I agree with boondock-saint and a few others on this. It's done tastefully and there's no one drinking beer in the commercial, there's no beer cans
and there's no one saying this Bud's for you. If you're not familiar with their ads you wouldn't even know it's theirs until the very end when
they show a brief 1 second clip of their logo, which is relatively small.
I thought it was a nice commercial. Since I'm not a Budweiser consumer the marketing aspect will never work on me so maybe I see it differently.
After all, advertising is to get me to spend my money on their product which simply isn't going to happen here. After reading all the replies I
wanted to get some facts and put the commercial into perspective for myself and figured I'd share what I found with the rest of you.
Clydesdale Respect was aired during the 2002 Super Bowl, just 5 months after 9/11. According to the source, out of 47 ads there were 3
directly or indirectly ads related to 9/11. Anheuser-Busch ran 9 different commercials during the 2002 Super Bowl and is the only time they aired
the Clydesdale Respect ad, although they did have it on their website for a year. They say it was only aired once because they didn't want to
benefit financially from it and just wanted to pay tribute to America and its heroes on that horrible day. The issue of Anheuser-Busch not being
American owned is a non issue since it was when the ad was aired in 2002. Here's what a company representative had to say about the ad. Yes, I know
they're only words and people can say whatever they want but I think it's important to include them as part of the greater picture.
The spot is meant to "pay homage," says Bob Lachky, vice president of brand management.
"It's a message from the heart of the company. We hope people see it as we intended. That we're Americans. That we know what the cost of freedom
Anheuser-Busch is proud to be an American beer company and we wanted to express ourselves in respectfully honoring those affected by the events of
For some more perspective, here's information about the other 2 ads.
In the second 9/11 related ad, Rudolph Guiliani thanked Americans for their support which was sponsored by Monster.com.
Monster.com - Rudy Giuliani commercial
The third ad was from the Drug Czar and his Office of National Drug Control Policy. Here's some information about this ad followed by a link to the
...the Drug Czar and his Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) are prepared to make use of the Super Bowl’s enormous audience to
disseminate a damaging and discriminatory message: if you use illegal drugs, then you support terrorism. The ONDCP has reportedly purchased two
30-second spots for the whopping price of $3.2 million. Touted as being the biggest single-event government advertising buy in U.S.
Yes, Anheuser-Busch is a large corporation and their main goal is to make profits. They ran multiple other ads in their usual fashion that day but
took the time, and money, to place a different type of ad that day too. Did they profit from it and get more brand recognition because of it?
Absolutely. Could they have spent the approximate $3.2 billion on a different type of ad? Absolutely.
Call me a sucker if you want, but especially in light of the information I tend to see the ad as a genuine one.
edit on 9/22/2010 by Three_moons because: grammar and video issues
budweiser is worse than oprah, if that's possible, using 9/11 and the statue of liberty to sell beer. i guess they have to since bud ranks as one of
the all time worst tasting beers in n.america and a surefire way of getting a massive headache and hangover.
No, the commercial does not show anyone drinking beer.
Budweiser has been running commercials using the Clydesdale horses for a long time. I don't recall any of those commercials showing beer drinking
either. The purpose of those commercials is to create an association between the feelings invoked in you by the "heartwarming stories" of the
beautiful, magnificent animals, and the Budweiser brand and logo which are shown at the end of the commercial. After enough repetitions, the logo is
no longer even necessary, as the horses themselves are understood to be symbolic of the Budweiser brand. That's why there have been so many of the
commercials spanning so many years, using the same types of themes and imagery.
A lot of advertising does not contain any explicit message such as "buy this product" or show the use of the product itself. It seeks to build an
association between emotions invoked by the commercial and the *brand*, not the product or products sold under that brand.
If this was about respect, and tribute, a good way to communicate this would be to pay for an ad which does not prominently feature brand symbols (the
horses) and does not display the company logo at the end. One which merely pays tribute instead of saying "we, Budweiser, pay tribute". It's the
difference between putting the focus on the people being honored, and putting the focus on those doing the honoring.
The purpose of this crass and manipulative commercial is to build an association between the feelings of patriotism, solidarity, and respect invoked
by the imagery and events, and the Budweiser brand. It's done very cleverly, and in such a way as to render it as inoffensive and palatable as
possible, but the intent is to link the brand with powerful feelings invoked by the imagery. When you say it is "tasteful", what you're saying is
that it worked.
Just like your local electric company plays all those psy-op commercials showing the truck driver "up at 5am" checking on things. These corporations
hire people in the PR field to write, direct and prodcue these type of ads and commericals to do one thing: SELL.
Joe Citizen sees it and thinks, "Yea, Bud is all American man. Think I'll buy some."
Problem is, its nothing but a psycological ploy designed to play on the emotions of people who have little sense than to fall for this type of stuff.
Did we see an ad after the OKC bombing? Or how about Waco in which the government slaughtered it's own. Did good 'ol Budweiser make a tribute
commercial to Randy Weaver's son & wife? I don't think so.
The fact that the OP finished his post with " and ice cold american brew" just goes to show how well this marketing scheme works. Someone else put
it very well, its all product recognition. If you are unfamiliar with how marketing works you will never understand Bud's true intentions with this
commercial. Wake up people, please...
Would you spend your own money to make a commercial to honor people who died on 911? (if you had the money to do so)?
I am not saying that these corporations are not using these types of events to promote themselves(its obvious they are) I never have, I simply stated
that I see nothing wrong with the commercial. I thought it was a classy commercial.
Honoring the victims of 911 with a commercial?That's got to be about the tackiest way of honoring anything.Why not produce a line of Bud cans shaped
like a WTC Tower to honor them?
If they really wanted to honor them, how about taking all the money from the making and placing of that advert, and put it in a fund to help the
If this commercial was intended to honor the dead, why did they pull it?
It's business as usual for AB.Rabid capitalist opportunists with concern for nothing but profit.They must have got 911 mixed up with the
Superbowl.Maybe for them there isn't a difference.It's all about viewership.
Budweiser could do a commercial honoring the dead victims of drunken domestic violence.That would be somewhat poignant ................ but not so
good for sales.What do sales matter when honor is on the line?
edit on 23-9-2010 by blah yada because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Whine Flu
How did people cry over this? This is the most shallow, unemotive piece of crap I've laid eyes upon.
The sheep cry over these type of things, as they graze under the watchful eyes of their corporate masters.
yeah you're right. Over 2000 people being massacred is nothing to be upset about....get a grip.
As for the video, I liked it. Thought it was very respectful and honorable to those who died. However, 9/11 is a great tool and a way to make money
and to get votes. It's a day that will live in infamy...and a day that will forever be exploited by bigots to justify why an Islamic Culture Center
shouldn't be put "near" Ground Zero.
The thought certainly went through my mind about the money they spent on the commercial possibly being spent in other ways. As previously mentioned
and cited, they only aired it once during the Super Bowl in 2002 because "they didn't want to benefit financially from it and just wanted to pay
tribute to America and its heroes on that horrible day." While not the same, and one could certainly argue that they could have contributed even
more with the ad money, they did contribute a large sum to various victim funds.
Anheuser-Busch gave a total of $8,400,000 to the Giving in the Aftermath of 9/11. The combined funding went to support the NYS WTC Relief Fund,
September 11th Fund, Community Foundation for the National Capital Region Survivors' Fund, the American Red Cross (for long-term personal needs of
victims and families), and the Salvation Army (to provide meals for emergency workers in NY and DC). They also contributed a million dollars to the
Pentagon Memorial which supposedly was more difficult in finding financial donors than other related
memorials. Source (Page 5, number 22) Source
Indirectly related would be their 150 year support of the U.S. military which was recently acknowledged by the DoD. There also appear to be numerous
other programs, support and involvement, including scholarships, between them and the military. In one of their most recent programs, they have been
giving free admission to military and their families to their theme parks for at least 5 years under their "Heroes Salute" program. During their
earlier years in 1921, Busch's widow donated admission fees to disabled veterans when they first opened their gardens to the public. Sourc
I certainly didn't know about their involvement in anything I mentioned. I just fail to see what's so terrible about the commercial, especially
since a little research seems to put many questions and issues aside, at least for me. They're certainly not obligated to give any of their profits
away, never mind the millions that they do annually.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.