Dana Milbank’s numerous attempts to pass off his partisan opinions as hard news have been well documented here, so it is hard to find anything he says or does surprising. Last night, however, he hit paydirt on Hardball while discussing the moving Anheuser-Busch tribute to our soldiers:
MATTHEWS: …Is it possible to distinguish between an ad to sell beer and a company that has ads trying to actually to salute the country in its missions?
MILBANK: Well, that
Kathy K
Well, yanno, liquor (including beer) isn’t illegal in Iraq, as it is (or possibly was) in Afghanistan. If the troops are banned from having any drinks, ever, while they are there, I’d have to agree with Dana on ‘the real crime’.
Bob
The commercial was well done, a very moving little piece of film. But of course the nature of advertising is to connect with what is worshipped, if not outright selling it. This time the totem was our soldiers, the totem was patriotism. The film can be tastefully done, it can be a moving tribute, but it also was to sell beer. I’ve spent a little time in VA hospitals and they could use some support (especially with this new budget). But don’t expect to see a video of people clapping for men and women with missing limbs trying to navigate their way up a ramp into a VA clinic to get treatment for a stump infection. That just wouldn’t sell beer.
I know that there is a suspension of disbelief around here when anything suggesting patriotism is offered up, but why else did Bud put its name at the end of the commercial? Why not anonymous?
I hardly watch the talking heads and don’t know who Dana Milbank is, but wasn’t he just stating the obvious, and isn’t pretending otherwise just a 2005 version of the emperor’s new clothes?
Aaron
The reason they put Budweiser at the end was to remind you to buy a vet a Budweiser.
Seriously, part of branding is to tell the community about your company…Shell has all thos ads about helping the environment because it wants the public to re-consider their image of Shell.
For Budweiser, it’s reminding the public that it’s an American product.
Kimmitt
…which is fine, as long as it’s done in a reasonably respectful fashion, but it is what it is.
John Cole
Actually, they never put Budweiser in the commercial.
At the end, they put a verty tasteful Anehuser Busch, so they can’t even be accused of branding a beer.
HH
The next big Bush scandal: Budgate!
CadillaqJaq
I liked the commercial, I can’t say the same regarding Budweiser beer: make mine MGD.
It was highly gratifying to me, almost to the point of tears, to see film of troops being applauded by their supporters, even if it was sponsored by a beer company. I’ve seen similar things IRL in a few airliners in the past couple of years. Well deserved IMO.
Bob
Earth to John Cole,
Who doesn’t know that Anheuser-Busch doesn’t make Budweiser? Only people who don’t drink beer.
John Cole
Earth to Bob.
Oh, never mind. I am not going to explain branding and the difference between a company and a brand name. It will just bounce off your forehead.
Ricky
For those of Bob’s ilk, this Shamoo fan appreciated the gesture within the commercial.
Bob knew that Anheuser Busch owned the Sea World parks, right?
Bob
Okay, Mr. Cole, let’s take a quick poll of all the people here: Who here didn’t know before the Super Bowl on Sunday that Anheuser Busch didn’t make Budweiser Beers?
The question isn’t between a company name and a brand name if the two have been entwined by hundreds of millions of dollars over the years. Granted, the whole airport lounge didn’t lift up Bud Lites in saluting the troops, but if you don’t buy your beer by the color patterns on the label, you knew who sponsored that commercial sells Budweiser. Any attempt to argue otherwise shows the desperation of Mr. Cole to diss the obvious.
innocent bystander
LOL at John Cole