No. That was enough. She also said the "brand was in decline" and she needed to "evolve" the marketing away from "frat boy out of touch"...
Pretending that folks cannot see the contempt she held for the "frat boy" customer base is IMHO just purposeful self-deceiving nonsense. There is no way someone hired to do marketing should be this ignorant about the fact that how you say something is as important as what you are saying.
If I were doing that interview after making the poor choice of Dylan Mulvaney I would say something like:
"We wanted Bud Light to appeal to even more people so we have some ads that will feature some folks that traditionally weren't a target of our marketing."
Even if I intended to never have another "frat boy out of touch humor" ad in the future I would not use words like "evolve" and "out of touch" especially when describing the folks we reached with our past ad campaigns.
Going toward a fifth page on beer drinkers and the transgendered--could this happen anyplace other than JPP?
Am I missing out on another highly comedic forum?
Well, your interpretation of it is certainly different from mine.
And I don't think they're losing customers in droves because of that statement. This is about LGBTQ.
It's not about my interpretation. I was not part of their customer base. I like good beer. It's about how folks can "hear" what you are saying.
Again, it isn't about LGBTQ+, IMHO. I explained why I think this as well. If this was just about LGBTQ+ then Coors would have issues for their Pride cans, folks would stop watching the Avalanche (or all the hockey teams for that matter) for their "Pride Night" sweaters, etc. It simply isn't. Though they are "lashing out" at Dylan, it is because the VP inferred that Dylan was in some way "better" and what they wanted to "evolve" towards. Dylan was put into the line of fire by the VP's poor choice of words and total lack of comprehension that how you say something is more important in marketing than anything else.
If the VP had a modicum of capability in the job they were hired to do, this never would have happened. Without the "evolve" and "frat boy" nonsense, It would just be another Pride can... and we have evidence that nobody would care about that.
It's not about my interpretation. I was not part of their customer base. I like good beer. It's about how folks can "hear" what you are saying.
Again, it isn't about LGBTQ+, IMHO. I explained why I think this as well. If this was just about LGBTQ+ then Coors would have issues for their Pride cans, folks would stop watching the Avalanche (or all the hockey teams for that matter) for their "Pride Night" sweaters, etc. It simply isn't. Though they are "lashing out" at Dylan, it is because the VP inferred that Dylan was in some way "better" and what they wanted to "evolve" towards. Dylan was put into the line of fire by the VP's poor choice of words and total lack of comprehension that how you say something is more important in marketing than anything else.
If the VP had a modicum of capability in the job they were hired to do, this never would have happened. Without the "evolve" and "frat boy" nonsense, It would just be another Pride can... and we have evidence that nobody would care about that.
I had a few at a baseball game last week.
I agree w/ those who say it's a bad beer - but when it's ice cold and you don't want to get filled up, it's good w/ a hot dog.
I think it's kind of hilarious & also a little sad how worked up people are now about supporting Bud Light or drinking it. We have such a long way to go.

Apparently, many companies are now weighing the "risks" of trying to show support for the LGBTQ community.
What a win for conservatives.
Yes, a win for Christians who don’t support perversion.
Kinda how "worked up" some people get over a sports team name or a monument? That's beyond sad, pretty pathetic if you ask me.
You're using whataboutism - but if you think those are sad & pathetic, wouldn't you say the same about the Bud Light boycott?