Could Ben and Jerry’s go down like Bud light, or is their ice cream too darn delicious?
It seems Ben and Jerry's may be next in the firing line after they made waves with a provocative 4th of July tweet claiming the US is on stolen Indigenous land. Could we witness a downturn similar to Bud Light?
Or is their irresistibly good ice cream strong enough to keep their ship afloat?
Edit: Side note - in the absence of B&J, what ice cream are you turning to? I’m in AUS. So B&J was a game changer. Not anything else like it that I’m aware of.
Haven’t we always known Ben & Jerry’s political stance? They’ve been pretty upfront about stuff, so I don’t think this is a surprise to anyone. I’d assume if people cared about their politics, they already wouldn’t be buying from them.
Back in 2016, I got to taste a new flavor from Ben & Jerry's called "Feel the Bern" which showed their support for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. Anyone who gets surprised that Ben & Jerry's is political hasn't been paying attention.
Then again, some people became shocked that Rage Against The Machine was political leading to a commenter asking "what machine did you think they were raging against?"
The one that George Soros uses to print all those cheques, obviously.
Fair point.
I want aware of it.
It's above the fold in their Wikipedia article, so it would appear that you didn't even google them before posting this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_%26_Jerry%27s
No. I didn’t google them. I asked Lemmy….
Kinda the point of the community.
Ben & Jerry's has always projected a Vermonter, hippy, psuedo-leftist image as a company (despite being owned by Unilever since 2000). This tweet is perfectly in line with that image, and the die-hard B&J fans probably won't bat an eye.
I agree, it is in line with their image, their image being "phony progressive platitudes on top of bog-standard corpro shit". It's pretty rich for B&J to be sanctimonious about stolen land when they also do a shitload of business in Russia, which is currently attempting to steal even more land and is murdering every Ukrainian civilan they possibly can in the process. They sued their own parent company for allowing a licensee to sell B&J ice cream in the West Bank—not a word now. The fact that Ben has donated over a million dollars to a political action group that sought to stop the U.S. from arming Ukraine is technically a coincidence considering he no longer works there, but their public stance is just as bad. Wouldn't be surprised if they're also super into Greenpeace and Tienanmen Square Truthing. Disingenous garbage like what this corporation peddles is why the American left has such a reputation problem.
What about the average consumer? You're right about the die-hard fans.
Die-hard Bud Light fans tend to be conservative men, and Bud Light did a small promotion with a person that doesn't fit into their worldview. That vocal minority made a stink, got some press coverage, and maybe put a dent in this quarter's earnings. But most average consumers didn't care or maybe didn't even notice, and they kept buying whatever beer they usually buy.
In this case, the die-hard fans won't be up in arms. There won't be nearly as much noise to make it through to the press and therefore to average consumer. Most people won't hear about this tweet. If they do come across it, and disagree with the message, they'll probably just roll their eyes and forget about it before their next trip to the grocery store.
Another difference, some people make their favorite brand of beer a part of their identity, and treat it the way some people treat their favorite football team. I would expect there are fewer people that do the same for their favorite brand of ice cream.
The people who hate "woke" B&J will go buy a different dessert product owned by Unilever. Believing that B&J actually is "woke" instead of a calculated marketing campaign from Unilever is hilarious.
This is definitely true to a degree, but it's worth pointing out that Ben And Jerry's is ran independently from Unilever and is pretty separated in terms of the way they run their business and they have a separate "ethics board" which has the final say over what Unilever is allowed to make B&J do.
@peter @heartlessevil https://www.foodonline.com/doc/unilevers-ben-jerrys-buyout-keeps-activism-in-0001
What down turn? Bud made more profit than average during the “boycott”
They slipped from #1 best selling beer for a quick minute, to be replaced by another InBev product. Good job, redcaps, you sure showed who’s boss around here.
It’s capital.
They are buying their own stock back.
Sales remain 25% lower.
“Quick minute” slightly understated the gravitas of the situation.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/06/16/business/bud-light-distributor-response/index.html
It’s like canceling the McDouble and sending your business to the McChicken. McDonalds isn’t actually hurt by it.
I am confused by the analogy.
Modello took Bud Light’s top spot. The same company owns both products. You’re boycotting Pizza Hut, and instead going to Taco Bell. Same clown, different paint
No. You’re making a big assumption. That people are buying Modello instead.
It’s not the case.
Bud fell 24% Modelo up 10%
Net loss of …..?
But the kicker, in the US, they are owned by different companies.
So the 10% boost. Ain’t going to Modelo. So they lose 24%, plus given competitors a boost up 👍
insufficient data for any meaningful answerYou're quoting percentages. It all depends on exact sales figures and profits.
NBC: Bud Light sales fell 24.6% in the period year over year, while Modelo sales jumped 10.2%, the data shows.
Because we all know inbev only makes two beers
What’s your point? 10% at least didn’t go to InBev haha
You’ve looked at two data points and assumed total knowledge. InBev owns about 630 brands. The hydra of capital does not care about your protest.
Where are you getting your numbers?
The way they treated Mulvaney, was disgusting. Trotted out to try boost profits, it backfired. Then left em in a ditch. Could let even stick to their convictions.
That's rainbow capitalism for you
It was the worst possible response. Had they stuck to their guns, the right would have remained angry, but the left would have been fine. By ditching Mulvaney over the "outrage," the left became upset and the right wasn't mollified.
I think their sales did go down and a bunch of execs stepped down iirc
They also pulled support for Dylan Mulvaney and anything LGBT+
That whole arc feels bad
I mean, it’s technically the truth. Unless you consider that the land was bought with a bunch of blankets. Anyway so what’s your favorite B&J flavor?
And it's not like it's a surprise that Ben & Jerry's are 'woke'. They were part of Bernie Sanders' campaign.
I’m all for raw cookie dough 😍
Hasn’t every land been stolen from someone else ten times over since the beginning of recorded history?
I imagine you didn't intend this because it's reprehensible but you are defending genocide right now. Take a minute and rethink your life.
How am I defending it. It’s terrible when anyone does it.
I think what you say is fair if not true - one difference (and I'm sure there are more) is these weren't lands acquired by conquest/military subjugation, but rather by agreement with the landholding populations to live in peace. What actually happened was the indigenous populations were lied to in one way or another such that the European nations never held up their side of the bargains because of ambiguity in the agreements in addition to Europeans plainly lying about what was being agreed to.
I think this is evident in the ways the Canadian Reconciliation Calls to Action use language such as "call upon the Government of Canada...to jointly develop with Aboriginal peoples a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation...[which] would build on the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Treaty of Niagara of 1764, and reaffirm the nation-to-nation relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown"
Essentially these lands were never legally taken which is why the indigenous groups can/should lay claim to them. That makes this scenario different than a group being displaced by military conquest (which is technically recognized as a legal, albeit cruel, mechanism for displacing people).
Many "indigenous" people stole land from other " indigenous" people before Britain, France, and Spain stole the country from the indigenous people. The US took the land from Britain by war. It got the land from Spain and France through war/purchase.
That's a very compressed 400 year history, so some facts are more nuanced, but that's my point about saying the land was stolen. Every country was "stolen" from someone else sometime in history either through war or purchase.
How many of those forcibly displaced and nearly wiped out the previous "owners"?
Not to start a debate, but how many civilizations did the same before? I don't see many Babylonians around.
Not to say that doing it makes it ok, but just because we have written history of some civilizations and not others should be taken into account.
Ben & Jerry’s has been fairly socially progressive for a while, this is not their first campaign like this and it hasn’t seemed to really affect them yet. There’s also the fact that part of Bud Light’s problem was who their average consumer was. Not every company that does something like that will get the same treatment, but when you advocate for something that most of your customers will disagree with, it’ll cause you problems.
For example, take the Chicks (formerly the Dixie Chicks). They took a stand against the war in Iraq and made negative comments about George W. Bush. They were nowhere close to the first band/artist to this, but they saw the most backlash. But it’s because they were a country band so the majority of their fanbase supported the things the condemned.
Bud light saw a temporary drop in revenue because a big part of their market is right wing reactionary morons. Ben and Jerries doesn’t market towards those types, they’ve always been a relatively ethical and left(ish) leaning company. Saying something like ”the United States is on stolen indigenous land” will only make B&J’s more popular.
Also let’s not forget that Bud Light is just one of the several hundred brands that are owned by Anheuser Busch, the actual drop in revenue is basically nothing to them.
Well that’s not what they are saying. Dunno where you’re getting your data.
And why right wing? I’m talking after the lgbtq+ push back, after they refused to stand by their convictions and abandoned Mulvaney and the whole movement.
Are you cool with that?
https://apnews.com/article/35db706836ca38d5fe194c93a3f641ff
I don’t believe you to be honest. I think you’re just saying that now to try to save face.
And if that was what you were talking about then your post makes even less sense than I thought. Why would an obviously true statement like “The USA exists on stolen indigenous land” made by a company that everyone already knows is sorta left leaning politically (and has been saying things like that for decades) ever piss off their market of the exact type of person who would agree with a statement like that?
Check my comment history haha.
But good job avoiding everything in my comment in an attempt to avoid the subject.
You claimed it was “right wing reactionary morons”.
My point is I am talking “after the lgbtq+ push back”
Are you calling the lgbtq+ reactionary Morons?
Are you cool with how InBev has treated them?
The way I see it, this is an opportunity for the right and left to actually come together to some degree.
None of what you're saying makes any sense. That's why I'm not acknowledging every single talking point.
Why would the left ever be annoyed at the kind of statements Ben and Jerries made??
It’s fascinating that you’ve decided to pigeonhole consumers and their reactions into simplistic ‘left’ and ‘right’ categories. As I stated before, Bud Light faced significant backlash. However, contrary to your assertion, it wasn’t just ‘right-wing reactionary morons’ but included a broad spectrum of customers, including those from the LGBTQ+ community. You might want to look into the reactions of Mulvaney herself. Is she too a reactionary moron?
You’ve conveniently chosen to focus only on left-leaning consumers when talking about Ben and Jerry’s, but customers are not monolithic. Their preferences, beliefs, and reactions to a brand’s actions are diverse and complex. Ignoring this reality is an oversimplification at best, and at worst, an arrogant dismissal of diversity.
(Also, congratulations on learning how to edit your comments Hahah)
Pls just stop, the fancy words and walls of text won’t save you. It’s embarrassing, like a wannabe Ben Shapiro “It’s fascinating☝️🤓”
? More Reddit logic. Didn’t take long.
The backlash that Bud Light faced from LGBTQ people was not for the same thing that they faced backlash from the right for, it was because they left Dylan in the dust to fend for herself against hoards of angry reactionaries. Or in other words they pretended to be progressive and then immediately dropped their sponsor like she was mouldy apple as soon as it became even slightly inconvenient for them to keep up with that progressive facade.
They did that because their main market in the United States has always been largely conservatives. Ben and Jerries ice cream has never really been marketed towards conservatives (and also people don’t really identify with brands of ice cream like they with brands of beer), and they’ve always been very public with their political ideology. So they are a) very unlikely to face any kind of backlash for saying something progressive and b) very unlikely to retract any progressive statement/action if they were ever to receive a backlash for it because they have at least a modicum of integrity.
Cool. So InBev are filthy. Something we can all agree on.
Your point about B&J is valid. And I agree with that too.
While Ben and Jerry were still running the joint, they had a policy that the highest paid employee would never earn more than five times that of the lowest. B&J have always been based as fuck.
I mean, just read their Wiki article; a 50% of it is about how socially conscious they are/were as a company.
Most brands would kill to "go down like Bud Light" considering they're more popular than ever.
yea, brands are just lining up to get this kind of publicity
I mean nobody cares about Twitter bubble outrage IRL though. Bud Light is found everywhere at restaurants near me.
Seems the lgbtq+ are pretty outraged too. https://apnews.com/article/35db706836ca38d5fe194c93a3f641ff
Genuinely feel sorry for them being trotted out in an attempt to be used for profit. Then just abandoned when shit got Real.
That’s not what they are saying.
Ben & Jerry’s has always been very vocal about extremely progressive politics. I’m somewhat surprised anyone doesn’t know. They label themselves hippies from Vermont and do crazy things like pay their employees a living wage and advocate for other companies to do it. Big on environmental issues too. Their politics make it taste better.
As for me, I am proud of my country and salute the flag but the land was stolen and America perpetrated a genocide on the natives…100%.
I don’t Think theirs much doubt about what occurred.
B&J is already considered a liberal company, so I doubt conservatives could boycott it. To boycott, they would have to admit that they were buying it to begin with.
They wouldn’t have to admit a thing.
Ok
Thanks for your input ✌️💛
I would love Ben & Jerry’s on tap. Wait what was the post about again?
Got a fave flavour?
Tarharka Brother’s Ice Cream out of Baltimore is the shit. And if you’re into gelato, try Gelato Fiasco out of Maine. Both are exquisite.
And Taharka's also a black-majority worker co-op in a city that's become something of a hotbed for that type of structure thanks in part to an anarchist bookstore paving the way.
And their Honey Graham should be classified as a controlled substance, it's that addictive.
Mm. Want me some of that graham now.
Do they ship to Australia? Haha
But they look phenomenal.
They might? You're gonna need A LOT of dry ice.
How does this help sell more ice cream?
Will B&J become the next Bud Light? Yes, someday.
They are trying to sell ideology. Like Starbucks selling "free trade coffee" or companies incorporating the pride flag into their logo. You don't just buy physical products anymore.
They wouldn't do it if it didn't work.
"People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it and what you do simply proves what you believe. In fact, people will do the things that prove what they believe.” - Simon Sinek
Marketing has very little to do with the product being marketed. Apple sells the same phones everyone else does. People will pay 5x more for an iPhone because of the marketing and image. Not because they're actually 5x better.
Will B&J become the next Bud Light? Yes, someday.
How do?
People will get tired of the ideology pushing. All people want from B&J is ice cream not ideology.
I'd actually argue the opposite. Less and less people care about the actual product and the more and more people are buying ideology.
The next logical step is to abstract away the physical product and simply sell the ideology.
"I'd like some coffee with no sugar please"
"I'm sorry sir, we are out of coffee with no sugar. We only have coffee with no milk. May I suggest the diner across the street?"
Oh, the mask finally comes off. Fuck off and die Nazi.
Yeh. So if they push ideology, some other alternative will take its spot in the market.
Any other good cookie dough dice creams around?
It’s a privately owned company and they have always bundled promoting progressive issues with their business because that’s their values. It says it right on the ice cream packaged that they are hippies from Vermont.