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
I've been clean and sober for 35 years, and spent years working in alcohol and substance abuse clinics when I was a nurse. I'm absolutely in agreement with the bulk of the group here.
Exactly, Ron. The point is to get us thinking, which sometimes requires the writer to write tongue-in-cheek. I did say the Park Service was selling its soul. My point is to remind us when corporations did NOT force us to do that. They respected the culture, too. Is the Park Service that out of touch with its past? You bet it is, and therein lies the problem. When you know what failed in the past, you have the confidence not to repeat it. You know what does and doesn't "fit."
The history of this issue may be found in Yosemite: The Embattled Wilderness, along with the other salient issues of park "development." The Park Service has always loved a good "event"--Indian Field Days, the Bracebridge Dinner, and in 1932 even tried to get the Olympic Games held in Yosemite National Park. What did any of it have to do with preserving nature? Not a thing, but it sure made friends in high places, even as park scientists and preservationists cringed.
Perhaps readers of The Traveler are surprised; history is not surprised. But then, these days who is reading history?
Mr. Runte, the issue is not about how much money a corporate sponsor can or will provide, nor how long their committment is to giving. The issue is about influence and what that money buys. As we have already seen, via the Coca Cola / water bottle issue at Grand Canyon NP, the NPS Director clearly provided favor, defference and was influenced to alter park policy, due to a complaining corporate sponsor. As you may remember, PEER had to FOIA documents which the NPS would not freely share and they confirmed that not only had the NPS altered NPS policy to favor the corporate sponsor, but the NPS Director provided false and misleading public statements, while trying to cover these interactions. This incident alone demonstrates how a conflict of interest undermines the primary protective mission of the agency and allows money to corrupt public officials.
I think that drawing fine distinctions about what products are appropriate or inappropriate for sponsorship is a rabbit hole worth avoiding. Alcohol and tobacco are prohibited, but (theoretically) pharmaceuticals and fast food chains are OK? We'd need a phone book sized document to spell out what's "appropriate" and what isn't. Many people (including the Director, apparently) would feel that beer isn't all that bad as a sponsor. Others obviously disagree.
Better to address the issue of sponsorships in general. Anyone can give money to the National Park Service; the question is, at what level of contribution can you expect a quid pro quo? Does $2.5 million place your logo next to the arrowhead? Does $25 get you a tote bag? This is why we have partners like the National Park Foundation. They can do the important business of raising money and "sponsorships," while keeping the corporate logos and perks out of the parks themselves. If you truly want to support the parks, then you should be content to do so without expections in return. Sure, you can buy full page ads in USA Today to congratulate yourself for giving $2.5 million to the parks, but your logo does not belong in the parks themselves, nor should the NPS Arrowhead appear alongside your logo as tacit endorsement, whether you're a beer company or selling solar panels.
As for the concerts in the parks, my question is this: did Statue of Liberty and Golden Gate decide that concerts were a good use of resources, then go looking for sponsors? Or were the concerts Anhauser Busch's idea? I'd have no problem with the former, so long as the sponsors understood they would be receiving nothing but a "thank you" in return; but I worry that the latter may actually be the case, and that the parks' agendas are being driven by the sponsor: as in, "we'll give you $2.5 million if you hold a public concert co-branded with our logo."
We should be soliciting funds for the core work of the National Park Service, including backlog maintenance and public outreach; and it shouldn't matter if those donations come in denominations of $5 or $5 million, so long as the $5 million donation buys no more access, branding, or endorsement than I receive for my $5.
Or maybe $5 would buy me a selfie with a ranger, raising a beer can and singing the National Anthem?
That doesn't work for corporations. Its not their money to just give away. Investors have given the corporatons money with the purposes of making money to return to the shareholders. If a "charitable" contribution provides a return then it is worthwhile in the same way advertising is. If the corporation doesn't expect a return, it shouldn't make the expenditure. Instead, it should return the monies to the shareholders and let them make the decision to give.
I could agree with you on that.
The beer industry's ads have done a masterful job convincing plenty of Americans that a beer in the hand is a necessary adjunct to fully enjoy a sporting event or a day at the beach. Wouldn't they love the chance to create that same nexus in the minds of a "new generation of beer drinkers" as it relates to watching a sunset at the Grand Canyon or viewing the water rushing over Yosemite Falls?
I'd offer an opinion that the number of Americans who see the Statue of Liberty (either pictured on a bottle of beer or as the backdrop for a mega concert) and make a mental connection to the NPS is smaller than some believe (or hope), so my concern with ads like the one pictured is mainly one of principle - that this program is merely a first step in the industry's desire to eliminate all NPS limits on direct connections with their products.
We might joke about a day when a company can buy the rights to a slogan like "The official beer of the Blue Ridge Parkway"...but maybe that's not so far-fetched after all.
Thank you Alfred, but it is not just the NPS, it is a mindset well established in our nations political leadership and their faith in the economic theories of Hydak, Freidman, Greenspan, others, in my own perhaps uniformed opinion. Off subject, but related to one of your earlier posts, the latest issue of the Nation magazine has a very thought provoking article, "The New Thought Police" by Joan W. Scott, professor emerita at CUNY. It makes the point you have made about "why campus administrators are invoking civility to silence critical speech" (political correctness), I thought of some of your earlier comments while reading the article.
Thank you, Ron. I'll look up Professor Scott's article. Meanwhile, some excellent points above. I think we're all starting to get to the heart of the matter--commercializing the national parks is a slippery slope. In 1931, Coca Cola did a major series of ads on the national parks, one of which I frequently show in my lectures. It depicts a family of bears in front of Old Faithful Inn, swigging a bottle of Coke, and reads: "ANOTHER OLD FAITHFUL, THE PAUSE THAT REFRESHES, WITH ICE COLD COCA COLA. Of the hundreds of thousands who every season pour through the Yellowstone National Park, everybody stops to see Old Faithful Geyser. . . Of course Coca Cola is there." In the illustration, which is a painting, Old Faithful Geyser is in fact erupting, only "everybody" is eyeing the bears.
It is not a new adveretising strategy, nor is it a new problem. In the parks, we bring our culture with us. Just as Nike wants its symbol on Tiger Woods's shoulder, companies want us to "associate" them with the "best" of America.
It is then up to the Park Service to draw the proper lines. In that regard, this is undoubtedly one of the most important articles The Traveler has ever published. After all, who else is reporting these issues? Years ago, when Joe Camel ads were appearing outside of American high schools, THE NEW YORK TIMES called it "free speech." I wrote a letter to the editor (which they published) calling it coercion, in that young people were being "targeted" by those ads. When we are being coerced--as in forced to look--I say that no product belongs in the parks. Lady Bird Johnson was right. We should leave ALL of our advertising "at home."