Top National Park Service officials like to tout the $30 billion economic might of the National Park System, but there's a new number that won't get the same bandied about treatment: $2.5 million.
That's the fee the Park Service, through the National Park Foundation, is getting from Budweiser in return for promoting the beermaker's brand across the 407 units of the National Park System for the coming year, allowing them to stage a number of concerts (their Made In America concerts, perhaps, led by Jay Z) with a National Park System backdrop, and agreeing to waive a decades' long prohibition against partnering with an alcoholic beverage manufacturer.
If you were to ask who got the better deal, you'd have to give the edge to Bud.
After all, Anheuser-Busch, Bud's parent, spends $1.5 billion a year on advertising, netted a $46.3 billion profit last year, and probably didn't blink when told a 30-second spot on this year's Super Bowl telecast ran about $4.5 million (though AB probably got a discount for buying more than one commercial.).
When you consider that American Express signed a four-year, $5 million deal to help celebrate the National Park Service's centennial and support volunteerism in the parks, that REI -- a retailer of outdoor clothing and gear that meshes with outdoor adventures in national parks -- without being specific, said it has agreed to a partnership deal that will generate "multi-millions" of dollars for the parks, and that Subaru -- an environmentally sensitive automaker -- already has donated $3 million, you have to wonder how AB's $2.5 million deal was reached.
Is the funding scenario facing the National Park Service so dire that it needs to scratch out a longstanding prohibition against encouraging the consumption of alcohol?
What is so great about Budweiser -- a brand that, its officials admit, also is struggling to connect with millennials -- that convinced the Park Foundation to agree to such a discount, an incredible one conceded for a coast-to-coast, border-to-border industry -- national parks -- that generates $30 billion a year in economic output?
For an agency, the Park Service, that can point to a higher annual visitation (292.8 million in 2014) than that of the NFL, MLB, and NASCAR combined (94.7 million), shouldn't that centennial sponsorship fee have been higher, much higher?
Perhaps the National Park Foundation should have set a floor of $5 million, or $10 million, for partners who would share in the glow of the National Park Service's centennial. With what we know about the deal with Bud, it seems as if the parks were undersold.
Beyond that, there's the matter of compatability. Is there a strong rationale for this deal, or was income the bottom line?
In OKing the waiver to Director's Order 21, which since the late 1980s prohibited the National Park Service from entering into corporate campaigns with alcohol products, Park Service Director Jon Jarvis agreed that there was value in "aligning the economic and historical legacies of two iconic brands."
But what is that value? How does Budweiser's historical legacy compare with the Park Service's?
At a time when date rape on college campuses is a serious issue and has spawned the slogan, "No Means No," what value comes to the Park Service from a corporate entity that endorsed an ad campaign that dubbed Bud Light "the perfect beer for removing ‘no’ from your vocabulary for the night.”
The campaign sparked outrage on Social Media channels and endless stories in the media that tried to dissect the thought process that went into the slogan. This from an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the hometown newspaper for AB's U.S. headquarters:
But Jennifer Pozner, executive director of the Brooklyn-based advocacy group Women In Media & News, said the Bud Light message is damaging.
“The idea that any alcohol company ... was this clueless about the role alcohol plays in a large number of sexual assaults is unthinkable in 2015,” Pozner said.
“It’s not a gray area, especially when you are in an industry that is endlessly criticized for the role your product plays in assaults. I think what they’re trying to do is position Bud Light as a beer for bad boys.”
It’s not the only time the campaign has landed Bud Light in hot water.
Last month, A-B issued an apology after it tweeted: “On #StPatricksDay, you can pinch people who don’t wear green. You can also pinch people who aren’t #UpForWhatever,” with a photo of five young women below the message.
Is that the kind of "innovation and ingenuity in advertising and marketing" the Park Service was seeking when Director Jarvis waived DO21 for this partnership? How can we ensure that the same type of insensitive marketing won't happen where parks are concerned ... or that the concerts don't become keggers in our national parks?
Are there no deep-pocketed corporations in America that offer a better fit? What about the airlines that transport visitors to parks? Google, Apple, and Facebook all have extremely deep pockets, and are trendier with millennials than Bud.
And, unlike Bud, likely wouldn't require a waiver of Park Service policies to partner.
Comments
Not at all. That is not their purpose. Their purpose is to generate funds for their shareholders. If those shareholders want to be philanthropic, great but it isn't the role of corporations to give away money that isn't theirs purely to give it away.
Again,if the parks are up for sale (and they obviously are) then they should have at least gone to the highest bidder but this appears to be a backroom deal which is almost as disturbing as those who think AB is somehow promoting rape (it takes a troubled mind to make that connection). If anything, be troubled by the possibility that they might team up with Jay Z for concerts in the parks (check some of his song lyrics and I think you will find a better reason for outrage). And as much as AB would be overjoyed if they had the ability to get every melanial to rush out and buy a keg of bud because they are teaming up with the NPS I doubt we have to worry about an influx of intoxicated millennials playing beer pong on halfdome.
If you go on the website of the Association of National Park Rangers or their facebook page you will see no mention of this deal with Budweiser and no posting of these articles from NPT. But if some park superintendent is retiring or if some GS- 13 is moving into a GS-15 job they want to make sure the membership is well aware of that. It really shows how much that organization is in the tank for the current NPS leadership.
I think EC's comments about corporations are interesting. I don't agree nor disagree with his statement about their purpose being very simple - generate money for shareholders. Nothing more, nothing less. I do have a few thoughts about it though.
1) if this is truly the case, then we need more consistency. They should not be allowed to be treated as a person; i.e. candidate election spending; refusing to comply with federal mandate for religious reasons (birth control). I'll accept EC's point, but you can't play both sides of the fence.
2) I will again today reference the fact that I live in the St. Louis area. Any St Louisian has to accept that Anheuser Busch was a major part of our lives. You can't imagine how much August Busch did for the city; much of it for promotion, but also much of it just because he wanted to. This is evidenced by how much InBev has pulled out all the stuff that was not there for profit. I am not saying it's right, nor wrong, but it is a fact. And while the Wonka-type corporate imperialism of Busch may have had problems, it did represent a sort of capitalism that is long gone and it did have a lot of really awesome things going on that are sorely missed.
3) EC's point also makes it clear that we should never expect a corporation to practice ANY kind of conservation, or pollution control, or good waste management unless they feel they will lose money by not doing so. This mentality necessitates more regulation. You can't have a soulless borg running around devouring everything without ways to rein it in. And capitalism will not control it - that is an idealistic pipe dream. Advertising, lawyers, and hiding info will easily beat "people will just stop buying their product/service because they are mad at them."
So make the corporations stick to being non-persons with a single goal, as simply defined by EC. But also recognize how much stands to be lost by losing that personhood. With work, the right people, and some luck, the old AB could have been convinced to give much more than 2.5 mil.
I forgot one very important piece. Back in the early 80s AB was trying to buy the second largest spring in Missouri - Greer Spring. They were going to use it for bottled water. After a lot of outcry from conservationists (which old newspaper articles referred to as a bunch of unreasonable "environmentalists" who just wanted to stand in the way of business), a local philanthropist worked out a deal with AB, Mark Twain NF, and federal legislators to buy the land while Congress passed a bill to add Greer to Mark Twain NF land, specifically to the Eleven Point National Wild and Scenic River. AB and the philanthropist then gifted the land to US/us. It is a gift that keeps on giving, and people have long forgotten that those commie-environmentalists helped preserve it as such, along with the goodwill of the philanthropist and AB. AB did not get promotional advantages from their gift. And to this day, you can visit the area, which I HIGHLY recommend, and no where is there an ad or poster or anything that says: "brought to you by AB".
I don't see that as two sides of a fence. Election funding and balking at unconstitutional mandates are both in the interest of their shareholders.
Regulation yes - effective regulation not "more" for the sake of more.
EC - Fair points; I will concede that election funding could arguably be in the interest of shareholders. I do not agree that claiming religious rights has anything to do with increasing shareholder value. You are 100% correct about effective regulation. Thanks for making that distinction.
To not be forced into paying for benefits - of any kind - could improve profitability which would increase shareholder value. But then, I am not aware of any public corporation that has tried to excercise a religious rights argument.