What Did Gen Z Really Think About the Budweiser-Mulvaney Controversy?

Welcome to your weekly dose of smart Gen Z analysis from YPulse Daily Intelligence.

“I read the YPulse newsletter every day. It's how I keep up with the audience.”

Kaley Mullin | Youth and Trends Insights Lead, YouTube

?? Get weekly Gen Z insights based on research, not vibes sent straight to your inbox. Subscribe to the YPulse newsletter.

01 | Start

As you very likely already know, last summer, a seemingly small collaboration between Budweiser and Dylan Mulvaney, a trans woman TikToker, became an enormous media story thanks to the backlash and boycott. The collab wasn’t even a major ad spot—it was posted to Mulvaney’s account, but the one-of-a-kind prop can with her face on it became a hot topic. Budweiser’s decision to collab with Dylan Mulvaney sparked polarizing reactions, to put it mildly. While some applauded the brand’s inclusivity and support for the trans community, others, like Kid Rock, voiced their opposition, leading calls for a boycott. In response to the backlash, Budweiser opted to end the collab, which prompted more criticism, and the boycott led to them losing a ton of money. ?

The Bud Light controversy, and fallout, was so intense that it has likely scared other brands from doing collabs with anyone in the LGBTQ+ community that might incite the same backlash. There’s no denying the impact of the media explosion that occurred, which focused mainly on the opposition to the campaign. But we were curious how representative that boycott was of young people’s beliefs, and if brands who want to reach Gen Z should indeed stay away from LGBTQ+ partnerships. YPulse’s recent Causes Charity & Activism survey included two specific questions to get young consumers’ opinions on the matter.?YPulse data reveals how young adults of drinking age in the U.S. really feel about the situation and Budweiser’s handling of the controversy, offering valuable insights for brands:?

The majority of young adults in North America say Budweiser should have stuck up for Dylan Mulvaney and supported trans people?

Over half of young drinking age adults in the U.S. were actually in favor of the campaign, with 21-24-year-olds the most likely to say the brand should have stuck up for Mulvaney and supported trans people amid the backlash.?We also asked 18-39-year-olds in Canada and the numbers tell the same story: 57% of 18-39-year-olds say Budweiser should have stuck up for Dylan Mulvaney and supported trans people amid the backlash, which would have made for a commendable display of solidarity with the trans community.?This data aligns with our Ad/Marketing survey findings, which show that 54% of 21-24-year-olds say brands featuring transgender models in an ad is positive, 23% say it’s negative, and 22% say it’s neither. Our survey data also shows that of these age groups, 21-24-year-olds are also the most likely to say they’d like to see brands get involved in causes related to gender equality / sexism as well as LGBTQ+ discrimination / rights. For many young consumers, especially Gen Z, LGBTQ+ allyship is a closely personal matter: young people 21-29-years-old are more likely to identify as LGBTQ+ themselves than those 30-39-years-old. ??

Of course, it can’t be ignored that nearly four in 10 surveyed say that Bud Light should have apologized and terminated the collab. Those who feel that the brand should have apologized skew strongly male in the U.S. with 48% of males choosing this option, compared to 29% of females. This data clearly indicates that the headlines around young males trending conservative are accurate. It’s understandable that some brands would be wary of potentially losing this demo. But those who claimed that Bud Light’s misstep was going against the beliefs of this core audience ignore the brand’s long history of LGBTQ+ support, as well as the fact that other brands working with LGBTQ+ individuals have not seen the same scale of blowback as the Mulvaney campaign, which was turned into an inciting example by many. (They also ignore that males are not the only demographic drinking beer.)?

Backtracking on the partnership was perhaps the biggest misstep

YPulse’s research shows that usually the first thing young people want a brand to do in the wake of a controversy is apologize for wrongdoing. But what if the controversy is created around something that they don’t think is wrong? Some of the open-end responses from our “other” option show that Bud Light’s failure to stand by their partnership was the biggest issue for many young people. One 29-year-old female says the brand “should have clapped back with a stronger collaboration with the transgender community.” Another 34-year-old male says, “If they made the decision to partner then they should stand on it and apologize for nothing.” ?

And other brands who have received similar negative attention for partnering with LGBTQ+ individuals have shown there’s another way. Take Nike for example, when Mulvaney uploaded a sponsored Instagram post wearing the brand’s athleticwear just days after the Budweiser ordeal. As comments on the post and several other posts from the brand itself were flooded with hate, Nike finally broke its silence on the issue. The brand left a comment on its own Instagram post, featuring the Pegasus 40 shoe that promotes LGBTQ+ inclusion, that read, “You are an essential component to the success of your community! We welcome comments that contribute to a positive and constructive discussion: Be kind ?? Be inclusive Be inclusive ?? Encourage each other ?? Hate speech, bullying, or other behaviors that are not in the spirit of a diverse and inclusive community will be deleted.” Of course, Nike also weathered a backlash and boycott calls of their own years ago when they partnered with Colin Kaepernick—but the brand was steadfast in their partnership then as well, and didn’t respond to their vocal critics.

While appeasing immediate concerns is important, brands should also consider the long-term impact of their decisions on brand perception and young consumers’ trust. In the end, building a resilient brand requires a commitment to the moves they make. It’s understandable that many brands would be wary of embarking on similar campaigns in the wake of Bud Light’s losses. But for those aiming to appeal to young people, it’s important to look closely at how much of the backlash was rooted in their beliefs, how much was a reaction to the brand’s own backtracking, and how much was amplified by a tsunami of media coverage that spun it into an uncommon occurrence.?

Ultimately, this is a hot button issue, but the majority of young people, especially Gen Z, supported the campaign. Brands who fear their campaigns will be handpicked to be turned into a rallying cry of opposing groups will likely stay quiet on these issues, or stop showing their support for the LGBTQ+ community, for the time being—but our data indicates the next generation of consumers want brands to continue that work. If you are a brand trying to reach young people, supporting and featuring LGBTQ+ people and community shouldn’t be abandoned, despite the very vocal opposition that might have scared some off from this approach.?

Additional Information

Note: You must be a YPulse Prime member to download.

02 | What‘s Trending on YPulse

Young Europeans’ Top 10 Favorite Athletes Now?

Gen Z’s Vintage Tech Obsession is Not as Big as It Seems?

TikTok Famous Chocolate Strawberries on The Viral List?

03 | Most Clicked News of the Week

YPulse experts curate the most interesting and relevant Gen Z from around the web in our daily and weekly newsletters. Get it sent straight to your inbox.

Millennials are projected to become the wealthiest generation in history (again). Millennials are predicted to inherit significant property assets from preceding gens, leading to a “seismic” increase in wealth over the next two decades. This transfer of wealth amounts to $90T is the U.S. alone, marking a substantial shift in wealth distribution between gens. Liam Bailey, global head of research at Knight Frank, suggests that this shift in wealth dynamics could encourage sustainable investments and behavior among Millennials, who are increasingly conscious of reducing their carbon footprints. (The Guardian) ?

?? YPulse reported: Other studies suggest the Great Boomer Wealth Transfer is unlikely to benefit most Millennials?