When Budweiser decided to employ Dylan Mulvaney, they knew exactly what they were doing. They were one of the largest beer brands in the world with years of experience marketing to its customers.
Employing a male who thinks he is female to market light beer blew up in their face and blew up the brand.
People in Congress rightfully seized on the issue. I am okay with being tolerant about people going through things that are hard for them. Not everyone is the same and we need to respect individuals. Where we should draw the line is letting men compete in women’s sports and things like that. We shouldn’t allow parents or the medical community to transition kids before the age of consent, age 18. Tolerance doesn’t mean you change entire standards.
However, as politicians are wont to do when they think they have a winning issue, they push too much. The gentle Senator from Massachusettes does this all the time whenever she is on an issue. This is especially true when she opines on corporations and wealthy people. The logic gets twisted.
But, Republicans are not immune. They get their panties in knots too. I like Senator Cruz in general. He’s a very smart guy and an asset in the Senate. Someday, Republican constituencies will get rid of people like RINO John Cornyn so guys like Cruz or Rand Paul can have more power.
The other problem I have with what I am about to write about is that someone like Cruz will do this one time and it will be overmagnified. Elizabeth Warren does it every time she opens her mouth when talking about business or taxes and it is ignored.
Here is the tweet.
Senator Ted Cruz on Twitter: Bud Light must be held accountable for its disastrous partnership with Dylan Mulvaney to market beer to minors.
Cruz has opened an investigation on Budweiser. He should just end it now. Instead, talk about how they lost market share and twist the knife that way.
Cruz is twisting the logic. Do we know Bud was trying to market to minors? Even if they were, should the government get involved? Do we care?
We have rules in place where individual stores are supposed to card people when they buy alcohol to make sure they aren’t a minor. I sometimes even get carded today at age 61 just because that particular county enforces the rules.
As Jonathan Turley aptly wrote yesterday about Elon Musk, Bob Iger, and Disney, the Adam Smith invisible hand works. It works well if you let it.
In its annual SEC report, Disney acknowledges that “we face risks relating to misalignment with public and consumer tastes and preferences for entertainment, travel and consumer products.” In an implied nod to Smith, the company observes that “the success of our businesses depends on our ability to consistently create compelling content,” and that “Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance. Further, consumers’ perceptions of our position on matters of public interest, including our efforts to achieve certain of our environmental and social goals, often differ widely and present risks to our reputation and brands.”
Disney and other companies have previously ignored consumer backlash over corporate campaigns such as Disney’s opposition to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law. Corporate officials once avoided political controversies and focused on selling their products and services rather than viewpoints.
Disney has reportedly lost a billion dollars just on four of its recent “woke” movie flops, productions denounced by critics as pushing political agendas or storylines. Yet until now, the company has continued to roll out underperforming movies as revenue has dropped. What’s more, Disney stars persist in bad-mouthing its fabled storylines and undermining its new productions. The company admits that it has suffered a continued slide in “impressions” (that is, viewership) by 14 percent.
For shareholders, it may seem counterintuitive that corporate executives would trade off profits for political or social agendas. However, it does serve as a rationale for individual corporate executives who are professionally advanced when they champion such causes. For example, when Alissa Heinerscheid, vice president of marketing for Bud Light, pledged to drop Bud Light’s “fratty reputation and embrace inclusivity,” she was heralded by colleagues, even though her move went on to tank that brand as a whole. Indeed, Bud Light has still not recovered from the loss of billions in profits, market share, and overall market value.
The same trend is playing out in the media. Public trust in journalists has fallen to a record low. Yet media executives continue to push advocacy journalism, abandoning objectivity. As former New York Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones declared, “all journalism is activism.”
With falling subscriptions and public backlash (this includes the amusing “Let’s go, Brandon!” mantra), the journalists continue to saw at the thin branch upon which they are sitting.
The invisible hand is playing out in many consumer product segments because there are plenty of substitutes and alternatives. Do I need the New York Times or Washington Post to get news? No. I get plenty of news from Twitter and if I need business news there is the WSJ or the FT. Do I need to drink Budweiser if I want a beer? No, unless the sports arena I am in is captive to them and then I can choose to have something else if I want. Do I need to watch Disney? No. I have plenty of choices and even if I want to rewatch the Beatles epic that was televised there I can find a way.
Where the invisible hand has trouble working is when government regulation limits competition or picks winners and losers. This is absolutely true in the healthcare market and the primary reason healthcare prices are so high and never go lower. It also might take a long time for the hand to sweep in and create disruption. Free markets are messy. People who think in straight lines who embrace central planning don’t like messy.
The electric car market is evidence of that. Government CAFE and regulatory standards are forcing car makers to make electric cars no one wants. Because the car makers overproduced cars no one wanted, existing EV manufacturers that dominated the market like Tesla had to cut prices.
People who bought electric vehicles found out they didn’t like them and are trading them in. The car makers have a problem. It’s because of government regulations forcing a market that wasn’t there. In their blind eagerness to embrace anything that seemed to look good politically to solve a non-existent global warming problem, they pushed electric vehicles.
Turns out manufacturing EVs is bad for their union constituency too.
There are plenty of other examples of government taking over competition in industries via regulation and making a mess of it. Plenty.
90% of the cost of nuclear energy is due to government regulations, not the operation of the nuclear plant that provides the energy. As consumers, you have zero choice where you get your energy, unless of course you put solar panels on your house assuming you can afford it and they are efficient enough to power your needs.
Economist Casey Mulligan tried to bring some sense to the regulatory state when he was in Washington. Sisyphus had an easier time of it. This is why if Republicans sweep the White House, Senate, and House they better get stuff done quickly. Even with slim majorities, they can wipe out entire swaths of the unelected bureaucratic state and just totally get rid of regulation. It’s better to burn it down and start over than just “fix” it.
If you watched yesterday’s Judicial Committee hearings yesterday led by tyrant Dick Durbin, he showed exactly how to use the Chicago Way to crush any dissent and just ram things through the Politburo.
We've been living under the thumb of the "Chicago Way" as applied by the Democrats for far too long, with too many squishy Republicans going along. Deep state has been exposed and they're sneering at us right out in the open! What's the old saw? "I used to think I was paranoid but it turns out I'm not paranoid enough!"
Here, here. And let's not normalize the abnormal (re: dylan mulvaney and Richard Levine.)