http://blog.seattlepi.com/thepourfool/2011/09/14/why-i-dont-drink-budweiser-and-why-im-not-alone/
Before I start, credit must be given to this article, which inspired me to write this similar but hopefully not identical diatribe.
Okay, now that credit has been given, Anheuser-Busch is awful. Just the absolute worst. Anheuser-Busch is a company which does not have redeeming qualities. The fact that I'm listing only three negative qualities about A-B may seem narrow and pedantic but let it be known that I kept these three as general as I possibly could. The full list of my grievances with Anheuser-Busch could fill a library. But here are the big three. It's not in a particular order--like ranking Hitler and Stalin, it seems arbitrary and borderline offensive to act as that one form of evil is somehow more justified than another.
1. Anheuser-Busch Has Retarded Advertising
In fairness, this grievance really applies roughly equally to Anheuser-Busch, Miller, and Coors. They're all pretty damn terrible at this factor. The point is that Anheuser-Busch is one of the most advertised companies in the world--they advertise like crazy during the Super Bowl of Advertising (the Super Bowl), they have naming rights all throughout sports, they're the official everything of everything, and they even had a goddamned NASCAR series named after them for years. But in this marketing plan is a horrible, evil, despicable method. Essentially, the success of A-B advertising is contingent upon you being an idiot.
Their best commercials are essentially nonsequiturs, such as the Whassup ads or Real American Heroes (also known by complete fucking sellouts as "Real Men of Genius" post-9/11). Now, these ads didn't really have anything whatsoever to do with the taste or quality of the beer being advertised--they basically just were there to be mildly entertaining for the audience and hopefully improve public relations with A-B. It actually takes a while to even recall that Whassup or Real American Heroes is associated with Anheuser-Busch, which is unusual since they're the biggest goddamned advertiser in the stratosphere. But they're cute so I'll give them something of a pass. Especially compared to most of their ads.
The mediocre level comes from the sort of absurd high-concept commercials that became popular shortly after the previously mentioned ones. Take, for instance, the Super Bowl ad where a skydiving instructor jumps out of a plane in pursuit of a six-pack of Bud Light. Now, this is obviously hyperbole, but it begs the question of why this hyperbole was deemed necessary. Nobody that I know of is dumb enough to see that commercial and suddenly believe, "Wow, this Bud Light shit must be excellent, if somebody is willing to endanger their employment and lives in order to get some of it." But it elevates Bud Light and Bud products to an insane plateau of necessity. But does even the most ardent fan of Bud Light believe that it is that great? I don't consider any product on Earth that great.
The worst level, and the one which seems to be increasingly permeating throughout American macrobreweries, is the "If you don't buy our product you're a pussy" style. Miller admittedly is worse at this type than Anheuser-Busch, what with their man card, man law, and various other commercials designed to show that real men eat barbecue, objectify women, and drink terrible beer. But A-B continues to imply that only real men drink their beers. The worst commercials combine the following elements: An unrelated to beer yet still completely moronic concept, excruciatingly lowbrow humor, and exploitation of women. And that commercial is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th0Z97l3Zfg
And just to take another shot at retarded ideas by large American beer companies, this simple yet brilliant attack of Coors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeJPJDpq3-Y. And sure, this knock from the same folks regarding Miller: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tks1RxUJbUo&NR=1.
2. Anheuser-Busch unbearably suppresses its competition:
I'm going to use a comparison of Anheuser-Busch to Coca-Cola, as both are the leaders in the clubhouse of their specialties, A-B with American Pale Lager and Coca-Cola with highly carbonated and sugary colas. Now, Coca-Cola does a ton of advertising and a decent share of it involves comparing it favorably to Pepsi. This is unsurprising, since Pepsi is the biggest competitor that Coca-Cola has, but it should also be noted that a vast majority of the time Coke compares itself to Pepsi, it's based on taste. Which is completely fair. Now, I personally believe Coca-Cola tastes (marginally) better than Pepsi, but it's really just a matter of opinion so it would be difficult to argue with the premise. A-B doesn't really argue on taste that much when competing with competitors that aren't Miller or Coors.
Anheuser-Busch bases a large amount of advertising based on being the (italics for emphasis) Great American Lager. They even released Budweiser in stars and stripes cans which made it look, to paraphrase Stewie Griffin, like it was the beer of the Statue of Liberty's pimp. An advertising campaign not too long ago that still appears every once in a while was based on the premise that when soldiers return from Iraq and Afghanistan, there's nothing they would rather do than invite their boys to a party in a barn (since, given the disproportionate number of African-Americans, Hispanics, and other racial minorities in the military, is obviously an accurate reflection on the cultural tendencies of the armed forces). But I digress. The point is that Anheuser-Busch, far moreso than even its macro competition, positions itself as the beer of America.
For an obvious comparison, let's go with the second biggest beer brand associated with St. Louis--Schlafly. Schlafly doesn't do a ton of advertising, but when it does (usually through billboards or signs and not through television), the focus is on the actual product. They have a few billboards on highways with the slogan "Witness a Beeracle" and showing an appealing looking glass of Schlafly Pale Ale. Simple and elegant. When I see those ads, I think "Huh, Schlafly looks like it must taste good or something." But then if I tried Schlafly and hated it, I probably wouldn't go back to it. Their advertising is meant to get your foot in the door, not to sell you on becoming a lifelong Schlafly fan from the moment you see scantily dressed bikini models cavorting around while sipping from a bottle of Kolsch while having vacuous conversation with who are essentially the cast of Jersey Shore but WASPier.
Anheuser-Busch advertising, on the hand, is a motherfucking trap. It's brainwashing. The concept they push isn't "Here is a tremendous tasting, robust product that we believe you will consider above and beyond other beers you've had"; it's "If you don't drink Budweiser, the terrorists win." It also brilliantly ignores that fact, to keep it on a Missouri level, that buying Schlafly or Boulevard is FAR more beneficial to the economies and regional identities of St. Louis or Kansas City than buying A-B.
3. Anheuser-Busch products are fucking terrible:
All of the previously mentioned digressions are forgivable, they truly are, if it wasn't for the simple fact that not only does Anheuser-Busch produce excruciatingly awful products, but it doesn't seem to bother them in the least that they're doing so.
The lowest tier offering A-B produces, one which is consumed almost exclusively by frat boys and my dad, is Natural Light. Natural Light is hard to top in terms of cheapness--only Big Flats (the Walgreens brand), Milwaukee's Best Light (which I've never had but what I'm told is essentially Natty from Milwaukee), Keystone Light (keep everything I said about MBL except replace Milwaukee with Denver), and Pabst Blue Ribbon (which is by far the best tasting of the ultra-cheap beers, though it would feel dirty to drink PBR without wearing an ironic mustache and listening to Pavement) are in the same class. There are two important things to note about "Natty"--it tastes like complete shit, and while it is cheaper than high-end beer, it's still more expensive than water, soda, or a large compliment of beverages which are infinitely preferable to drink in every regard than Natural Light.
Next up the evolutionary chain comes the three main brands of A-B: Budweiser, Bud Light, and Bud Select. Now, first I want to point out that Bud Select is something of a misnomer--while it is arguably slightly better than the other brands listed in that group, it's still essentially watered down crap compared to more carefully crafted fare. Also, Budweiser and Bud Select are something of misnomers compared to Bud Light because, the truth is, all three beers are pretty damn light. Even compared to the pale and summer ales of bigger microbrewers such as Sam Adams or Sierra Nevada, the main Bud products are quite low in ABV and caloric content. But the thing is, most beers really don't have that many calories. If you only drink one or two, it won't make a significant dent in your diet. But how many people do you honestly know that drink Bud Light responsibly? Or, even more hilariously, Natty? You ever seen somebody grab a can of Natural Light, slowly pour it down the side of a slightly tilted glass, savor its rich aroma, and slowly sip it as a dinner beer? Or do you see people drink it in order to either become intoxicated or maintain intoxication?
The "highest" tier of A-B products would be products like Bud Light Lime, Michelob Ultra, and Shock Top. Bud Light Lime basically combines the mediocre beer taste of Bud Light with the mediocre fruit taste of lime. Michelob Ultra is a low-carb beer, which means if you're on the Atkins diet (under which you will probably lose weight but also lose the ability to have blood flow properly through your veins, defeating the purpose of dieting for the sake of health), you can slam a few. Shock Top is easily the best offering under the A-B banner, presumably because it is virtually autonomous from the Budweiser producing end. Though I don't want you to think that Shock Top is necessarily all that good--it's so so--it just is brilliantly crafted by comparison. It was also created as a direct reaction to Blue Moon, a better product which is created by Coors (my if-you-put-a-gun-to-my-head-and-made-me-choose macrobrewer of choice).
Basically, Anheuser-Busch is to beer what Green Day is to punk rock. Both, in the loosest sense of the word, meet the description which they are given. And both diminish the term by producing it for idiotic masses. Green Day, as a "punk" act, has sold far more albums than The Sex Pistols, The Clash, and The Ramones combined. Just like Anheuser-Busch sells more beer than Schlafly, New Belgium, and Sierra Nevada combined. This doesn't mean the bigger entity is better--it just means it's more popular with an often retarded public. To use a more offensive example--Anheuser-Busch is to beer what Al Qaeda is to Islam. Al Qaeda does really bad things (namely blowing up shit and killing innocent people) while the larger group upon which they are associated has done some really good things (namely inventing algebra and being really progressive in terms of women's suffrage and rights--look it up). In the same sense, Anheuser-Busch may give the impression that beer must be bland, it must be dumb, and it must be consumed for the purpose of making one's self dumber. This doesn't make it so. Because of this, Anheuser-Busch must be condemned.
No comments:
Post a Comment