be for. If the powers that feel be differently and make that known, I’m all ears.

        What I take issue with is your framing. You made this about marketing and how unsurprised we should be that a marketing team messed up again. What is your expectation for marketing? That they never mess up? That they perfectly reflect your tastes and preferences? Why mock an entire industry — and, again, absent constructive criticism — because of the work of a few dunder heads?

        How would you feel if I said, “Stupid frickin’ lawyers!” and pointed out the idiocy of some non-representative subset of the field?

        I’m not saying your wrong to criticize AB’s slogan here. I think you are wrong to make that criticism about “marketing” as some abstract concept.Report

        • Avatar switters in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          Kazzy – For someone who typically holds himself out (justifiably I might add) as a pretty self reflective dude, this is…. odd. I’m not looking to have an argument about it, because its not worth it to me to lay out an actual argument. Just know that to me, it looks like a petty personal attack. And only more so after reading all your justifications. Its an OTC post, for crying out loud. For all the good you do around here (and its considerable, for sure), baring your fangs at Saul the way you do is completely counterproductive to the goals you’ve listed above. Just my $.02.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to switters
            Ignored
            says:

            @switters

            Thank you for the feedback, both positive and constructive. I really appreciate it on all accounts. Good stuff to consider and reflect on. With this in mind, I’m going to respectfully bow out of this line of discussion. Thanks to you and @glyph for constructive engagement.Report

      • Avatar zic in reply to Saul Degraw
        Ignored
        says:

        I’d rather you keep them to the League mailing list.

        These sorts of comments pop up now and again. They always gives me the creeps in a “Pay not attention to the man behind the curtain,” sort of way.Report

        • Avatar aaron david in reply to zic
          Ignored
          says:

          I am going to sign on with @zic sentiment. It’s not that we don’t know that there is action behind the scenes, but you really should try to keep it behind the scenes. This isn’t a No play.Report

  6. Avatar DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    “This is the worst ad ever and I hate it!”, says someone who’s talking about it and has introduced it to a group of people who might never have heard of it otherwise.

    Anheuser-Busch thanks you for your cooperation.Report

  7. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Is there any way for me to say that I’m never going to drink Bud Lite again without somehow implying that I ever have?

    Asking for a friend.Report

  8. Avatar dragonfrog
    Ignored
    says:

    I’d think it would be interesting if marketing and advertising departments were required to half an in-house cynic and downer whose job is to point out all the problematic implications of an advertising slogan.

    Heck, having an in-house woman would have caught this one. Seriously, there is no way even one woman was involved at any point along the way from brainstorming session to approving printer’s proofs – a woman would have caught that.Report

  9. Avatar Kolohe
    Ignored
    says:

    Why would we expect anything but evil out of Belgium?Report

  10. Avatar Brandon Berg
    Ignored
    says:

    I’d think it would be interesting if marketing and advertising departments were required to half an in-house cynic and downer whose job is to point out all the problematic implications of an advertising slogan. This is a person who can never be fired.

    Gotta find something productive for X-studies majors to do. Keep them off Tumblr and out of trouble.Report

  11. Avatar Glyph
    Ignored
    says:

    If Bud Light had just hired Billy Dee Williams as spokesperson, this debacle would never have happened.Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Glyph
      Ignored
      says:

      Thee point of that ad is “If you’re rich, famous,and handsome, you can score even drinking this crap.”Report

      • Avatar Glyph in reply to Mike Schilling
        Ignored
        says:

        Possibly. I think it was deliberately courting the same type of interpretation this one is (though I am not sure if this one is as deliberate – it’s 2015 now)…what else could “works” possibly mean? That it gets you drunk, like, you know, beer? That’d just be obvious and stupid.

        Although Bud Light WAS touting its “drinkability” not too long ago…so I shouldn’t discount the stupid and obvious.Report

  12. Avatar Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2015/story/_/id/12788376/houston-rockets-fire-social-media-manager-chad-shanks-day-tweet

    Is this something we should be surprised by? I’m not sure. Can I get a list of people we should assume are idiots so I know when and when not to be surprised when members of those groups act like idiots?Report

    • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      It’s unclear to me where you stand on the tweet and firing of this story.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Will Truman
        Ignored
        says:

        @will-truman

        I think the tweet was in very poor taste. To the extent that this guy’s job was to make the team look good and promote a positive image, he failed in this instance. I don’t know if firing was the best response but it would seem that some sort of response was justified, giving how poorly he did his job here.Report

        • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          I think the firing was quite justified insofar as they do not want to risk offense with their tweets. I do kind of question the wisdom of that social media strategy, though. The tweet itself was probably ill-advised, but I think that should be an accepted risk. Or that it would be cooler if it were.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Will Truman
            Ignored
            says:

            @will-truman

            Re: accepted risk

            It all depends on the brand you are trying to cultivate. The NBA is incredibly image conscious… some of which is legitimate as they try to stay family friendly and some of which is tinged with some discomforting racial elements. This seems to run afoul of the former effort, as I could see women/moms/parents not-so-pleased with that sort of Tweet. And I don’t think it gains you anything. I don’t think anyone is more likely to go to a Rockets game because of that Tweet but some people might be less likely to. So it feels like a pretty epic fail.

            Contrast that with some famous minor league baseball promotional nights, many of which are in bad taste but they bring in more folks than they drove away so from a marketing and financial standpoint, they ‘work’. And they’ll tolerate more risk of failure.Report

        • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          Just looks like run-of-the mill trash-talk to me. I don’t really follow basketball, so I don’t have much context, but out of context, it looks to me like it’s all in good fun.Report

          • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Brandon Berg
            Ignored
            says:

            If it were just run-of-the-mill, it wouldn’t have gotten the attention it received and gone twittiral. Hard to describe what exactly about it made it so noteworthy, but there was definitely a “woah!” about it. For better and, it turned out for the social media dude, worse.Report

            • Avatar Glyph in reply to Will Truman
              Ignored
              says:

              Will Truman: Hard to describe what exactly about it made it so noteworthy

              Really, you can’t see what it is?

              It’s the GUN.

              There was an emoji of one and everything.

              That’s terrifying.

              (Do I need some sort of sarcasm indicator here? I’m sure there’s a “rolling eyes” emoji…)Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Glyph
                Ignored
                says:

                The funny thing is… I’m not sure that you’re wrong. Without the gun, it might not have bounced around as much as it did.

                Also, the Rockets have a logo that looks like something from a slasher flick, which may have changed the tone? That’s not on the social media director, though.Report

              • Avatar switters in reply to Glyph
                Ignored
                says:

                I agree – This seems as ridiculous as the collective freak out to JJ’s nipple coming out at the superbowl. As if “those were trying to protect” aren’t exposed to more offensive stuff every freaking day….Report

            • Avatar Vikram Bath in reply to Will Truman
              Ignored
              says:

              Why is this any more offensive than anything any other sports teams do? I mean, they lynch each other’s mascots, don’t they?Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Vikram Bath
                Ignored
                says:

                I thought it was the rape-y vibe. “Just close your eyes. It will all be over soon.”Report

              • Avatar Vikram Bath in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                But there was a gun. It was a we’re-going-to-kill-you vibe.

                And actually murder is a far less offensive thing to joke about than rape, so I think it matters. And sports writers are constantly using such imagery with their headlines. 49ers decimate the Bengals means that at least 10 people got killed.

                I’m a bit surprised to be on this side of an issue. I’m usually on the side of the people who are offended.Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to Vikram Bath
                Ignored
                says:

                There was a gun, because the Mavericks’ logo is a horse (a lame, ill or old horse is often shot). The accompanying text makes that clear. It’s essentially an “Old Yeller” riff.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Vikram Bath
                Ignored
                says:

                49ers decimate the Bengals means that at least 10 people got killed.

                Only five or six, unless it includes the coaching staff and cheerleaders.Report

              • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s not rape. It’s mercy-killing. Hence the gun and the horse.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Brandon Berg
                Ignored
                says:

                I didn’t connect the emojis with the text. I thought they were two separate tweets (I don’t know how Twitter works). That certainly changes things — at least insofar as my personal response.

                But what matters is that the big wigs in Houston didn’t like the way the tweet portrayed the organization and this guys job was to make sure the big wigs in Houston liked the way tweets portrayed the organization.

                “The Mavs” (which really means the Mavs’ guy with the same gig) took offense and that may have been enough. Some of these owners are very cozy with one another and don’t want to rock the boat. So it may have been, “Dude, that isn’t how we do things here!” instead of some SJW-fueled response or whatever.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Brandon Berg
            Ignored
            says:

            @brandon-berg

            I think there is the trash talk you do on the court and the trash talk you engage in on your team’s official Twitter page. Guys say far worse to each other all the time on the court. But few, if any, fans are privy to that. Sending this out to the world? Pretty stupid.Report

            • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              “The other team is a group of fine upstanding people and our team is honored to share the court with them and, win or lose, we’d like to buy them a Bud Lite after the game.”Report

            • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              And trash talk is largely in the heat of the moment. When a player tweets something insulting about another player or team in, so to speak, cold blood, it usually gets one of two reactions:

              1. The relatively mild one of “That was stupid. He just gave them added motivation.”
              2. What a jackass. He needs to apologize.Report

            • Avatar Vikram Bath in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              Kazzy: I think there is the trash talk you do on the court and the trash talk you engage in on your team’s official Twitter page.

              Ah, I see. Twitter is too serious a medium for that kind of thing. 🙂Report

            • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              @kazzy I don’t know. I just don’t have the same expectations of decorum for sports teams as I do for, say, a life insurance company.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Brandon Berg
                Ignored
                says:

                @brandon-berg

                You don’t. Nor do I. But you and I aren’t who the Rockets are targeting. They know you and I are going to watch the games (or not) regardless of what the Twitter says. They want our wives/girlfriends/mothers/children to watch. And they know those folks are impacted by tweets like that.

                It’s why Joe Buck still has a job. Real sports fans hate him but real sports fans are going to watch regardless of the announcer. My mom likes him because he has good hair and explains things to her like she’s a dummy. They want her to watch with me and know she is more likely to with Joe Buck at the mic.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *