Budweiser celebrated its ties to the national parks with a newly designed bottle featuring the Statute of Liberty/Budweiser
National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis waived agency policies against partnering with alcoholic beverage companies so the National Park Foundation could sign a multi-million-dollar agreement with Anheuser-Busch, a deal that provides Budweiser with valuable branding placements during the Park Service's centennial campaign.
In return, the Park Service hopes to gain a valuable partner in its search for a younger audience for national parks, co-branding with the beermaker at concerts in the parks, and "integration with AB's Responsible Drinking Campaign."
Word that the director had signed the waiver (attached below) back in January, revealed Monday night after the Traveler raised questions about the $2.5 million Budweiser contract, apparently hadn't traveled far beyond the Park Service's Washington, D.C., headquarters. The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees was not aware of it, nor was Dennis Galvin, a former Park Service deputy director who stays active in Park Service circles.
Alcohol long has been found in the National Park System, as visitors enjoy beer, wine, and cocktails during their vacations. Indeed, a microbrewery actually operates on the grounds of Hot Springs National Park in Arkansas, and many microbreweries across the country label some of their beers after national park settings. But as an agency, the Park Service for about a quarter-century has had a prohibition against aligning itself with alcoholic beverage companies.
Under language contained within Director's Order 21, which pertains to fundraising and donations to the agency, "it is NPS policy to decline direct donations from a company which holds or is seeking a concessions contract or which would identify the NPS with alcohol or tobacco products." Additionally, the order states that, 'Corporate campaigns which identify the NPS with alcohol or tobacco products will not be authorized.'
Mr. Galvin told the Traveler that the "prohibition actually dates back to 1988 post-Yellowstone fire when we had an offer from a wine company to donate some sum for every bottle of wine sold to support Yellowstone rehabilitation. We rejected the offer on the basis that we didn't want NPS supporting alcohol consumption and also decided that was true of tobacco as well."
However, the Park Service's assistant director for Partnerships and Civil Engagement last Christmas Eve requested a waiver to that dictate so that Anheuser-Busch could "provide support for the Find Your Park public awareness campaign."
"This public awareness campaign is a critical tool for reaching the Centennial goal: to connect with and create the next generation of park visitors, supporters, and advocates," the request said.
The document also noted that current NPS policy does "allow the acceptance of donations from producers of alcohol producers, and the NPF has on its board the president and chief executive officer of Silver Eagle Distributors, L.P., the nation's largest distributor of AB products."
At the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, Maureen Finnerty said late last week that her group was waiting to see if Director Jarvis intended to rewrite DO21 to allow for partnerships with alcoholic beverage companies.
'My understanding is they have relaxed their policy on alcohol. I don't hear it on tobaco, but I hear it on alcohol, and I think it's to accommodate this Budweiser situation," she said Friday before word of the wavier had spread. 'Until I have a little more detail I don't know what to think."
When Budweiser last week announced a new bottle design that features an artistic rendering of the Statue of Liberty, which rises above Statue of Liberty National Monument in the Hudson River at the head of New York Harbor, company officials made clear they were hoping to lure more beer drinkers into the parks.
"We want to encourage a new generation of beer drinkers to get out there and see what America is made of," said Budweiser Vice President Brian Perkins in a press release. "And where better than in America's national parks? It's fitting for Budweiser'a big, bold brand'to team up with a pioneering partner like NPF. We are looking to draw attention to these parks with our eye-catching packaging '¦ as well as a pretty epic surprise concert this summer."
The move to tap philanthropic funding for the Park Service via alcoholic beverages has been under way for at least two years. In 2013 the National Park Foundation entered into an agreement with Alder Fells Winery of California to market bottles of wine bearing commemorative labels. Under that agreement, the Foundation was to receive $2 for every bottle of the "National Parks Wines Collection" sold.
Still, the Budweiser campaign seems at odds with the Park Service's Healthy Parks, Healthy People initiative, which aims, in part, to 'bring about lasting change in Americans' lifestyle choices and their relationship with nature and the outdoors.' The initiative is described as being aligned with the Surgeon General's National Prevention Strategy, which identifies Prevention of Drug and Excessive Alcohol Use as one of its seven strategies. One of the recommendations under that particular strategy is to "(C)reate environments that empower young people not to drink or use other drugs."
Park Service Chief of Public Affairs April Slayton pointed out in an email to the Traveler that part of the agreement with Anheuser-Busch focuses on responsible drinking.
"The Anheuser-Busch InBev waiver to DO-#21 calls for the integration of the AB InBev Responsible Drinking Program. When Budweiser hosts events in national parks as part of their agreement, if beer is made available, Budweiser will activate its responsible drinking program," she wrote.
Ms. Slayton also noted the beermaker's philanthropic ties, writing that, "Anheuser-Busch InBev has a strong presence in the philanthropic community, partnering with large American non-profits, including the American Red Cross, United Way, Habitat for Humanity, Teach for America, and Living Lands & Waters."
In seeking the waiver, the Partnerships and Civic Engagement staff noted that the agreement with Alder Fels, which expired at the end of last year, led to sales of more than 39,000 bottles of wine and generated about $73,000 for the Foundation.
"With this waiver and its specific application, there was no adverse reaction from the public," Ms. Slayton pointed out. "The waiver permitting the Budweiser partnership carefully builds on that past successful partnership."
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
Comments
This is a new low in the history of the National Park Service. Shame on you Director Jarvis. You have done enough damage to an agency we all love. Resign now and be gone before you do any more damage.
Although I think this is terrible, I'd hesitate to place all the blame entirely upon Jon Jarvis. Long experience has shown that there are almost always other powerful political pressures lurking in the shadows.
One paragraph in the article above is particularly telling : "The document also noted that current NPS policy does "allow the acceptance of donations from producers of alcohol producers, and the NPF [National Park Foundation] has on its board the president and chief executive officer of Silver Eagle Distributors, L.P., the nation's largest distributor of AB products."
Were there other pressures applied as well? Any from Congressional sources at behest of campaign contributors? Any from higher up in DOI? The foul smell of money is overwhelming here.
Perhaps we need Paul Harvey to tell us the Rest of the Story.
Terrible idea.
Rick
"We want to encourage a new generation of beer drinkers to get out there and see what America is made of," said Budweiser Vice President Brian Perkins in a press release. "And where better than in America's national parks?"
Here's just one reason that is America's worst idea:
Areas of Florida popular with the Spring Break crowd are regretting luring a "new generation of beer drinkers" to their area. Here's just one example: "The tourism council in Bay County, Florida voted Tuesday to spend more money on spring break security after a month of violence in Panama City Beach -- mostly fueled by alcohol."
Ugh! What's next on this slippery slope? Perhaps a 'partnership' with Harley-Davidson, 'The Official Motorcycle of the NPS Centennial':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKFmc0oZXFI
Here's my favorite example of a tasteful beer ad using a National Park as backdrop:
http://hodala.cx/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/facebook+ainier.jpg
I agree with Jim that expanding the Spring Break mentality into the parks with "epic" concerts will NOT make them (or Budweiser) more relevant:
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-budweiser-became-the-king-of-beers-an...
I could not agree with you more Jim. I do not think we need to encourage the use of beer in our parks to attract a new generation of park visitors. Visitors come to our parks to enjoy the scenery and history. Let the drinkers go to Panama City Beach in Florida. I just wonder how this really bad idea got through the Director's staff. Isn't there anyone on his staff who can give him good advice?
I would like to amend my original comment on this matter. When the Director wakes up to reality and resigns I hope that he takes everyone on his staff that signed on for this idea to go with him into retirement.
How exactly is the deal with Alder Fels different from the deal with AB? Why wasn't a waiver needed for that? Is this a problem because the product is beer rather than wine?
I am rereading Polly Welts Kaufman, National Parks and the Woman's Voice: A History. Could it be that Polly is right? There are just too many little boys in the National Park Service that never have grown up? She doesn't quite say it that way, of course, but this is one instance where I have to agree with my friends from the feminist side of the aisle. Pressured by Congress or not, no director of the National Park Service allows this to happen; he (or she) rather prevails on the countervailing power structure to get the problem resolved.
Ah, but that would mean talking to conservative members of Congress, for which the Park Service is now ill-prepared. The liberals? Hey, we are already into pot. Who cares about your beer? Here in Seattle, my neighborhood is becoming surrounded with marijuana outlets. I hear there are six on Lake City Way alone.
In Seattle, at least, Budweiser is so "old news." Am I outraged? You bet I am. But I am still a historian, after all. After a society rises past its level of mediocrity, its begins its inevitable fall. So this is to be the Park Service Centennial? In that case, I suggest we just burp now and get it over with.
dahkota, a similar waiver was granted for Alder Fels.
I'm surprised that I'm much less against this waiver than all other commentators so far, even though I don't drink AB/InBev products.
I don't see beer blowouts or spring-break atmospheres in parks happening. As I read the waiver, it is about marketing, not about making beer more available in parks or legal in more parks. If AB puts art representing parks on their cans, and uses shots of parks in their advertizing, maybe that lets a few percent more of our fellow citizens know National Parks even exist. Does that bother me any more than the Jeep commercials & Toyota special edition of a couple of years ago (/2012/04/travelers-view-national-park-foundation-erred-licensing-air-fresheners-and-tricked-out-trucks9719 /2011/01/updated-national-park-foundation-and-special-national-parks-edition-toyota-fj-cruiser7422)? It depends on the specific ads that Jarvis approves (the waiver isn't a blanket pre-approval). Tahoma, I'd be thrilled with NPS co-marketing if Harley-Davidson made a nearly silent motorcycle: "hear as well as see the wildlife". Yeah, not likely to happen.
Back to EtOH. I work out of an urban park that is dealing with the policy & safety issues to be allowed to have an evening sunset-watching special event with beer & wine. Policies for alcohol at parks haven't been relaxed. Allowing visitors to bring their own and consume it won't be approved, as they have to drive home when the park closes. One concept for limiting the consumption to 1 per visitor is for the park foundation to sell a ticket for a single beer or glass of wine to each visitor on top of their special-event fees to be in the park after the regular closing, and prohibit visitors from bringing their own alcohol. Its not clear that this will be resolved and approved in time for the park to hold a sunset event this summer, it might be next summer before this can happen.
Finally, I withold judgement on the "epic" concert until I hear where it will be. I bet (a good beer) it won't be in Yellowstone, Yosemite, or any of the big natural-resource parks. NPS isn't going to permit something like a corporate-sponsored Rainbow Family Gathering. What if the concert is at Wolf Trap? Or Chamizal? Or on the Mall? What about on private land within Gateway NRA, or the SE end of Governor's Island with the Statue of Liberty as a backdrop? [I suspect that the concert will be at least as much about TV broadcasting as live audience, as TV broadcasts reach much larger audiences with advertizing.] I'd object to it being at Mount Rushmore, but they don't have the capacity for tens of thousands of visitors. Similarly, I don't see it happening at Lake Mead, Santa Monica Mountains, or other large NRAs because of logistics. I'll be surprised if they relax or waive alcohol restrictions for the concert even if it is at the Mall or Chamizal.
Then again, I could be wrong and end up at least as opposed as the other posters here.
I've head the concerts will be at Golden Gate NRA and Statue of Liberty, and possibly the National Mall. Hope to get specifics --including who will be performing -- later this week.
For a good example of a "mega event" in an urban park which included big-name concerts and on-site alcohol sales, you can read a recap of the "Veiled Prophet Fair" which was held at JNEM ("Gateway Arch") in the 1980s and early 1990s. I was there for two of those years as part of NPS Special Event Teams that tried to make it a safe experience for those attending. I'll only say that mixing alcohol, July heat and crowds approaching a million people a day in a relatively small area for 3 or 4 days had its share of challenges.
The NPS has been in bed with Budweiser for a long time, at least from the early 1990's. For those who have attended the "Fair St. Louis" event at the ARCH, which takes place on NPS grounds, you probably would have noted the large banner over the main stage, reading: "Budweiser Salutes the National Park Service." If that wasn't enough to take your breath away, as you walked around the park you would find numerous other NPS / Budweiser messaging, including the use of the arrowhead all over the place. It is very bad policy for the NPS to chase corporate sponsors, which has been a main thrust of the Jon Jarvis "leadership" philosophy and "vision" for our future. But you have to admit, he knows how to throw a party - which is about the only thing he has accomplished during his time in leadership - and this party planning has defined his directorship.
Thank you Ghost of Steven, others, who have pointed out what a bad idea this is and what a slippery slope it will become. I rarely find myself in disagreement with Alfred, I know he posts ideas just to get us thinking about but this is simply a terrible decision in my view. Thanks also to Jim Burnett, I have been involved in similar situations.
Suitability aside, did I miss something or did they skip the bidding process in this as well?
We're all missing the point, including me. The point of something we share in common is to act as if we share it. This is where our conservative friends have a legitimate beef. These days, we are so busy shedding the "sharing" that we forget what sharing is. Why repeat the Pledge of Allegiance every morning? Why go to church, mosque, or synagogue every week? Surely, we know the Pledge by heart, and by now the sermon, too. It's the sharing; it's the formality; it's the reaffimration of who we are. The ritual is meant to cement the culture. Which brings us back to the national parks.
Does "marketing," however rationaized, cement the institution of national parks? It used to, when the railroads did it, because the railroads committed to the parks every day. Marketing for them was not just a knock-off before moving on to the next "sure thing."
The proof is in the pudding, as my mother used to say. Here, let's say it's in the beer suds. Is Budweiser's commitment to the national parks to be a permanent commitment, or just a stepping-stone on the way to the Super Bowl? Is there to be another $2.5 million to address the backlog? And another $2.5 million after that? Is Budweiser now committed, as the railroads were once committed, to supporting the parks for 100 years? Yes, believe it or not, Union Pacific's commitment came to 100 years. Between the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869, and the sale of Union Pacific's last concessions in 1971, was 102 years, to be exact.
Now, that I would call a commitment. And if that is what Budweiser is promising here, well, $250 million is a lot of dough. We could do some good things with that. However, if this is a one-time deal--and the Big Beer Brotherhood afterward folds its tent--what's the point? We don't need to "market" the parks; we need to love and protect them. As a historian, that is how I would have advised the National Park Service. If you really feel the need to sell your soul, make sure the purchaser plans to stick around.
I've been clean and sober for 35 years, and spent years working in alcohol and substance abuse clinics when I was a nurse. I'm absolutely in agreement with the bulk of the group here.
Exactly, Ron. The point is to get us thinking, which sometimes requires the writer to write tongue-in-cheek. I did say the Park Service was selling its soul. My point is to remind us when corporations did NOT force us to do that. They respected the culture, too. Is the Park Service that out of touch with its past? You bet it is, and therein lies the problem. When you know what failed in the past, you have the confidence not to repeat it. You know what does and doesn't "fit."
The history of this issue may be found in Yosemite: The Embattled Wilderness, along with the other salient issues of park "development." The Park Service has always loved a good "event"--Indian Field Days, the Bracebridge Dinner, and in 1932 even tried to get the Olympic Games held in Yosemite National Park. What did any of it have to do with preserving nature? Not a thing, but it sure made friends in high places, even as park scientists and preservationists cringed.
Perhaps readers of The Traveler are surprised; history is not surprised. But then, these days who is reading history?
Thank you Alfred, but it is not just the NPS, it is a mindset well established in our nations political leadership and their faith in the economic theories of Hydak, Freidman, Greenspan, others, in my own perhaps uniformed opinion. Off subject, but related to one of your earlier posts, the latest issue of the Nation magazine has a very thought provoking article, "The New Thought Police" by Joan W. Scott, professor emerita at CUNY. It makes the point you have made about "why campus administrators are invoking civility to silence critical speech" (political correctness), I thought of some of your earlier comments while reading the article.
Mr. Runte, the issue is not about how much money a corporate sponsor can or will provide, nor how long their committment is to giving. The issue is about influence and what that money buys. As we have already seen, via the Coca Cola / water bottle issue at Grand Canyon NP, the NPS Director clearly provided favor, defference and was influenced to alter park policy, due to a complaining corporate sponsor. As you may remember, PEER had to FOIA documents which the NPS would not freely share and they confirmed that not only had the NPS altered NPS policy to favor the corporate sponsor, but the NPS Director provided false and misleading public statements, while trying to cover these interactions. This incident alone demonstrates how a conflict of interest undermines the primary protective mission of the agency and allows money to corrupt public officials.
I think that drawing fine distinctions about what products are appropriate or inappropriate for sponsorship is a rabbit hole worth avoiding. Alcohol and tobacco are prohibited, but (theoretically) pharmaceuticals and fast food chains are OK? We'd need a phone book sized document to spell out what's "appropriate" and what isn't. Many people (including the Director, apparently) would feel that beer isn't all that bad as a sponsor. Others obviously disagree.
Better to address the issue of sponsorships in general. Anyone can give money to the National Park Service; the question is, at what level of contribution can you expect a quid pro quo? Does $2.5 million place your logo next to the arrowhead? Does $25 get you a tote bag? This is why we have partners like the National Park Foundation. They can do the important business of raising money and "sponsorships," while keeping the corporate logos and perks out of the parks themselves. If you truly want to support the parks, then you should be content to do so without expections in return. Sure, you can buy full page ads in USA Today to congratulate yourself for giving $2.5 million to the parks, but your logo does not belong in the parks themselves, nor should the NPS Arrowhead appear alongside your logo as tacit endorsement, whether you're a beer company or selling solar panels.
As for the concerts in the parks, my question is this: did Statue of Liberty and Golden Gate decide that concerts were a good use of resources, then go looking for sponsors? Or were the concerts Anhauser Busch's idea? I'd have no problem with the former, so long as the sponsors understood they would be receiving nothing but a "thank you" in return; but I worry that the latter may actually be the case, and that the parks' agendas are being driven by the sponsor: as in, "we'll give you $2.5 million if you hold a public concert co-branded with our logo."
We should be soliciting funds for the core work of the National Park Service, including backlog maintenance and public outreach; and it shouldn't matter if those donations come in denominations of $5 or $5 million, so long as the $5 million donation buys no more access, branding, or endorsement than I receive for my $5.
Or maybe $5 would buy me a selfie with a ranger, raising a beer can and singing the National Anthem?
That doesn't work for corporations. Its not their money to just give away. Investors have given the corporatons money with the purposes of making money to return to the shareholders. If a "charitable" contribution provides a return then it is worthwhile in the same way advertising is. If the corporation doesn't expect a return, it shouldn't make the expenditure. Instead, it should return the monies to the shareholders and let them make the decision to give.
I could agree with you on that.
The beer industry's ads have done a masterful job convincing plenty of Americans that a beer in the hand is a necessary adjunct to fully enjoy a sporting event or a day at the beach. Wouldn't they love the chance to create that same nexus in the minds of a "new generation of beer drinkers" as it relates to watching a sunset at the Grand Canyon or viewing the water rushing over Yosemite Falls?
I'd offer an opinion that the number of Americans who see the Statue of Liberty (either pictured on a bottle of beer or as the backdrop for a mega concert) and make a mental connection to the NPS is smaller than some believe (or hope), so my concern with ads like the one pictured is mainly one of principle - that this program is merely a first step in the industry's desire to eliminate all NPS limits on direct connections with their products.
We might joke about a day when a company can buy the rights to a slogan like "The official beer of the Blue Ridge Parkway"...but maybe that's not so far-fetched after all.
Thank you, Ron. I'll look up Professor Scott's article. Meanwhile, some excellent points above. I think we're all starting to get to the heart of the matter--commercializing the national parks is a slippery slope. In 1931, Coca Cola did a major series of ads on the national parks, one of which I frequently show in my lectures. It depicts a family of bears in front of Old Faithful Inn, swigging a bottle of Coke, and reads: "ANOTHER OLD FAITHFUL, THE PAUSE THAT REFRESHES, WITH ICE COLD COCA COLA. Of the hundreds of thousands who every season pour through the Yellowstone National Park, everybody stops to see Old Faithful Geyser. . . Of course Coca Cola is there." In the illustration, which is a painting, Old Faithful Geyser is in fact erupting, only "everybody" is eyeing the bears.
It is not a new adveretising strategy, nor is it a new problem. In the parks, we bring our culture with us. Just as Nike wants its symbol on Tiger Woods's shoulder, companies want us to "associate" them with the "best" of America.
It is then up to the Park Service to draw the proper lines. In that regard, this is undoubtedly one of the most important articles The Traveler has ever published. After all, who else is reporting these issues? Years ago, when Joe Camel ads were appearing outside of American high schools, THE NEW YORK TIMES called it "free speech." I wrote a letter to the editor (which they published) calling it coercion, in that young people were being "targeted" by those ads. When we are being coerced--as in forced to look--I say that no product belongs in the parks. Lady Bird Johnson was right. We should leave ALL of our advertising "at home."
Budweiser has been losing market share to Keystone Light and Pabst Blue Ribbon because so many of the young Park beer drinkers drink those brands. So it makes good sense for Budweiser to try to recover some market share and sponsor the NP. The NPS may be encouraging drinking because the drunks are too hungover to hike much or do anything but sleep it off and leave less human footprints. The NPS is for anything to lower those awful human footprints.