Budweiser celebrated its ties to the national parks with a newly designed bottle featuring the Statute of Liberty/Budweiser
National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis waived agency policies against partnering with alcoholic beverage companies so the National Park Foundation could sign a multi-million-dollar agreement with Anheuser-Busch, a deal that provides Budweiser with valuable branding placements during the Park Service's centennial campaign.
In return, the Park Service hopes to gain a valuable partner in its search for a younger audience for national parks, co-branding with the beermaker at concerts in the parks, and "integration with AB's Responsible Drinking Campaign."
Word that the director had signed the waiver (attached below) back in January, revealed Monday night after the Traveler raised questions about the $2.5 million Budweiser contract, apparently hadn't traveled far beyond the Park Service's Washington, D.C., headquarters. The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees was not aware of it, nor was Dennis Galvin, a former Park Service deputy director who stays active in Park Service circles.
Alcohol long has been found in the National Park System, as visitors enjoy beer, wine, and cocktails during their vacations. Indeed, a microbrewery actually operates on the grounds of Hot Springs National Park in Arkansas, and many microbreweries across the country label some of their beers after national park settings. But as an agency, the Park Service for about a quarter-century has had a prohibition against aligning itself with alcoholic beverage companies.
Under language contained within Director's Order 21, which pertains to fundraising and donations to the agency, "it is NPS policy to decline direct donations from a company which holds or is seeking a concessions contract or which would identify the NPS with alcohol or tobacco products." Additionally, the order states that, 'Corporate campaigns which identify the NPS with alcohol or tobacco products will not be authorized.'
Mr. Galvin told the Traveler that the "prohibition actually dates back to 1988 post-Yellowstone fire when we had an offer from a wine company to donate some sum for every bottle of wine sold to support Yellowstone rehabilitation. We rejected the offer on the basis that we didn't want NPS supporting alcohol consumption and also decided that was true of tobacco as well."
However, the Park Service's assistant director for Partnerships and Civil Engagement last Christmas Eve requested a waiver to that dictate so that Anheuser-Busch could "provide support for the Find Your Park public awareness campaign."
"This public awareness campaign is a critical tool for reaching the Centennial goal: to connect with and create the next generation of park visitors, supporters, and advocates," the request said.
The document also noted that current NPS policy does "allow the acceptance of donations from producers of alcohol producers, and the NPF has on its board the president and chief executive officer of Silver Eagle Distributors, L.P., the nation's largest distributor of AB products."
At the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, Maureen Finnerty said late last week that her group was waiting to see if Director Jarvis intended to rewrite DO21 to allow for partnerships with alcoholic beverage companies.
'My understanding is they have relaxed their policy on alcohol. I don't hear it on tobaco, but I hear it on alcohol, and I think it's to accommodate this Budweiser situation," she said Friday before word of the wavier had spread. 'Until I have a little more detail I don't know what to think."
When Budweiser last week announced a new bottle design that features an artistic rendering of the Statue of Liberty, which rises above Statue of Liberty National Monument in the Hudson River at the head of New York Harbor, company officials made clear they were hoping to lure more beer drinkers into the parks.
"We want to encourage a new generation of beer drinkers to get out there and see what America is made of," said Budweiser Vice President Brian Perkins in a press release. "And where better than in America's national parks? It's fitting for Budweiser'a big, bold brand'to team up with a pioneering partner like NPF. We are looking to draw attention to these parks with our eye-catching packaging '¦ as well as a pretty epic surprise concert this summer."
The move to tap philanthropic funding for the Park Service via alcoholic beverages has been under way for at least two years. In 2013 the National Park Foundation entered into an agreement with Alder Fells Winery of California to market bottles of wine bearing commemorative labels. Under that agreement, the Foundation was to receive $2 for every bottle of the "National Parks Wines Collection" sold.
Still, the Budweiser campaign seems at odds with the Park Service's Healthy Parks, Healthy People initiative, which aims, in part, to 'bring about lasting change in Americans' lifestyle choices and their relationship with nature and the outdoors.' The initiative is described as being aligned with the Surgeon General's National Prevention Strategy, which identifies Prevention of Drug and Excessive Alcohol Use as one of its seven strategies. One of the recommendations under that particular strategy is to "(C)reate environments that empower young people not to drink or use other drugs."
Park Service Chief of Public Affairs April Slayton pointed out in an email to the Traveler that part of the agreement with Anheuser-Busch focuses on responsible drinking.
"The Anheuser-Busch InBev waiver to DO-#21 calls for the integration of the AB InBev Responsible Drinking Program. When Budweiser hosts events in national parks as part of their agreement, if beer is made available, Budweiser will activate its responsible drinking program," she wrote.
Ms. Slayton also noted the beermaker's philanthropic ties, writing that, "Anheuser-Busch InBev has a strong presence in the philanthropic community, partnering with large American non-profits, including the American Red Cross, United Way, Habitat for Humanity, Teach for America, and Living Lands & Waters."
In seeking the waiver, the Partnerships and Civic Engagement staff noted that the agreement with Alder Fels, which expired at the end of last year, led to sales of more than 39,000 bottles of wine and generated about $73,000 for the Foundation.
"With this waiver and its specific application, there was no adverse reaction from the public," Ms. Slayton pointed out. "The waiver permitting the Budweiser partnership carefully builds on that past successful partnership."
Comments
dahkota, a similar waiver was granted for Alder Fels.
I'm surprised that I'm much less against this waiver than all other commentators so far, even though I don't drink AB/InBev products.
I don't see beer blowouts or spring-break atmospheres in parks happening. As I read the waiver, it is about marketing, not about making beer more available in parks or legal in more parks. If AB puts art representing parks on their cans, and uses shots of parks in their advertizing, maybe that lets a few percent more of our fellow citizens know National Parks even exist. Does that bother me any more than the Jeep commercials & Toyota special edition of a couple of years ago (/2012/04/travelers-view-national-park-foundation-erred-licensing-air-fresheners-and-tricked-out-trucks9719 /2011/01/updated-national-park-foundation-and-special-national-parks-edition-toyota-fj-cruiser7422)? It depends on the specific ads that Jarvis approves (the waiver isn't a blanket pre-approval). Tahoma, I'd be thrilled with NPS co-marketing if Harley-Davidson made a nearly silent motorcycle: "hear as well as see the wildlife". Yeah, not likely to happen.
Back to EtOH. I work out of an urban park that is dealing with the policy & safety issues to be allowed to have an evening sunset-watching special event with beer & wine. Policies for alcohol at parks haven't been relaxed. Allowing visitors to bring their own and consume it won't be approved, as they have to drive home when the park closes. One concept for limiting the consumption to 1 per visitor is for the park foundation to sell a ticket for a single beer or glass of wine to each visitor on top of their special-event fees to be in the park after the regular closing, and prohibit visitors from bringing their own alcohol. Its not clear that this will be resolved and approved in time for the park to hold a sunset event this summer, it might be next summer before this can happen.
Finally, I withold judgement on the "epic" concert until I hear where it will be. I bet (a good beer) it won't be in Yellowstone, Yosemite, or any of the big natural-resource parks. NPS isn't going to permit something like a corporate-sponsored Rainbow Family Gathering. What if the concert is at Wolf Trap? Or Chamizal? Or on the Mall? What about on private land within Gateway NRA, or the SE end of Governor's Island with the Statue of Liberty as a backdrop? [I suspect that the concert will be at least as much about TV broadcasting as live audience, as TV broadcasts reach much larger audiences with advertizing.] I'd object to it being at Mount Rushmore, but they don't have the capacity for tens of thousands of visitors. Similarly, I don't see it happening at Lake Mead, Santa Monica Mountains, or other large NRAs because of logistics. I'll be surprised if they relax or waive alcohol restrictions for the concert even if it is at the Mall or Chamizal.
Then again, I could be wrong and end up at least as opposed as the other posters here.
I've head the concerts will be at Golden Gate NRA and Statue of Liberty, and possibly the National Mall. Hope to get specifics --including who will be performing -- later this week.
For a good example of a "mega event" in an urban park which included big-name concerts and on-site alcohol sales, you can read a recap of the "Veiled Prophet Fair" which was held at JNEM ("Gateway Arch") in the 1980s and early 1990s. I was there for two of those years as part of NPS Special Event Teams that tried to make it a safe experience for those attending. I'll only say that mixing alcohol, July heat and crowds approaching a million people a day in a relatively small area for 3 or 4 days had its share of challenges.
The NPS has been in bed with Budweiser for a long time, at least from the early 1990's. For those who have attended the "Fair St. Louis" event at the ARCH, which takes place on NPS grounds, you probably would have noted the large banner over the main stage, reading: "Budweiser Salutes the National Park Service." If that wasn't enough to take your breath away, as you walked around the park you would find numerous other NPS / Budweiser messaging, including the use of the arrowhead all over the place. It is very bad policy for the NPS to chase corporate sponsors, which has been a main thrust of the Jon Jarvis "leadership" philosophy and "vision" for our future. But you have to admit, he knows how to throw a party - which is about the only thing he has accomplished during his time in leadership - and this party planning has defined his directorship.
Suitability aside, did I miss something or did they skip the bidding process in this as well?
We're all missing the point, including me. The point of something we share in common is to act as if we share it. This is where our conservative friends have a legitimate beef. These days, we are so busy shedding the "sharing" that we forget what sharing is. Why repeat the Pledge of Allegiance every morning? Why go to church, mosque, or synagogue every week? Surely, we know the Pledge by heart, and by now the sermon, too. It's the sharing; it's the formality; it's the reaffimration of who we are. The ritual is meant to cement the culture. Which brings us back to the national parks.
Does "marketing," however rationaized, cement the institution of national parks? It used to, when the railroads did it, because the railroads committed to the parks every day. Marketing for them was not just a knock-off before moving on to the next "sure thing."
The proof is in the pudding, as my mother used to say. Here, let's say it's in the beer suds. Is Budweiser's commitment to the national parks to be a permanent commitment, or just a stepping-stone on the way to the Super Bowl? Is there to be another $2.5 million to address the backlog? And another $2.5 million after that? Is Budweiser now committed, as the railroads were once committed, to supporting the parks for 100 years? Yes, believe it or not, Union Pacific's commitment came to 100 years. Between the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869, and the sale of Union Pacific's last concessions in 1971, was 102 years, to be exact.
Now, that I would call a commitment. And if that is what Budweiser is promising here, well, $250 million is a lot of dough. We could do some good things with that. However, if this is a one-time deal--and the Big Beer Brotherhood afterward folds its tent--what's the point? We don't need to "market" the parks; we need to love and protect them. As a historian, that is how I would have advised the National Park Service. If you really feel the need to sell your soul, make sure the purchaser plans to stick around.
Thank you Ghost of Steven, others, who have pointed out what a bad idea this is and what a slippery slope it will become. I rarely find myself in disagreement with Alfred, I know he posts ideas just to get us thinking about but this is simply a terrible decision in my view. Thanks also to Jim Burnett, I have been involved in similar situations.