In 2023, Dylan Mulvaney, a trans influencer who celebrated 365 days of womanhood, marked the occasion with a promotional video for Bud Light. At the time, Dylan had 2 million followers. What seemed like just another influencer collaboration quickly turned into a major controversy, sparking a widespread boycott among Budweiser’s customers, many of whom felt the company had crossed a line.
In the weeks following the campaign, Bud Light’s sales plummeted. No one anticipated this decline would continue for the next eight months.
What Sparked the Boycott Among Budweiser Fans?
Target Audience Misalignment
Budweiser failed to understand its target audience. A Harvard Business Review study found that Budweiser’s customer base was deeply polarized, meaning the brand had consumers with starkly opposing values. This placed the company in a vulnerable position—any stance on a divisive social issue risked alienating a significant portion of its customers.
In this case, Bud Light’s audience could be broadly divided into two groups: those who supported the transgender community and those who opposed it. The latter group, in particular, felt a strong sense of “psychological ownership” over the brand. Psychological ownership occurs when consumers see a product as an extension of themselves. While this type of loyalty can be a powerful asset, it can also turn into resentment when a brand makes a move perceived as contradictory to the audience’s values. The partnership with Dylan Mulvaney was seen as a direct contradiction, leaving many feeling rejected and disrespected.
Beer is often consumed in social settings, and consumers who identified as social drinkers actively participated in the boycott, reinforcing the backlash.
Social Media Uproar
Disgruntled consumers took to social media to voice their outrage. Videos flooded platforms like Twitter and TikTok, showing Bud Light drinkers dumping beer down the sink, using cans for target practice, or smashing them with axes. These clips went viral, amplifying the negative sentiment and fueling the boycott.
Making matters worse, misinformation spread rapidly. Fake videos surfaced, including one showing Bud Light crates being bulldozed at a dock. These visuals reinforced the perception of a widespread rejection of the brand and further damaged its image.
Poor Crisis Management and Media Coverage
Bud Light’s public response to the boycott was muddled, sending mixed signals. The company neither defended its stance nor issued a clear apology, leaving both sides of the debate dissatisfied. This ambiguity only intensified the backlash.
The situation worsened when Bud Light placed the campaign’s marketing managers on leave. Rather than quelling the controversy, this move was perceived as an admission of guilt and internal confusion. Meanwhile, media coverage further scrutinized Budweiser’s history, highlighting its inconsistent stance supporting LGBTQ+ initiatives through campaigns while also donating to politicians who opposed transgender rights. This pattern of contradiction only deepened consumer distrust.
Easy Substitutes in the Market
Bud Light’s biggest weakness in this scenario was its lack of uniqueness. The beer’s taste is similar to many other widely available options, making it easy for consumers to switch brands without making a major lifestyle sacrifice.
Because of this, the boycott had lasting consequences. Many former Bud Light drinkers found replacements and had little reason to return. Without a compelling incentive, whether in taste, quality, or brand loyalty, winning back lost consumers became an uphill battle.
Additionally, many retailers and restaurants removed Bud Light from their shelves. Some did so out of personal opposition to the campaign, feeling their values had been disregarded, while others made a purely financial decision, opting not to stock a product that was no longer selling.
Conclusion
Bud Light’s collaboration with Dylan Mulvaney serves as a case study in the risks of modern marketing. While the campaign aimed to promote inclusivity and reach a broader audience, it ultimately backfired due to a disconnect with the brand’s core consumers.
From a PR perspective, Bud Light’s vague and inconsistent crisis response only worsened the situation. Instead of taking a clear stance or letting the controversy fade, the brand found itself caught in the middle, alienating both supporters and critics. Effective crisis communication requires clarity, consistency, and strategic messaging – qualities Bud Light failed to demonstrate.
The backlash underscores the importance of deeply understanding a target audience before making marketing decisions, particularly when navigating sensitive social issues. Bud Light’s experience is a reminder that while inclusivity is an admirable goal, misalignment with a brand’s loyal consumers can lead to long-term reputational and financial consequences.
Learn more about the events that followed the trans influencer partnership with Bud Light in the following video:
References
Bud Light, Dylan mulvaney faces violent threats from reality star — TheStreet. (n.d.). Pinterest. Retrieved March 10, 2025, from https://uk.pinterest.com/pin/553309504233803163/
Fripp, G. (2023, May 1). Bud light and Dylan mulvaney case study. Great Ideas for Teaching Marketing; Geoff Fripp. https://www.greatideasforteachingmarketing.com/bud-light-dylan-mulvaney-case-study/
Lessons from the Bud Light boycott, one year later. (2024, March 20). Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2024/03/lessons-from-the-bud-light-boycott-one-year-later
NBC News [@NBCNews]. (n.d.). Bud Light fallout intensifies over trans partnership. Youtube. Retrieved March 10, 2025, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fnf89yvHOE
