Dude. You asked how things worked out for Bud Light. Bud Light is InBev. Things are going great.
You’re trying to shoe-horn their PR failure into your narrative that left-leaning companies get cancelled to make yourself feel better about… things, but the fact is Woolies ditched the merch because most people aren’t really interested in buying shitty plastic flag stuff on the 26th of January any more. Dutton whistled, and you barked. Woolies is doing fine. Even if they walked back this decision they would just stock a token flag in January because… there’s no money in that shit.
Bud light is doing terribly. Just because the parent company is going well it doesn’t mean every product of theirs is 😂. Again - 20 years as americas number 1 beer………Dylan mulvaney partnership…….loses number 1 spot immediately, hasn’t regained it. Market share dropped. Competitors market shares increased. Bud light was irrevocably damaged from that stunt.
The overwhelming outrage at Woolies at the moment shows that it was a stupid decision. They did it for the wrong reasons and they will feel the pushback in one way or another. Will it be as big as bud lights? Not a chance with our supermarket duopoly, but they will lose customers and the stunt won’t gain them any new ones.
What “overwhelming outrage”? The murdoch media is trying to imply there is outrage, but honestly no one cares. There are fewer idiots driving around with tacky plastic australia day flags than I’ve ever seen.
Woolies did it because there’s no money in it. No one is buying shitty imported plastic flags. Their PR people stupidly thought they could get a win with some virtue signalling, and they fucked up. The decision to discontinue those lines was all business.
You’re mistaking the real reason for the made up reason. They are stopping it for the virtue signalling, they’re using “declining sales” (with no more detail) to try and cover themselves.
You really genuinely believe that a retailer would cancel a profitable product line just for a once off headline? That’s daft. Virtue signalling isn’t worth that much. It’s always a statement or gesture rather than an actual change to a product or business policy. “Lets add this rainbow to our facebook page” type stuff.
Absolutely guaranteed that this was a business decision, that PR made the mistake of trying to take advantage of. Honestly, do you think sales of that junk has been increasing?
It is to the companies that subscribe to the ESG/DEI stuff and want to virtue signal. It’s also not just a once off headline, is it? Look at all the people like you going to bat for them, sticking up for the billion dollar company that’s been making record profits by raising prices well above inflation for the last few years because they said some stuff has had “declining sales” - note they never said unprofitable anyway.
Honestly, do you think sales of that junk has been increasing?
It doesn’t have to be increasing. It can be decreasing and still making them plenty of money.
You really think he’s quit over cancelling product lines? Weren’t you predicting Woolworths would collapse over that or something?
It’s a pretty predictable response to the competition enquiry about to ramp up over the next few months. Outgoing CEO gets a huge pay out, new CEO can say “we’ve fixed all that”.
You really think he’s quit over cancelling product lines? Weren’t you predicting Woolworths would collapse over that or something?
No, I think - as does almost every media outlet - that he has “stepped down” (though we all know he was asked to jump before he is pushed) over the back to back controversies he oversaw and that he handled in the worst possible ways. I didn’t predict that they would collapse, I predicted that they were going to “find out” after fucking around - and here we are, the CEO pushed off the ledge.
It’s a pretty predictable response to the competition enquiry about to ramp up over the next few months.
To fire the CEO before the competition enquiry has happened? That’s predictable? lol. No, what would be more predictable is them firing him after the enquiry is finished and has laid out all the anti-competitive stuff they’ve done - not before.
So you ignore 90% of my post that proves my point to focus on the 10% that you think proves yours? Lol
Let me guess - it was a coincidence that bud light got dethroned after 20 years at the same time they pulled their stunt?
Dude. You asked how things worked out for Bud Light. Bud Light is InBev. Things are going great.
You’re trying to shoe-horn their PR failure into your narrative that left-leaning companies get cancelled to make yourself feel better about… things, but the fact is Woolies ditched the merch because most people aren’t really interested in buying shitty plastic flag stuff on the 26th of January any more. Dutton whistled, and you barked. Woolies is doing fine. Even if they walked back this decision they would just stock a token flag in January because… there’s no money in that shit.
Bud light is doing terribly. Just because the parent company is going well it doesn’t mean every product of theirs is 😂. Again - 20 years as americas number 1 beer………Dylan mulvaney partnership…….loses number 1 spot immediately, hasn’t regained it. Market share dropped. Competitors market shares increased. Bud light was irrevocably damaged from that stunt.
The overwhelming outrage at Woolies at the moment shows that it was a stupid decision. They did it for the wrong reasons and they will feel the pushback in one way or another. Will it be as big as bud lights? Not a chance with our supermarket duopoly, but they will lose customers and the stunt won’t gain them any new ones.
What “overwhelming outrage”? The murdoch media is trying to imply there is outrage, but honestly no one cares. There are fewer idiots driving around with tacky plastic australia day flags than I’ve ever seen.
Woolies did it because there’s no money in it. No one is buying shitty imported plastic flags. Their PR people stupidly thought they could get a win with some virtue signalling, and they fucked up. The decision to discontinue those lines was all business.
You’re mistaking the real reason for the made up reason. They are stopping it for the virtue signalling, they’re using “declining sales” (with no more detail) to try and cover themselves.
You really genuinely believe that a retailer would cancel a profitable product line just for a once off headline? That’s daft. Virtue signalling isn’t worth that much. It’s always a statement or gesture rather than an actual change to a product or business policy. “Lets add this rainbow to our facebook page” type stuff.
Absolutely guaranteed that this was a business decision, that PR made the mistake of trying to take advantage of. Honestly, do you think sales of that junk has been increasing?
It is to the companies that subscribe to the ESG/DEI stuff and want to virtue signal. It’s also not just a once off headline, is it? Look at all the people like you going to bat for them, sticking up for the billion dollar company that’s been making record profits by raising prices well above inflation for the last few years because they said some stuff has had “declining sales” - note they never said unprofitable anyway.
It doesn’t have to be increasing. It can be decreasing and still making them plenty of money.
Woolworths CEO stepping down after yet another train wreck interview. Seems all that virtue signalling came back to get him.
You really think he’s quit over cancelling product lines? Weren’t you predicting Woolworths would collapse over that or something?
It’s a pretty predictable response to the competition enquiry about to ramp up over the next few months. Outgoing CEO gets a huge pay out, new CEO can say “we’ve fixed all that”.
No, I think - as does almost every media outlet - that he has “stepped down” (though we all know he was asked to jump before he is pushed) over the back to back controversies he oversaw and that he handled in the worst possible ways. I didn’t predict that they would collapse, I predicted that they were going to “find out” after fucking around - and here we are, the CEO pushed off the ledge.
To fire the CEO before the competition enquiry has happened? That’s predictable? lol. No, what would be more predictable is them firing him after the enquiry is finished and has laid out all the anti-competitive stuff they’ve done - not before.