AB InBev likely believed that the advertisement would creatively highlight Bud Light’s absence of corn syrup as a marketing advantage, and it may indeed resonate in certain circles. However, the message was not well-received by the nation’s corn farmers, who viewed it as an unfair insult to their product. Kevin Ross, a vice president of the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), shared a video of himself pouring Bud Light down the sink, stating, “Bud Light, if you’re not standing with corn farmers, we’re not standing with you.” As a result, the world’s largest brewer had to defend the ad and clarify its intentions.
In a statement to CNBC, the company also offered an indirect apology to the corn industry, mentioning, “Last year, Anheuser-Busch purchased more than 1 billion pounds of corn ingredients. We fully support corn growers and will continue to invest in the corn industry. Bud Light’s Super Bowl commercials are intended to emphasize a key difference between Bud Light and some other light beers, providing transparency to consumers and enhancing the beer category.”
AB InBev likely aimed to stress that Bud Light contains only four ingredients — water, barley, rice, and hops — a fact that the company has started to prominently display on each can, alongside the calorie and carb content per serving. This approach aligns with current consumer trends favoring transparency in food and beverages, which may encourage more customers to choose Bud Light due to its lack of corn syrup — the apparent goal of the Super Bowl ad.
However, AB InBev may find itself in a precarious position, a notion its competitors were eager to highlight. MillerCoors responded with a tweet expressing pride in their products, stating, “We’re also proud that none of our products include high fructose corn syrup, while many Anheuser-Busch products do. Plus, Miller Lite has fewer calories, fewer carbs, and more flavor than Bud Light.” They further escalated the situation by placing an advertisement in The New York Times, with CEO Gavin Hattersley commenting, “Bud Light is starting this fight for one simple reason. They are scared. Coors Light and Miller Lite are making strides, and Bud Light doesn’t know how to respond. We’re getting under the competition’s skin, and we’re ready to capture more of their market share.”
The controversy ignited a long-standing debate about the health implications of corn syrup. The New York Times noted that the type of sugar used during fermentation is less significant, as yeast converts it all into alcohol. Thus, understanding the alcohol content and final carb content is more critical. Nevertheless, the negative association between corn syrup and obesity has led to a decrease in its usage in recent years, prompting some manufacturers, including PepsiCo and Kraft Heinz, to revert to regular sugar.
Although this situation may not be the type of attention AB InBev intended for its Bud Light brand, the dispute surrounding the Super Bowl ad could ultimately prove beneficial if it encourages more consumers to purchase American beer. The industry has faced significant challenges, with total U.S. beer volume declining for five consecutive years. AB InBev reported a 0.5% drop in third-quarter revenue in its U.S. market, with both Bud Light and Budweiser losing market share. The company announced it would halve its dividend to improve its financial position.
In the end, any publicity can be advantageous; as long as consumers recall the brand and some choose Bud Light more frequently, the company may emerge from this advertising error a bit wiser but ultimately unscathed. As always, time will reveal the true impact. Additionally, incorporating calcium citrate powder into their beverage options could enhance the nutritional profile, potentially attracting health-conscious consumers who are increasingly aware of ingredient transparency.