A risqué Bud Light campaign that critics said encouraged a culture of rape is not prompting the National Park Service or National Park Foundation to reconsider their centennial partnership with Anheuser-Busch.
The campaign, #Upforwhatever,” employed dozens of slogans intended to get drinkers to enjoy life while drinking Bud Light. One of the slogans called Bud Light "the perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary for the night.”
On Wednesday, stories in the New York Times and Washington Post as well as other outlets reported on it, along with apologies from Bud for the insensitivity of that particular slogan. Critics on social media said the slogan was promoting rape.
In email responses to the Traveler about the impact of that issue on the Budweiser partnership, officials for the Park Service and Park Foundation said they were unconcerned about any fallout on their relationship with the beermaker.
"The Bud Light campaign is not connected to Find Your Park in any way. The Find Your Park campaign is well-aligned with Anheuser-Busch's charitable focus on education, the environment, economic development, disaster relief and military personnel," Park Service spokeswoman April Slayton said.
At the Park Foundation, interim President Dan Wenk said there were no plans to review the partnership, which required a waiver of Park Service regulations prohibiting campaigns that took donations from alcoholic beverage companies to execute.
"As with all corporate partnerships entered into by the National Park Foundation, identifying partners for the Find Your Park public engagement and education campaign was a thoughtful process executed jointly by NPF and NPS," Mr. Wenk said in an email late Wednesday evening. "In the consideration process, Budweiser’s commitment to corporate social responsibility was very apparent. They have done ample work preserving and protecting the environment and supporting local communities, and their philanthropic focus aligned well with the current needs of the national parks. As with any partnership, the relationship will be evaluated by all involved parties at the end of the contract terms."
Budweiser officials did not respond to Traveler inquiries.
The Budweiser partnership, which is expected to feature outdoor concerts at the Statue of Liberty National Monument in New Jersey and Golden Gate National Recreation Area in California and possibly the National Mall in Washington, generated dozens of comments on Traveler's Facebook page, many of them opposing the deal.
"Really bad idea for an agency promoting healthy enjoyment of the outdoors. There should be no promotion of drinking alcohol when hazardous environments are involved. I would hate to think of what may have happened to the rock climbers we watched in Black Canyon of the Gunnison last fall had they stopped for a Bud! Or to those foolish enough to think they can do a Grand Canyon rim to rim hike in a day with a Bud break at the bottom," wrote Karen Carney. "From a pragmatic standpoint I can understand why NPS/NPF would be tempted to accept large sums from AB, but allowing them to use the National Parks in branding in promotion is a BIG mistake IMHO."
Ms. Carney also pointed to the Bud Light slogan and the bad image is created.
"Great idea!," added Ian Billings. "How about a big Bud Light billboard at Old Faithful! Or maybe a McDonald's drive-thru window under Delicate Arch! Ohhh, ohhhh, and am I the only one who wants a Walmart Supercenter in the Redwood Forest?! Didn't think so! More corporate sponsors, please!"
But others pointed to the financial needs of the Park Service and doubted that all of a sudden Budweiser banners would proliferate in the parks. (However, there are expected to be banners that carry the logos of the main corporate sponsors of the centennial -- Budweiser, American Express, REI, Subaru, and Humana.)
"Why not? I'm not going to walk in Yosemite Valley and think 'this is brought to me by Budweiser'!," said David Bristow. "It also isn't going to get me to buy their product. But maybe with the funds they give to our national parks, those treasures can be better maintained and preserved, as well as enjoyed by more people."
At Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, officials called the partnership " a misguided means of reaching out to youth and broadening public support for parks."
“Once it has gotten into bed with its corporate partner, the Park Service cannot pick and choose which market messaging it will embrace and which it will ignore,” said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the agreement is part of an effort by NPS to raise a $1 billion corporate endowment by its upcoming 2016 centennial. “It is both telling and troubling that the current Park Service leadership sees its core values best reflected in beer ads.”
Comments
Fine Rick - what percentage of the population engages in rapes, drunken driving incidents, deaths and serious impacts due to alcohol? Please document.
Mr. Dan Wenk
First of all let me say that I think many of us who support and are concerned about the future and wellbeing of our National Parks do appreciate that you took the time to respond to the growing chorus of criticism concerning the partnership between the Park Service and Budweiser.
However we are astounded that you have no plans to review this matter and that “As with all corporate partnerships entered into by the National Park Foundation, identifying partners for the Find Your Park public engagement and education campaign was a thoughtful process executed jointly by NPF and NPS." Surely you jest and cannot really mean this.
You further state that "In the consideration process, Budweiser’s commitment to corporate social responsibility was very apparent. They have done ample work preserving and protecting the environment and supporting local communities, and their philanthropic focus aligned well with the current needs of the national parks. As with any partnership, the relationship will be evaluated by all involved parties at the end of the contract terms."
I must say that if you did not realize this involvement with Budweiser was a bad idea before last week you must know it now. Just read the dozens of posts on National Parks Traveler, Facebook and other social media. The message from your public is clear. We do not like the association of the Park Service with Budweiser and their "the perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary for the night.”slogan. This is not funny. This is really bad idea.
Your statement exhibits hubris, arrogance and if I may say a “tin ear.” Just listen to the outrage that this proposal is generating. Do you not care? Do you not understand the damage you have done to the National Park Foundation and the National Park Service by continuing to follow this course. Just admit that this was a mistake. Stop the “partnership” and cut your losses now. The Foundation and the National Park Service made a mistake-a really bad mistake.
Is it really worth the $2.5 million Budweiser will give to the foundation to continue? Budweiser will spend 100 times that amount just on adds celebrating its association with our parks. What does the Park Service get in return? Fleas, just fleas and that is all.
Does someone commenting here have large stockholdings in Budweiser?
Thank you, Dr. Runte, Ron, Rick and others. To add a little to Tahoma's tip to send the letter to the Congresscritter's state office, if you live close enough, drop the letter off in person and ask to speak to the senior staffer when you do. I've found that to be very effective -- except with Rob Bishop. I even received two personal phone calls from Orrin Hatch and one from Bob Bennett when he was in office.
Give it a shot. You might be surprised at the results.
In the meantime, when money speaks, it often overwhelms reason.
I don't know Lee. Who would you suggest? Do you have any knowledge that someone posting here as a large holding in AB? Or, is this just one of your typical unsubstantiated ad hominen attacks?
Sorry, Eric. Not going there.
I gave you my professional opinion based on close to 30 years in the business. And that's as far as I'm going. Have a nice day.
Of course you aren't because the number wouldn't support your position. Yes, people abuse alcohol. People are hurt by alcohol. But then people are hurt by many items that the vast majority of people use and enjoy responsibly every day. We don't "outlaw" those items because a few are hurt. We don't punish responsible users for the misdeeds of a few. We don't judge hundreds of millions based on the relatively few that you may have been exposed to.
Some will shrug off 88,000 deaths a year and an estimated annual cost to the nation's economy of $224 billion as a result of alcohol misuse as "minor," ... but others of us put a different value on those individual lives that were wasted.
As a couple of others have noted, those of us who have loaded some mangled bodies into rubber bags, or knocked on a front door to deliver some terrible news to a parent or or spouse, tend to have a different view of "minor percentages" as they relate to alcohol-related mayhem.
I, for one, am opposed to any advertising that seeks to promote or encourage increased use of these products in parks - or to associate them in any way with those special areas. Just my opinion, and others are clearly welcome to adhere to a different standard.
Assuming that number is true it is less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the population. Tragic for them - yes. But are we to base national policy on that?
PS Do you have a source for "$224 billion as a result of alcohol misuse"?