Bud Light LGBTQ+ saga a warning to business to think before backing Voice to Parliament
Last week, amid the sudden resignation of Alan Joyce as Qantas CEO – an enforced but long overdue decision, successor Vanessa Hudson’s elevation to the top job, was less celebrious than what she would have liked.
No sooner than Hudson tried to acclimatise in her new plush surroundings, and had her feet under the desk, she was dealing with criticism of Qantas’s and the Qatar Airlines fiasco, and all the other major challenges of Qantas.
But it wouldn’t have come as a surprise to Hudson, she was part of Qantas’s executive and the CFO, and would have been intimately involved in decisions that led to its shameful fall from grace.
Anyone who knows Hudson describes her as a numbers driven person with a disregard for service or employees.
Senior sources at Jetstar, Qantas’s budget airline, who’ve who worked closely with Hudson, describe her as “ruthlessly hard and motivated by targets. She gets off on numbers.”
Glowing compliments for Qantas’s new boss.
But her decision last week, after only two days as CEO, marked a low point in her brief leadership and for Qantas.
Hudson decided to offer free flights to “Yes” voters for and not extend the same offer to those who opposed it.
The decision would have exacerbated divisions within Australia.
Its evident Qantas and Hudson hadn’t been following the Bud Light, Dylan Mulvaney saga – how straying from moving from your base in support of being seen on the right side of history, set the company on a course to destruction overnight.
If they had they wouldn’t have been so foolish to announce it.
Anne Heiser Busche’s InBev’s shareholdings dropped more than 5% and has continued to drop with billions in lost sales and more than $27bn wiped-off the company’s value.
Everyone knows, except for Hudson and Qantas, the Bud Light campaign gained widespread attention for its unapologetic support for the LGBTQ+ community, when it featured Mulvaney in its advertisements.
But while the move was seen as a step toward social progress, the consideration of risk that comes with aligning a brand to controversial or divisive topics could have major negative impact.
Bud Light found that out and Hudson’s public declaration of a free flight offering for “Yes” voters wasn’t factored in.
Hudson should have been attuned to the damage such alignments create but wasn’t.
The Bud Light fiasco serves as a warning to all Australian brands to be wary of what could happen if they align themselves with an issue especially if the initiative fails to gain public support?
Bud Light’s decision to champion LGBTQ+ rights appealled to a socially progressive demographic but led to backlash from its die-hard customer bases that disagreed with the issue.
Mulvaney, with a following in the LGBTQ+ community, shone a light on Bud Light that didn’t need to be shone, and the rest is history - Anne Heiser Busche continues to reel from a poorly thought through strategy.
Qantas supporting the Voice to Parliament is a gamble that could alienate a significant portion of its customer base.
Unlike issues that have broad public support, contentious topics can turn into flashpoints that turn the public against the brand.
If the referendum fails, Qantas could find itself in a position where its lost face and has undermined its standing with those who voted against the initiative - driving share prices and customer numbers down significantly.
For corporations, social advocacy is a double-edged sword demanding careful navigation.
As tempting as it is for brands to join popular causes, the risks can outweigh the rewards, especially for contentious issues without clear public consensus.
Qantas, and other leading Australian brands, would do well to consider Bud Light’s experience before hitching their wagon to a contentious issue.
Should the referendum for the Voice to Parliament fail, it could reverberate far beyond politics - impacting the financial stability and public perception of corporations that chose to take a stand.
Choosing to back a social or political issue is not just a question of corporate responsibility; it's a strategic decision that could have profound implications for any company’s future if they jump blindly.