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
Not too disagree with Dr. Runte's fine post, but be aware that delays of several weeks or even months are common before letters reach Congress-critters in DC. This is a hangover from the anthrax attacks years ago. This article suggests that if you must, write to the official's office in your state:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1143878
Smokies Backpacker - my very sincere wish is that no female relative or friend of yours experiences the very real tragedy of rape, which is such a different reality from your use of the word to describe policies you disagree with that there is really no comparison. Don't let your passion for your issues belittle by comparison what women experience in these crimes.
Thank you Dr. Runte. Right on. Interesting enough, people are taking notice, received a call from the local newspaper on this issue, other friends have as well. Alfred, I would like to see your post in letter form. Thinking back on my own 37 year tenure as a Park Ranger, I was discussing this with a friend who did a workup one time on all the LE incidents s/he responded to and what was the root cause of the issue, believe it or not, 75% were related to alcohol or drugs. In my case I would say it was closer to 80%.
And what percentage of those that consumed alcohol didn't result in an incident? What percentage of those that drink don't rape? What percentage don't drive under the influence? You are painting an entire legal industry and nearly ubiquitous practice with an evil brush due to the despicable behavoir of a few. Once again its an attitude of punish/shun everyone rather than just the perpetrators.
Do I want beer banners hanging in my parks? No but I don't want any other corporate logos either. However, I am not so pollyannish as to turn down monies the park sorely needs just because the product is alcohol.
Actually, EC, all of the statistics here are very compelling. An estimated one half of all automobile fatalities are due to drugs and alcohol. For young people under age 24, the primary cause of death is auto accident. So, where does that leave us in the parks? As I recall the Walt Disney movie, Pollyanna fell out of a tree. In the real world, the one in which my ranger friend lost his 18-year old son 25 years ago, the cause of death was a drunken driver who took Chad out at 65 mph. Chad never had a chance.
I just don't like the odds, nor were those odds ever meant for our national parks. But there you have it--what the widening and straightening of park roads portend, especially with alcohol in the mix.
The parks don't "sorely need" a thing, other than a moral compass. They are supposed to be different; they were always meant to be different. That is why we call them national parks. The Park Service no longer sees that because we no longer insist on it. Got money? Do whatever you want.
I will tell you this as a historian. This current crew managing the parks is digging themselves a hole no historian will ever let them crawl out of. Unless, of course, the public allows it. So yes, they are counting on you, EC. Look the other way and take the check. And when another kid dies in a park (although Chad happened to die outside one), shed a tear, do a news release, and get everything back to normal as quickly as possible.
Fate I can understand. The ancient Greeks taught us about the power of fate. But encouraging fate is something else again--like walking against the light in the middle of the street. We shouldn't want to encourage fate in our national parks, nor in any way suggest that we do. If a bear gets you, that is fate. If a drunk gets you, should we now call it being Budweisered?
According to the CDC, injuries, deaths and serious impacts on the nation's economy due to excessive alcohol use involved a lot more people than "a few."
That agency notes, "Excessive alcohol use ... accounted for approximately 88,000 deaths per year from 2006–2010, and accounted for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20–64 years. Excessive alcohol use shortened the lives of those who died by about 30 years."
"A study found that nearly 70% of deaths due to excessive drinking involved working-age adults, and about 70% of the deaths involved males. The study also found that about 5% of the deaths involved people younger than age 21."
"The impact of these deaths affects the nation's economy and the sustainability of families. Excessive drinking cost the United States about $224 billion ...in 2006, and about 40% of these costs were paid by government."
Am I suggesting we go back to prohibition? Of course not, but I am saying irresponsible ads by the industry such as the one mentioned in this story make a joke of their "drink responsibly" PR efforts, and using national parks to promote products that cause this amount of harm to society is not acceptable.
Does anyone really believe the industry doesn't expect an improved bottom line and image as a result of ads linking their products to iconic places in our parks? If so, you'll likely be a candidate for some Florida real estate that's only underwater part of the year.
Not as a percent of the total. You (and Alfred) have to keep things in perspective. What percent of the population indulges in "excessive alcohol use" and then creates injuries deaths and serious impacts. It is a minor portion of the population. Should we really base policy on the bad acts of a minor portion of the population?
Of course not. If they weren't getting an improved bottem line I would think they would be acting contrary to the interest of their shareholders. But whether they are improving their bottom line or not is irrelevant unless you concern is successful companies rather than healthy parks.
Not to be overly argumentative, EC, but your stating that it is a minor portion of the population doesn't make it so. Some of us who have had to sweep up after the parade, so to speak, would offer a different opinion, based on hard won experience.