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
I agree Alfred (thank you again), the numbers are quite compelling and take up a huge amount of time for the park protection staff. Not only tragic accidents, severe disruptions to other visitors, time consuming litigation and court time, it is the single most time consuming duty I had on the night shift in Yosemite. No one here is suggesting banning all alcohol sales in the parks, but that might be a good idea, the issue is displaying the logo of a beer company in our park visitor centers. If that is the only way we can get philanthropic assistance or get the youth of the country interested in our national ecological, historic and cultural heritage, we are in trouble. Excessive alcohol consumption on college campus, in our parks, in our neighborhoods is a serious issue, anyone that has not experienced that is living a sheltered life or blind to what is happening. Thank you Harry for an excellent letter, RickB, Jim, all of you have hit the nail on the head in my own opinion.
If that is "the issue", I am in 100% agreement. No, and not the logo of any other corporation either.
In response to a question above, CDC link for economic costs of alcohol use was provided above, and here's some more related directly to the current pitch by the industry to connect a "new generation of beer drinkers" with national parks.
"[In 2013] 696,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 were assaulted by another student who has been drinking, and 97,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 report experiencing alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape."
The American College of Surgeons says there are "37 million emergency department visits from trauma" and "Alcohol is responsible for approximately half of all trauma deaths and nonfatal injuries in the United States."
Yes, some people can use alcohol "responsibly," but stats confirm plenty of them don't. The American College of Surgeons says, "Even those who drink 'relatively low levels,' in other words, less than one drink per day, are at a greater risk of getting injured."
Natural areas such as national parks have enough inherent hazards that anything that impairs visitors either mentally or physically is undersirable. Just one example: Alcohol is a major factor in the number of deaths at Lake Mead each year, as it is for boating accidents nationwide.
The beer industry is selling plenty of their products without any help from the NPS, and the agency certainly doesn't need to be any part of the industry's desire to "introduce a new generation of beer drinkers"... to national parks.
Let's reduce the advertising phrase "introduce a new generation of beer drinkers to the national parks" to its real meaning. What it really means is "to entice a new generation into the world of alcoholic irresponsibility and potential addiction."
All in the name of money.
How anyone can support the alcohol industry with a clear conscience is beyond me. But experience has shown time and time again that dollars can dull the conscience of almost anyone if they allow it.
It would be very interesting to learn if the recent falling death at Grand Canyon was in any way connected with consumption of alcohol.
Thank you, Jim, for posting those links.
Director Jarvis. I think we would like to hear from you on this issue. Do you still think associating the Park Service with Budweiser represents a positive message to young generations of Americans. Do you really want this to be part of your legacy as Director?
You really need to respond to all of the concerns voiced by those of us who love our wonderful system on National Parks. We are your allies and we want to hear you address this matter. If you do not respond history will judge you and your legacy and you may not like what history will say
Sorry Jim, can't buy the $224 billion number. "lost productivity'? Well then, I guess laziness cost the economy $1 trillion. Let's outlaw laziness. And of course that number isn't net of the contribution that alcohol makes to the economy in the form of sales, jobs, taxes etc. BTW - how does the government pay for "lost productivity'? Are these mostly government workers?
Are there some that use it irresponsibly - yes. But then there are some that drive irresponsibly but we don't ban cars we punish the people that use them irresponsibly. Lee can't see how anyone can support the alcohol industry. Just shows how out of touch he is as the vast majority of adult Americans do that responsibly on a regular basis.
But we are off topic. I say take the money but keep the logos out.
A fine idea, Harryb. Before the day is over I will have mailed a paper letter to Director Jarvis. On Monday I'll be at the door of Senator Hatch's local office with a letter to him. Let's try to start a movement here. What might happen if there was a deluge of letters to people who might be in positions to act?
Okay, here is the text of my letter to Director Jarvis:
Mr. Jon Jarvis
Director, National Park Service
National Park Service
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Director Jarvis:
I am a former national park ranger. I am extremely disturbed about news that the Park Service is entering an agreement to allow Budweiser beer to use the parks in advertising in exchange for some money.
During my years in the service, I had the awful task of recovering several bodies following accidents of various kinds. I don’t know if you’ve ever had to bag a decomposing park visitor, but any of us who have cannot easily forget the experience. In almost every case, alcohol was a contributing – if not direct – cause of the person’s death. In some cases, the deceased was an innocent victim of another who had been drinking.
Most of my law enforcement actions in the parks were alcohol fueled. Now, to think of the service joining in a campaign to actually encourage more use of beer by young people in our parks is simply disgusting. The wild nature of many of our parks means there are hazards to visitors as they hike, climb and simply drive. To partner with a campaign that encourages use of a substance that “provides the perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary,” is something our parks do not need no matter how much money may be paid for the privilege.
I ask you to please stop this blatant misuse of our parks as an advertising gimmick.
Respectfully,
Luke E. Dalton
I hope every other TRAVELER reader who cares about this will send a similar letter.