Dylan Mulvaney and the Bud Light Boycott

“A company’s financial stability and an individual partner’s wellbeing are not automatically protected by the same response, and a communications plan built only to safeguard the company will always fail the person at the center of the controversy.“

---

Background

The assignment asked each student to select a real media crisis from the past five years and analyze the organization’s communication strategy across three distinct audiences: core customers, employees, and shareholders/stakeholders, using course frameworks including the five types of organizational crisis and the CDC’s nine-step crisis and emergency risk communication (CERC) model.

I chose Anheuser-Busch’s 2023 Bud Light partnership with transgender TikTok creator Dylan Mulvaney because it is a memorable case of what not to do as a corporate entity. This analysis also gave me a situation with genuinely divided audiences (conservative consumers on one side, and LGBTQ+ consumers and allies on the other, plus investors who were watching both), which let me directly address how, and whether, a single message can serve incompatible audiences at once.

---

Scope

Completing this analysis required:

• Extensive research to understand all sides of the crisis as well as understanding each step of the incident in order to reconstruct a reliable, fact-checked timeline.
• Curating and properly citing visual evidence like screenshots of the original sponsored posts, the CEO’s press release, a video still of the viral Kid Rock video, the Howard Stern quote, the Benny Johnson/Ron DeSantis X post, and the YouGov brand-health tracking chart, among many others.
• Writing the full outline-driven content analysis from the introduction, what happened, public responses split by audiences, shareholder/executive responses, message differences by audiences, evidence (or lack thereof) of crisis preparation, what was effective/ineffective, short- and long-term impacts, to lessons learned.

---

Process

1. Selected a Case with Real Audience Conflict:

I looked for a crisis that would let me speak to the assignment’s three-audience requirement with genuinely different reactions instead of one uniform public response.

2. Built the Factual Foundation First:

I established “What Happened” with a full crisis timeline (Appendix B) before writing the analysis, so every later evaluative claim could be traced back to a dated, sourced event.

3. Split “Public Response” into Two Distinct Audiences:

Instead of describing “the public” as one group, I separated the conservative backlash from the LGBTQ+ and ally backlash, since they had very different reactions to the crisis event.

4. Added a Dedicated “How Did the Messages Differ” Section:

This allowed me to directly compare tone and content across the conservative consumers, the LGBTQ+ community, and the investors, which ultimately made the pattern of avoidance much more obvious.

5. Indirectly Inferred Crisis Preparation:

I built the evidence of crisis preparation section by reviewing anonymous sourcing, a distributor’s independent decision to cancel Clydesdale appearances, and a later on-the-record admission from Anheuser-Busch’s Global Chief Marketing Officer who called the crisis incident a “wake-up call.”

6. Quantified Impact Instead of Describing it Qualitatively:

For the short- and long-term impact sections, I prioritized using real and verifiable numbers instead of general statements about how the backlash impacted the company. I chose to include the actual YouGov chart as a visual to highlight the real sales drop that Anheuser-Busch experienced because of the crisis.

7. Closed with a Two-Part Lessons Learned Section:

I decided to split my reflection/lessons learned section into two separate sections as a deliberate structural choice, since the assignment asks for both perspectives and I wanted each part to stand on its own.

One Last Note:

I purposely kept a neutral stance on the politically charged parts of this case analysis, citing both the conservative and the LGBTQ+ backlash with equal weight. I reserved my own conclusions for the communication strategy pieces instead of coming off as being for either side’s political stance.

---

Lessons Learned

What went well:

• Separating the analysis by audience helped me to directly answer how the messaging differed for each.
• Every major claim is tied to a specific, dated source, which let the case build a clear cause-and-effect chain of events.
• Including the actual brand-tracking chart gave the long-term impact section a great visual of the brands declining favorability.

The main challenge:

The main challenge with this analysis was Anheuser-Busch’s own framing that it never intended “to be part of a discussion that divides people” when their response alienated both the audiences it was trying to reassure. This required careful, source-based argument-building and keeping my opinions out of it when it’s easy to get pulled into siding with one audience over another.

Outcomes:

One of the central, well-supported findings was that Anheuser-Busch’s lack of action in their two-week delay left conservative critics unsatisfied and LGBTQ+ partners feeling abandoned, all of which could be tied directly back to measurable outcomes:

• a 21% short-term U.S. sales decline,
• the loss of Bud Light’s decades-long title as America’s best-selling beer,
• a 16+ point brand-favorability drop,
• and a stock decline from about $66 to $45 that has only partially recovered.

---