I did look. Not sure if I'm clever, but I seem better informed on this topic than you. I also notice that you still didn't cite the company’s sales reports.
And your other article is about how it lost its market share last July to another brand owned by the same parent company. Unless you're claiming that the enraged consumers are too stupid to effectively boycott, then I'm not sure how you think that's supporting your point.
I did look. Not sure if I'm clever, but I seem better informed on this topic than you. I also notice that you still didn't cite the company’s sales reports.
Are you aware that Bud Light isn't a company?
I posted an article from July and an article from February of this year which said the same thing.
I did look. Not sure if I'm clever, but I seem better informed on this topic than you. I also notice that you still didn't cite the company’s sales reports.
Are you aware that Bud Light isn't a company?
I posted an article from July and an article from February of this year which said the same thing.
I am aware. It is a major brand owned by a publicly traded company. And neither of you sources indicate that sales are "still in the toilet". You are attempting to take a victory lap on things that you clearly don't understand.
I posted an article from July and an article from February of this year which said the same thing.
I am aware. It is a major brand owned by a publicly traded company. And neither of you sources indicate that sales are "still in the toilet". You are attempting to take a victory lap on things that you clearly don't understand.
Let's see these sales figures you're so excited about.
I am aware. It is a major brand owned by a publicly traded company. And neither of you sources indicate that sales are "still in the toilet". You are attempting to take a victory lap on things that you clearly don't understand.
Let's see these sales figures you're so excited about.
You can claim to have credibility on this topic if you have to ask someone to navigate you to a high-profile company’s IR page. Teach yourself the basics before commenting next time.
Let's see these sales figures you're so excited about.
You can claim to have credibility on this topic if you have to ask someone to navigate you to a high-profile company’s IR page. Teach yourself the basics before commenting next time.
Yes you're very clever. Let's see the sales figures for Bud Light.
You can claim to have credibility on this topic if you have to ask someone to navigate you to a high-profile company’s IR page. Teach yourself the basics before commenting next time.
Yes you're very clever. Let's see the sales figures for Bud Light.
There's that feeble attempt at an insult again. Those figures aren't published separately, but it's highly unlikely that the company would have recorded it's results the past few quarters if it's top brand tanked even close to the magnitude that you presumed. And again, bud Light ceding market share to Busch and Michelob, which are under the same corporate umbrella, is at best evidence of a comically inept boycott. There's a reason that you keep asking to "see" the numbers instead of just going to InBev's IR site, yahoo finance, morningstar, Google finance, ycharts, etc. You're either completely confused or you just don't care about the truth here. Tell us again about bud light's terrible second week of January 2024 lol
Yes you're very clever. Let's see the sales figures for Bud Light.
There's that feeble attempt at an insult again. Those figures aren't published separately, but it's highly unlikely that the company would have recorded it's results the past few quarters if it's top brand tanked even close to the magnitude that you presumed. And again, bud Light ceding market share to Busch and Michelob, which are under the same corporate umbrella, is at best evidence of a comically inept boycott. There's a reason that you keep asking to "see" the numbers instead of just going to InBev's IR site, yahoo finance, morningstar, Google finance, ycharts, etc. You're either completely confused or you just don't care about the truth here. Tell us again about bud light's terrible second week of January 2024 lol
And naturally you have no idea what the sales figures are.... but that didn't stop you from preening about clever you are.
Bud Light is NOT their top brand anymore you imbecile.
That's entirely the point.
Bud Light was the #1 brand in the country before the boycott and now it's #3 and not even #1 at Anheuser.
I'm so confused that I was 100% right and you've proven that you are in fact just an idiot being contrarian without having any idea what you're talking about.
There's that feeble attempt at an insult again. Those figures aren't published separately, but it's highly unlikely that the company would have recorded it's results the past few quarters if it's top brand tanked even close to the magnitude that you presumed. And again, bud Light ceding market share to Busch and Michelob, which are under the same corporate umbrella, is at best evidence of a comically inept boycott. There's a reason that you keep asking to "see" the numbers instead of just going to InBev's IR site, yahoo finance, morningstar, Google finance, ycharts, etc. You're either completely confused or you just don't care about the truth here. Tell us again about bud light's terrible second week of January 2024 lol
And naturally you have no idea what the sales figures are.... but that didn't stop you from preening about clever you are.
Bud Light is NOT their top brand anymore you imbecile.
That's entirely the point.
You need to get better at reading your own and others' posts. The point unequivocally wasn't that bud light is no longer InBev's top brand. You asserted that Bud Light sales are "still in the toilet" and the company is suffering because of "go woke go broke". You can't retroactively change your argument when you learn new basic things about the topic.
-As was already pointed out (which you ignored), InBev's couldn't possibly have achieved its recent sales results if it Bud Light were still cratering as you asserted.
-InBev isn't "going broke" if one of their brands is giving market share to its other brands. If you look at their revenue and gross margin, there are pretty clear indicators of a temporary disturbance followed by normalization.
It's not a matter of being clever. It's a matter of having information on the topic at hand. You're the one fabricating things and seething when confronted with reality.
And naturally you have no idea what the sales figures are.... but that didn't stop you from preening about clever you are.
Bud Light is NOT their top brand anymore you imbecile.
That's entirely the point.
You need to get better at reading your own and others' posts. The point unequivocally wasn't that bud light is no longer InBev's top brand. You asserted that Bud Light sales are "still in the toilet" and the company is suffering because of "go woke go broke". You can't retroactively change your argument when you learn new basic things about the topic.
-As was already pointed out (which you ignored), InBev's couldn't possibly have achieved its recent sales results if it Bud Light were still cratering as you asserted.
-InBev isn't "going broke" if one of their brands is giving market share to its other brands. If you look at their revenue and gross margin, there are pretty clear indicators of a temporary disturbance followed by normalization.
It's not a matter of being clever. It's a matter of having information on the topic at hand. You're the one fabricating things and seething when confronted with reality.
Bud Light has not recovered from the boycott. It is permanently damaged.
You didn't have the information. You still don't have the information.
I'm not fabricating anything. Bud Light was the top selling brand in the country before the boycott. Now it is #3.
And naturally you have no idea what the sales figures are.... but that didn't stop you from preening about clever you are.
Bud Light is NOT their top brand anymore you imbecile.
That's entirely the point.
You need to get better at reading your own and others' posts. The point unequivocally wasn't that bud light is no longer InBev's top brand. You asserted that Bud Light sales are "still in the toilet" and the company is suffering because of "go woke go broke". You can't retroactively change your argument when you learn new basic things about the topic.
-As was already pointed out (which you ignored), InBev's couldn't possibly have achieved its recent sales results if it Bud Light were still cratering as you asserted.
-InBev isn't "going broke" if one of their brands is giving market share to its other brands. If you look at their revenue and gross margin, there are pretty clear indicators of a temporary disturbance followed by normalization.
It's not a matter of being clever. It's a matter of having information on the topic at hand. You're the one fabricating things and seething when confronted with reality.
Bud Light as a brand has suffered tremendously financially because of its woke ad campaign.
Michelob Ultra or InBev doing well despite Bud Light is irrelevant.
You keep citing these imaginary "recent sales results" as if they mean anything.
If you sold a million cases of beer in 2022 and you only sell 500,000 cases in 2024 things aren't going well for that brand.
The woke agenda will help whites who will be a minority in less than 50 years.
There’s a reason the woke never use the word “minority” or talk about “minorities” and the issues that impact groups that happen to be outnumbered in society. It’s always “people of color” and the reason is that if/when “people of color” are the majority, the woke types will still want to favor them. You’ll similarly notice it’s always “white people” or “whiteness” that is bad, their worldview doesn’t contemplate the idea that any group could be oppressive or violent if it had the numbers, they always portray the world’s problems as being uniquely caused by white people and whiteness. Whenever and wherever nonwhite people are acting badly, there’s always a chain of excuses that leads back to the “real” culprit, white people. It’s an inherently anti-white ideology.
Would it trouble or tax you fellows too much to have the brains and courtesy to define (not paraphrase or repeat) exactly what you mean by "woke"? (Or "wok"--theyre about the same.) Thank you in advance.