Bud Light sales drop 21-26% in wake of Dylan Mulvaney fiasco - Politics Discussion

[–] ProgsReturn (2078) 2 years ago

Another report puts sales down at %26 .

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

Serves teh woke assholes right.

The shareholders should fire the board for being so stupid.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

No one quit drinking , they just switched brands that are more "woke" like Coors lite, Miller etc

Also, AB stock is higher right now than it was 2 months ago

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

1. yeah, I don't think anyone thought that the people in question STOPPED drinking. I'm sure that plenty of people at other beer companies are enjoying rising sales.

2. It is amazing that we have an elite that seems to embrace across the board, the idea of attacking your customers. I never thought I would miss the days when corporations would do anything for a buck. Now, they all seem to be infested with wokesters who are incapable of realizing that being woke is interferring with their responsibilities.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

How fragile would have to be to consider that an "attack"???

You'd have to be a pathetic feckless snowflake to be triggered by bud light

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15643) 2 years ago

👍

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

The executives in question, have a professional and ethical responsibility to make MONEY for their stockholders.

They thought to do that, by pushing a political message that they KNEW was not shared by the vast majority of their customers.

When their customers responded negatively, the FIRST response was to insult their custormers.

When their customers did not like being insulted by people that they had given money to for years,

the SECOND response from the company was to issue a non-apology that lied about their actions and contained no apology for insulting their customers or pushing an unpopular and divisive political message.

the THIRD response was a new ad campaign that didn't address the issue at all, like they think that people will just forget.

They are incapable of realizing that THEIR actions are the problem here.

You are too it seems.

YOur resonse is not to make fun of the idiots that insult their customers and can't understand why that isn't working for them,

Your response is to insult people that feel insulted when they are clearly insulted.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

They didn't push any political message.

No one was insulted. They are just fragile snowflakes. You just need to man up and not be so fragile

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

Sure they did. Adopting a trans spokesperson and celebrating "inclusion" is a political message.

As to manning up, I'm not the one LYING because I am afraid of the truth.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

You're making it a political issue. Being so consumed with what's inside another person's pants is on you.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

Me and the millions of bud light drinkers were just fine with the way things were before.

It is the BUD LIGHT executives that decided to make the act of drinking beer into a POLITICAL statement of of "inclusion" and "diversity".

THEIR action did that. THEY and YOU expected us to just be bullied along into accepting and thus sort of being counted as supporting this.

And now you are trying to gaslight me into ignoring the actual events and their actual meanings.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6121) 2 years ago

Figured an idiot like you would fall for this. Quit drinking the drink problem solved. Nope proceeded to pay and complain. I love how stupid your logic is.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

lmao. Absolutely delusional.
"Bullying" ??? lmao

Does drinking a Bud Light today means that you "accept" any political position regarding trans people?

Obviously the answer there is NO and no sane person would think otherwise.

Drinking a BL just means you have awful taste in beer or you dont feel like paying more for a decent beer. Nothing more

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

Yes, bullying.

Woke assholes like the ones in charge of Bud Light now, make a political person a represenative and by talking shit about "inclusion" and "diversity", then send a clear mesage.

Complain at all, and you will be painted as being AGAINST these clearly good, not political things, or even some form of "ist" or "phobe".

Hell, not to mention the constant verbal attacks from partisan troll bois, like " stupid" or "fragile" or blah, blah, blah.

It is gaslighting to pretend it is not happening, and you are fooling fewer and fewer people, all the time.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

"Woke assholes like the ones in charge of Bud Light now, make a political person a represenative and by talking shit about "inclusion" and "diversity", then send a clear mesage.
"
They're not "woke" , they are marketing people. The thing about people in marketing is that make their decisions based on what they think will maximize profit. Most of them don't really give a fuck about so called "woke" politics. In this case they vastly underestimated just how fragile the customer base of this particular brand was.

"Complain at all, and you will be painted as being AGAINST these clearly good, not political things, or even some form of "ist" or "phobe"."

You have complete freedom to complain here. I guarantee you will not land in jail for crying over bud light or any other "woke" nonsense. Others have complete freedom to offer dissenting opinions to your complaints. That's how freedom works.

"Hell, not to mention the constant verbal attacks from partisan troll bois, like " stupid" or "fragile" or blah, blah, blah."
Quite hypocritical to complain about verbal attacks when you initiated the verbal attack.. clearly

The only gaslighting is the one who initiates the verbal attacks and then pretends to be the victim

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6121) 2 years ago

Yep he does exactly what he criticizes others for doing. He is the biggest hypocrite on this board. You know what I find hilarious? He complained about the Batman being woke because of Zoe Kravitz being casted. I am like okay well did you see the film? He goes yes. I am like if you feel that strongly and are so against woke politics why are you supporting them by giving them money? Then you proceed to complain. The companies do not care if you complain they care if they get your money obviously.

Watch with bud light rather than make a stand he will buy it and then proceed to complain. It is a product no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy it or participate. When I know I do not like something being pushed I simply stop giving that said brand my hard earned money.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

1. "Inclusion", "Diversity" are POLITICAL issues. No one is dumb enough to think that frat boys and working class drinkers WANTED a tranny as the image of their beer.

2. At this point. Plenty fo people DO want to make "hate speech" a crime. In england people like you are having people like me arrested by the thousands for saying shit that woke people consider bad.

3. i commented on the woke corporate executives who started this. YOU made fun of the people HERE, for simply expressing their opinion. Significant difference. AND my wish is not for them to be beaten into agreeing with me, but to be beaten into NOT trying to force people to agree wtih them. For another big difference.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

1. You think that sending a a trans person a case of beer with their image on it equates to making that person the "image of their beer" ? Surely you can see how much of a stretch that is.

If they put an American flag on their product would that be "making a political statement" ??

2. We should avoid putting limits as much as possible but there are some limits that are necessary. Hate speech legislation is narrowly defined to only restrict when said speech incites violence and I would oppose any hate speech legislation that was too broadly defined.

The right is are rarely ever on the side of "free speech" except when it comes to "hate speech" then they become free speech warriors all of the sudden. Weird hill t die on

3. In rendering their opinions they were attacking trans people who never attacked them.

No one is being forced to agree with anything. They just have a massive persecution complex and are soo very fragile

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

1. Yes. THey are trying to make drinking the beer a celebration of America. That is the intent of using patriotic symbolism in advertising.

2. That is not true. Anti-"hate speech" style laws have been called for for things as simple as misgendering. And as I said in European nations, it is certainly NOT limited to calls for violence. Your claim otherwise is simply not true.

3. Refusing to celebrate someone else's choices, is not an attack on them. That you claim it is, is you making my point for me. You are argueing that the simple act of refusing to celebrate someone else's beliefs, is an "attack" and then you are ridiculing them for that. You attack us for not agreeing with you and then ridicule us as having a persecution complex for pointing out that you and people like you are attacking us. That is really shitty behavior on your part.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

1. So we have no problem with having political statements. You define it very broadly. I mean is there any marketing affiliation that you WOULDN"T consider a political statement?

2. That viewpoint, defining "hate speech" that broadly, would be pretty fringe so no I would not support that. I suspect the text of any such law would have to be tightened up such that it only covered speech that amounted to incitement or harassment before it would ever be politically viable.

3. It has nothing to do with "refusing to celebrate someone else's choices". No one is asking you to "celebrate" someone else's choice. I don't even "celebrate" their choice as it has zero effect on me. Personally when I find myself simply not "celebrating" someone else's choices you would never know about it because I don't feel the need to obnoxiously tell the world about me refusal to celebrate.
When I spoke of attacks I wasn't referring to refusal to celebrate or even refusing to accept. I was referring to verbal attacks like calling the influencer a "disgusting human being", a "groomer" and things like that

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

1. The complaint is not the act of making a political statement. The complaint is that the political statement is one that very few people that already consume the product agrees with AND framing it so that any complaint is pre-spun as "ist" or "phobe", as an attempt to coerce at least the appearence of agreement. PRO-AMERICA is also a political statement, but one that should not be very controversial in AMERICA.

2. You REALLY need to pay more attention to what the "fringe" is doing, on the philosophical and intellectual fronts. THey have been redefining "violence" as nearly anything that disagrees with the positions of the hard left. Saying something anti-illegal immigration is "violence" against illegals. Disagreeing with the trans agenda is "denying their existance" and thus "trans genocide". And quite often these "fringe" groups are working hand and hand with mainstream left leaning officials of colleges or governments.

3. The primary expression of the not agreeing, is NOT drinking the beer any more. The influencer in question is...a very shady customer, and expressing negative opinion of him, is very much... sane. And he has said some pretty attacking shit like stating that "misgendering" should be literally illegal. As per above, not inciting violence just calling a man a man, leading to arrest.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

1. So then the issue is not whether they are making a political statement (others have stated that companies shouldn't be making political statements at all but ok ) but whether the statement is "controversial". OK. If a bunch of self loathing Americans decided to be offended by the hypothetical American flag can would we blame the marketing there? OR would we rightly chide those that got offended for being the snowflakes that they are .. they MADE is controversial by being easily offended

2. I'm well aware of what the fringe is advocating but there is zero chance any legislation that makes any of the things you mentioned enforceable by law would ever make it outside of a house committee. Meanwhile far worse legislation has been enacted in red states and there is a far greater chance those would make it onto the big stage

3. If they were simply not drinking we wouldn't know about it. The primary expressions are virtue signaling about not supporting "woke" beer, buying the beer they dont support so they can destroy large quantities of them in virtue signal videos and verbal attacks on trans people and anyone who isn't angry about the very existence of trans people.

I'm not aware of the views of this influencer and certainly dont support those specific things that this influencer allegedly advocates. However it goes far beyond what you are stating. There are very well known right wing influencers like Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles who are openly advocating for wiping trans people out of existence

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

1. American flag good, Tranny weirdo bad. That is not on the consumers, that is on the idiots running the company.

2. Mmm, yeah and ten years ago, I would have been laughed at if I predicted shit such as Sex changes for children without parential consent or arresting people for defending themselves from armed mobs.

Dems are the party of anti-human rights.

3. wow you just suck down anything they tell you without any consideration at all, don't you?

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

1. If either bother you that's a reflection of your own fragility
2. Nonsense. That is simply right wing propaganda and you bought into it of course.
3. Seems you do as demonstrated above.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

1, Nope. Being "bothered" that your normal behavior was redefined to be a celebration of weird ass behavior, is not "fragile" but normal and healthy.

2. Sure it is, lol. My point stands. Hate speech is a really vague term and it is a rationalization for stopping people from saying politcal speech. Incitement to violence is already illega.

3. Nope. But you do.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

Your "normal behavior" has not been redefined in any way. You guys are such drama queens.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

Your gaslighing is noted. YOur support of censor ship is noted.

Is there anything else you want to share with the room?

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

You're just making unsupported claims. Republicans have been and continue to be the party of censorship.

Allowing private companies to make their own content moderation decisions isn't censorship.

Muzzling educators and banning books is censorship

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17425) 2 years ago

Lmao, both parties love their bannings and censorship. The only difference is you agree with some of them, and disagree with the others.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

1. They are playing pretty shitty games to have it both ways, pretending to just be a place with others can post shit so they are not responsible for content, and then exercising content control. Not to mention when they have worked with factions of the government in opposition to the elected leaders.

2. Controlling curriculum so that politically radical educators don't push radical political ideas, especially anti-American or racistt ideas, is not censorship.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

1. They're not pretending anything unless their site says anything goes. Otherwise they have terms and conditions that explicitly state they can moderate as they see fit. If you don't like how someone runs their site you have the right to go to a different site. Moderating content adds value to a website as they will want to cultivate a user base that is consistent with the nature of the site.
Site with inadequate moderation will drive away most people and devalue the site. Since I prefer freedom, I believe the owner of the site should be able to make decisions about moderation and not the government as the right implicitly advocates for.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

Sure they are. THey deny responsibilty for content, then exercise control of content. That is having it both ways.

Also, it is worth noting that they are not following their own rules and are often fucking up the lives of people who are engaging in business with them in good faith. Which by itself is extremely shitty and morally and ethically wrong.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

Don't care about whether they are "having it both ways" I prefer freedom. Some sites are shitty but that is their right to be shitty.
Having responsibility for content and choosing how to moderate content are two separate things. If we eliminated sec 230 , and made sites responsible for content then the most of the internet would not be a "free speech" zone. Most site dont have the revenue to invest in reviewing ALL content for potential liability. Most sites would shut down all user generated content. The big sites that did allow user generated content would be very restrictive as what would be allowed to be public.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

Elon Musk doesn't seem to be having any problems doing it.

Indeed, since he took over, he has reduced staff by 80% and from what I hear, the are responding FASTER to reports of child porn.

FAR faster and better.

It is worth noting, that these are publicly traded companies, and the professional responsibility of the ceos are to make money for their shareholders, not advance a political agenda.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

2. That is how the right likes to frame it but it is absolutely NOT what is happening.
There are 2 areas where this occurs.
One is sexual orientation. The law in Florida and other copycat versions bans speech under the banner of "inappropriate". The problem here is that in practice they simply declare anything they dont like to be inappropriate. They claim it's about "pornography" but that's not the case as evidenced by the titles on the widely available book ban lists.
A mere mention by a female teacher of her wife can result in termination or criminal prosecution.. yay freedom

The other is "CRT", which is a graduate level law course which they claim is being taught on K-12 Obviously that is a lie but they sell it by broadening the definition to include any mention of a historical fact that they feel might be tangentially related to the study of CRT. For example, the historical fact of the policy of redlining is not allowed to be mentioned in states with so called CRT bans. Christofer Rufo explicitly stated this plan to weaponize the term CRT.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

1. "Sexual orientation"?

I have seen videos fo school boards kicking people out of meetings for reading from books tehy have in their schools available for children. So, your claim is simply false.

Go to youtube, a quick search can find you endless examples of meetings where parents want to discuss examples.

In my feed today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qxo141dpPT8

2. "CRT" is not the formal theory that is college level, BUT THE IDEAS OF IT, such as America being inherently racist or white people being inherently racist.

You really didn't know that? That is... fairly...

NO, you are just gaslighting now. You knew that and was just being dishhonest.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

I don't think anyone would deny that there are some teachers that do or say things that are inappropriate. In even more extreme cases, there are many cases where teachers have relations with students. The linked video shows an example.
If a teacher acts inappropriately they should be handled (terminated / suspended, whatever fits the case)
We dont need laws that restrict free speech in order to handle these outliers.

Regarding CRT. The "ideas" you mention are not actually "CRT" but rather a very poor interpretation of the subject meant to enrage the Fox News crowd. However that is neither here nor there. This is about free speech. You dont agree with something so you want to restrict the free speech of teachers.
In my HS days I recall a number of history teachers that mentioned alternative opinions on topics like the JFK assassination. This is free speech. I didnt always agree with their opinions but as long as they are doing their job we dont need laws restricting their speech.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

If the EDUCATION system has been infiltrated by left leaning partisans, then we as voters have a right to stop them from putting their propaganda into the curriculum. The teachers and administors are not the final authority over what the children are taught. We have the right to address this.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6233) 2 years ago

men don't want to drink gay beer, period

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

Apparently they do. Lots of BL drinkers switched to Coors Light which is wayyyyy more "woke"

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14285) 2 years ago

What's the controversy with Coors?

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

No controversy really but ..

Coors Light has been a sponsor of the Center on Colfax and the Pride Parade and Denver PrideFest for nearly two decades,” said Molson Coors spokesperson Michael Nordman. “Our Pride runs mile high so we are excited to support the Center’s vital programs and services that positively impact the LGBTQ community.”

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6233) 2 years ago

so Coors supports gay organizations in a professional manner - big whoop,
they don't put annoying gay people in annoying commercials trying to be as flamboyant and obnoxious as possible

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

"big whoop" is an appropriate response to either. It wasnt even a commercial but so what?
Nothing to get your panties in a bunch over. Being so fragile and offended over things like this is way to live.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6233) 2 years ago

have you seen that trans guy? he's an embarrassment to being human,
if someone told he drank coke zero as his soft drink choice i'd switch to pepsi zero just to distance myself from such a weirdo freakshow

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

Just sad. I couldnt imagine being so fragile that you allow yourself to be affected by something so trivial

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6233) 2 years ago

some peeps just don't need to be breathing the same air as the rest of us

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17425) 2 years ago

They also don't gaslight and insult their customers.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6233) 2 years ago

thank you

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17425) 2 years ago

Does Chick-fil-A rub their politics in everyone's faces?

No, they sell delicious chicken sandwiches that are awesome lol.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14285) 2 years ago

My dad was a union guy, and in the 1970's Coors was hated. One of his best friends was a shop steward and hosted many potluck parties, the invitations always said "B.Y.O.B. - NO COORS!"

I had thought that Coors was non-union at the time, but apparently there's a lot more to the story...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coors_strike_and_boycott

"As late as 2019, Coors beer was difficult to find in any gay bar in San Francisco."

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3298) 2 years ago

Depends on the duration of the snapshot you’re looking at. If you use a one day or one year window, the stock price is up. If you use the one month since the marketing fiasco began (which seems to be be relevant snapshot), it’s down -3.73%

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

within the normal stock fluctuation. It was actually briefly got higher than it was before and then dropped again. Long term this won't hurt AB at all. Not that I care , they are actually a fairly right wing company.

reply

[–] robocat893 (15923) 2 years ago

AB is a multibillion dollar worldwide corporation. Even if they completely stopped selling beer in the US they would still be profitable.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17425) 2 years ago

Those terms are acceptable.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17425) 2 years ago

right wing company

😶😶😶

Are you simping for big corporations? Omg, the "Rage Against the Machine" crowd of yesteryear, literally became simps for big corporations 30 years later. You cannot make this up.

My god, I wasted my youth on a lot of "anti-establishment" bullshit that was never real.

"EAT THE RICH!! BLACK LIVES MATTER!! LOVE IS LOVE!! PRIDE!!! -Brought to you by Walmart, Biontech, and Pfizer" 🤣😂🤣😂🤣

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

Are you simping for big corporations?
Only a moron would conclude that. I dont even like AB and dont care if their stock tumbles, they'll have less money to donate to repulican causes. Pointing out that it hasnt actually tanked yet isnt simping.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17425) 2 years ago

2 of my friends that own bars have had to remove their AB stuff off the walls due to patrons constantly cracking jokes about the bars turning into "gay hangouts"....and I live in a super blue area.

The damage is done. The brand is ruined.

I don't drink, so couldn't care less either way. If they want to focus on the rest of the world, and pull out of the US, so be it. This notion that any corporation is "too big to fail" just simply isn't true.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3298) 2 years ago

It sounds like you are you saying you don’t patronize the brand because of their politics. This seems to be the identical position of those who objected to the Mulvaney marketing campaign.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

In no way shape or form did I even remotely imply that. How could you possibly draw that conclusion???

I don't drink BL because it is piss water, always has been. I do drink other brands owned by AB regardless of their politics.
It would take a LOT more than some meaningless obscure marketing move for me to avoid a brand

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3298) 2 years ago

I thought you were saying you didn’t care if the company’s stock cratered because you disliked their right wing politics. I assumed that translated into avoiding their products as well. I apologize for the misinterpretation.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

A small price to pay in order to openly support the LGBTQ+ community. Very disappointing that they've backed off that decision. They shouldn't be interested in doing business with transphobes and bigots anyway.

They should have given that executive a promotion, not a leave of absence.

reply

[–] CraigC (8177) 2 years ago

I'm so tired of this kind of bullshit from people like you. You are typical of everything that is wrong with this country and an integral part of its spiral downwards. 99% of the hate gets propagated and perpetuated by people like you liberal narcissists.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17425) 2 years ago

"Tanking my buisness for 0.5% of the US Pop is amazing for my bottom line!"

Only this level of narcissism can a statement like this be taken seriously.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3298) 2 years ago

The partnership with Mulvaney may have upset some customers, but it was the VP telling loyal customers how much she disliked them and how she was going to replace them that launched the boycott. If you’re looking for a source of “hate” that produced this catastrophe for the company, Heinerscheid’s public contempt for Bud Light’s customers is the place to start. Never seen anything like that from a company marketing expert before.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17425) 2 years ago

Wait, you're saying that alienating 99% of your customer base to cater to the other 1% is good for business? Yeesh, if you owned any companies, I would not wanna be employed at any of them right now. Oof.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Galilguy (2476) 2 years ago

Leftists don't own businesses. They ruin them..

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (2078) 2 years ago

>They should have given that executive a promotion, not a leave of absence.

I'm curious how this would benefit the company.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14285) 2 years ago

Modelo Especial is the second best-selling beer in USA? Who knew?

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3298) 2 years ago

I’m confident that in reaching this sales milestone, Modelo did not have a company executive make public statements denigrating the brand and its core Mexican and Hispanic customer base.

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

Modelo is owned by Anhueiser Busch

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3298) 2 years ago

Constellation Brands owns Modelo’s U.S. beer business and commercial enterprise including the Nava Mexico and Obregon Mexico breweries and the associated bottling factory. Constellation has exclusive control over the brand and its marketing in the U.S. dating back to 2013 and they are major ABInBev competitor

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14285) 2 years ago

I drink Modelo Negra at the Mexican restaurant if they don't have Bohemia, but Modelo Especial is pretty lousy IMO. Doesn't anyone drink Miller anymore?

reply

[–] BeaSouth (3298) 2 years ago

I still drink Miller Light because it’s always available and the price is good. I like Modelo Especial but I’ve never tried Modelo Negra. Lately I’ve been into Labatt’s and Stroh’s because they’re widely available in the upper Midwest & Southern Canada. What’s Modelo Negro comparable to that I might have tried in a more commercial beer?

reply

[–] beermonkey70 (282) 2 years ago

Negra Modelo is decent Bohemia is even better, Modelo Esp is passable if there isnt a better option.

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6233) 2 years ago

people that drink beer

reply