Advertising with Grief - Budweiser, Cheerios, and Iconic Brand Assets

Advertising can be very effective when it engages human emotions, but the most distasteful misuse of advertising’s power is when negative feelings are leveraged for unashamed gain. When Prince died earlier this year, dozens of print ads appeared in purple, many from brands that had nothing to do with the musician. Some were subtle tributes, but some were overtly branded - as if the company’s priority was to ensure you tied their brand to the deceased (which of course was their ultimate goal, regardless of how they spun their intentions).

Cheerios released an ad that, at first glance, seemed subtle in its branding, but the Cheerio dotting the “i” is actually pretty obvious.

Getting ready for a bowlful of complaints.

General Mills, the company that makes Cheerios, faced a wave of complaints, and they pulled the ad.

Alcohol manufacturers were also quick to jump on the opportunity of Prince’s death, which was doubly transparent because Prince was well-known to be a non-drinker.

Maker's Mark - Probably not Prince's beverage choice.

Prince almost certainly would not nave endorsed a booze manufacturer when he was alive, so the association was distasteful and disrespectful to the person that Prince was - he may have at least enjoyed an occasional bowl of Cheerios.

In 2002, Budweiser created a Superbowl ad that aired only once. It was a “tribute” to New York City and the human tragedy that struck the United States on September 11th of the previous year. A slightly revised version of the ad was run once more on the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

The former executive vice president of Anheuser-Busch Global Creative said at the time, "We filmed in New York City. We had a helicopter going over the Brooklyn Bridge. Mayor Giuliani let us into the city - the only film company of any sort right after 9/11. To actually come into air space with our helicopter to film the Clydesdales - it was amazing - just amazing.”

It is a powerful ad - it looks beautiful, its tone is perfect, and it was widely praised at the time. It received particular praise because the company’s logo is absent until the end.

My question is this: the Budweiser Clydesdales are one of the most iconic, recognizable brand assets in the United States - so why did Budweiser show their logo at all?

It takes a brave executive to keep their logo off an advertisement for any reason, but the respect and honour an unbranded tribute provides would have been ample reason to do so. With such iconic brand assets, an ad with no corporate logo would be undeniably powerful, much less exploitative, and yet it would still be unmistakably “Budweiser.”

You can argue that Cheerios took an unbranded approach with their Prince tribute, but paying tribute to a fallen rock star seems much more opportunistic than providing a moment of support to a city or a nation - and if you can’t use a person’s brand image without their consent in life, then how can it conscionably be used after their death?

I believe that Budweiser’s corporate heart was in the right place with their tribute advertisement, but the logo placement at the end makes it crystal clear that their platitudes aren’t as important as selling more beer - which makes it a little harder to swallow. Budweiser could have played it a lot cooler if they let their horses do the talking. Wouldn’t that ad have been exponentially more powerful?