Talk:Budweiser/Archive 1

Archive 1

Separate Articles

Why are there not separate article for the different types of Bud beer (Bud Light, Select, etc.)? We should make separate articles. Cmsmith81 00:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

lol lots. maybe truer then the normal one, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.208.135 (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody keeps on changing the introductory paragraph of this page to say that 3point Budweiser is 37%alcohol by volume. Regular Bud is 5% by volume and the Budweiser sold in Utah, Kansas, Colorado, and Oklahoma is no more than 4% by VOLUME, OR 3.2% by WEIGHT. Can somebody get an ADMIN to protect or Semi-protect this page? DrunkDriver (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

STOLEN

When brought to the Czech Republic where the original Budvar, the name budwiser chose to steal. While rearanging the slogan (also stolen) from "The Beer of Kings" to "The King of Beers", the Czech company was more than happy to share the European market with Anheuser-Busch. The Busch company then flew in free beer for the entire town where Budvar is produced. The Czechs bieng rather particular about their beer tasted a small amount and threw away the remaning kegs (almost unheard of in the Czech Republic, you don't throw away beer unless it is spoiled!). From this point on American BUD can only be sold in Europe under the name of BUD. Also it is a matter of more than pride the Czechs don't want to be associated with the American BUD as they are a beer drinking culture. Beer is very important to every aspect of Czech culture. Good beer, they take pride in their beer and the history of the beers. Each region has it's favorite, they were the producers of the first Pilsner AND the first Budweiser and as far as they are concerned, they are going to keep this title! No pisswater crap, chemical filled over marketed bullshit producing company will ever take away their heritage. Thanks for letting me RANT, I do think it is importaint for the world to know the truth!

For an example of czech culture and beer check out [1] You're an IDIOT. THIS IS FACT YOU MAY ASK ANY CZECH FROM THE REGION THEY REMEMBER THIS WELL I'M SURE

    Maybe somone could contact budvar for a citation...

The Czechs are also proud of gaining their independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which referred to the town of Ceske Budejowice as "Budweis". The Anheuser-Busch corporation did not "steal" the name "Budvar", as can be seen from the fact that they have never marketed a beer called "Budvar". They have marketed a beer called "Budweiser" because when they started marketing it in 1876, Budweis was still part of the A-H empire.

type of beer?

Is Bud really a pilsner? It sure tasted like a lager to me.

It is indeed a lager, as was virtually every mass-produced beer in America prior to 1980. - Hephaestos

As the lager and pilsner pages say - a pilsner is a lager. So Bud is both. Rmhermen 19:44 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I really kind of doubt it's a pilsner though. And admittedly, I'm basing this purely on anecdotal evidence (I remember an advertising campaign for another beer around 1980, can't remember which one, touting that beer as a pilsner and implying that was something "new and different"). I'll do some studying up on it. - Hephaestos 19:57 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

As to its popularity overseas, in Australia I'd have to say that it's been responsible for giving American beer a truly appalling (and undeserved, given some of the microbrews I tried) reputation. --Robert Merkel

I'm afraid it'd probably wouldn't be NPOV to say that it owes its foreign popularity more to the advertising than any inherent virtues of the beer! -- Arwel 18:56 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

All pilsners are lagers, but not all lagers are pilsners. I don't think Bud has enough hops flavor to be considered a pilsner. It's sort of a bland, generic lager (though I must admit loving it). Then again, Miller Lite advertised for a while as a "true pilsner beer." And that stuff is dishwater.

Although I am an employee of A-B, I can give only anecdotal evidence as to whether Budweiser is a Pilsner or not. In all of the company literature I have seen, it is always listed as a lager. There is only a few Pilsners made by A-B, one of them being a specialty we had last year called Texas Tea. Lauter Tun (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bud is a pale american-style lager, not a pilsner. A pilsner, Heineken for example, has a more robust hop flavor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.131.185 (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Punished Budweiser

A few days ago I went on the tour of the Saint Louis brewery. When we got to the hospitality room the tour guides had a few volunteers try fresh Budweiser, and what they refered to as "punished Budweiser." This punished beer, if I remember correctly, was Budweiser that had been stored for two weeks in 100 degree heat. The volunteers think it tasted very good, one said that the beer tasted bitter.

JesseG 02:19, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

It says something about the people who consume Budweiser that "this tastes bitter" would be understood as a complaint about a beer.

I laughed about 10 minutes.. american beer is so phony

Like having sex in a canoe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.240.200.110 (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, I see ur point there. Beer is supposed to taste bitter, but Budweiser is barely bitter at all. People who drink Bud regularly might as well be drinking alcoholic soda lol.--Metalhead94 (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Seperate pages for the two brands?

As Czech and Budweiser are different companies producing different products, shouldn't they have seperate pages with Budweiser being a disambiguation page? --Kostya 16:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, done as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer. --Sean κ. ⇔ 19:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is this one the main article at "Budweiser"? It was named after the Czech one which is more famous... Alensha 08:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, being US-centric, Wikipedia has a much larger article for the US Budweiser. But either way, the question is which is more famous among native English speakers, not the entire world. If an English speaker types "Budweiser" into the search box, where are they expecting to go? If you feel that other native English speakers would prefer to read about the Czech brewery, then we'll make the main page a disambiguation page. --Sean κ. ⇔ 14:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a counter argument, there are many English speakers in continental Europe, where "Budweiser" refers to the Czech not the US beer. Having the US beer at "Budweiser" doesn't bug me much as long as the disambiguation for the Czech beer is at the top of the page as it is now. However it might be argued that this is POV taking sides on which brand has more right to be considered the "real" Budweiser. A case could probably be made for making "Budweiser" a disambiguation page, with the US beer at "Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch)" or "Budweiser (US)" or some similar specific title. Other thoughts? -- Infrogmation 14:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Put me in for "Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch)". Iceberg3k 14:55, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

As a main contributor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer, I need to point out that we actually agreed that most beers should not have their own article, and should instead be put into the article of their respective brewery. So IMO, the best solution is to make a page for the brewery, and have Budweiser (Czech) link there.

Also, Budweiser (US) is notable because it is by far the most drunk beer in the US. This whole thing is unfortunate, because if it were any other beer, I would say that the international crowd should win out. But Budweiser and Anheuser-Busch are as iconic in the US as Guniness in Ireland. --Sean κ. ⇔ 15:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay. How about asking another way: Who would have a serious objection to "Budweiser" being a disambiguation and the US beer being at something like "Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch)"? Wondering, -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 16:41 (UTC)

if you're looking for the REAL budweiser then just type "budvar" andyjm

I just wanna say that while I’m totally on the Czechs's side in all this, and I won’t presume to speak for English speaking regions outside of North America, if indeed Budweiser is most commonly understood to refer to the brand of beer from Anheiser-Busch, it’s almost POV not to have it point there. OK Wiki Wikardo 18:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly here in the UK if you ask for Budweiser at a pub you're much, much more likely to get the US Bud than the Czech beer. Generally if you want the Czech stuff you ask for Budvar. --Daduzi ^talk 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

having discussed this with numerous friends in Australia a few years ago after a trip through Ceske Budjevice (spelling?) it seems to me that less then 1% of australians would even realise that Budweiser was anything other then an American beer,

It's interesting, this whole POV arguement. The US Budweiser is more prevelant in many people's mind because of mass advertising, even in the UK and much of the world. Giving it prime positions constitutes recognition and reinforcement of that fact. The Czech Budweiser is disadvantaged by coming from a former eastern-block country rather than a capitalist one, where there has been a very different approach to brand marketing. It would be POV to have a US-biased encyclopedia give prime position to one firm's product over another, on the basis of one having the background consistent with the encyclopedia's bias, would it not? I support the idea of a neutral disambiguation page, with 3 links; one to each beer, and the third to the town (České Budějovice) which the adjective "budweiser" refers to the residents of.

I hate to revive this debate, but having just re-encountered the disambiguation page, I feel I need to state this. It seems to me that if a very large majority of visitors to the page are, in fact, looking for the American beer, then the appropriate way to handle this would be to place a link to Budvar at the top of the Budweiser page. Is that correct? That seems to be how Wikipedia does things. So the question would be, how would one prove this? It's easy. Find someone high up and ask them to review the last 2, 3, 4 or so months of logs of that disambiguation page. Or, if it's simple enough, all of the logs since the beginning of it. What percentage of people who reach that page click on the link to the American beer, and what percentage click to Budvar? If there's an overwhelming majority one way or the other (and I suspect there is), then the disambiguation page shouldn't be used. Anyone with me on this?The-Postman 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute?

I reverted Misterrick's edits which IMO put in unnecessary html tag, and deleted the reference to Czech Budweiser being older with the comment "Putting that Budvar is an older beer is currently in dispute". I'm not aware of this dispute, could you please give information on this? Also, I'll be happy to go with whatever the consensus is as to wording the disambiguation, but I'd like some feedback from others here. Thanks, -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 16:41 (UTC)

Hi, Infrogmation.. The dispute between Anheuser-Busch and Budejovicky Budvar has been ongoing for about 110 years. Here are some interesting articles about the subject.

TED Case Studies Who Owns The Name Budweiser?
Detroit News Business Section - It's U.S. vs. Czech over Budweiser name
Anheuser-Busch Wins Budweiser Trademark Dispute in Finland.
SPAIN: Budvar ordered to stop using Budweiser name
Budejovicky Budvar wins in the UK
Budvar wins partial victory over Austrian Bud name

User:Misterrick 21:44, 29 June 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I was aware of the legal dispute over the name between the US and Czech companies, but this gives many more details (one point in the first link I think is wrong; I believe "Crystal" was brewed by a different brewery in České Budějovice, Pivovar Sampson). That rights to the name "Budweiser" is so heavily a matter of dispute in international courts makes me think it is even more important that our "Budweiser" page be turned into a disambiguation-- Wikipedia should not be taking sides in an international trademark dispute! I'll give it a day or two for feedback here, then I will move the current "Budweiser" article to the suggested Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) (unless a better name is suggested and gets support) and will turn "Budweiser" into a disambiguation page (unless there is an excellent argument as to why it should not be) -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 21:18 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to making Budweiser a disambiguation page in fact I think it's a good idea, though I would wait and get further opinions on this talk page before making changes. User:Misterrick 23:56, 29 June 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has voiced an objection, I will now move the U.S. beer and make "Budweiser" a disambiguation page. -- Infrogmation 8 July 2005 05:23 (UTC)

I guess that means we can remove the POV tag from the article now? --Frescard 04:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is as though a Czech brewery called a beer "From Anheuser Busch" in German. When they started, they took the risk, because they did not foresee beer being shipped across oceans. So they should not have to pay past damages, only pay for a license, in the future. David R. Ingham 06:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not that clear-cut. The Budweiser name was in use as a trademark in the US first, and the global reach of these breweries was not an issue a hundred years ago.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 10:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Boycotts

Due to Budweiser's sponsorship and therefore support of Malcolm Glazer's hugely unpopular takeover of Manchester United Football Club, many of Manchester United's millions of supporters worldwide have decided to boycott Budweiser products. This boycott may only be lifted when Budweiser severs all ties with the club or speaks out against the takeover and the level of debt that it has saddled the formerly-profitable club with.

See also Malcolm Glazer takeover of Manchester United.

This whole section seems a bit unnecessary in this article. johnsemlak--19 October 2005, 18:05 (UTC)

I would disagree. Since this article mentions the popularity of Bud overseas this is quite relevant as it's a significant movement at the current time. Perhaps when the fuss dies down this will change but not at the moment. If the Timbuktoo Curling Association supporters were boycotting Bud then I would agree it's unnecessary but MU is not the Tumbuktoo Curling Association... Nil Einne 11:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the boycott is an interesting if it's a real factoid, but I wonder if it can be taken as such. Clearly it was written by someone who themselves is boycotting budweiser, but I feel that they are more calling for others to join them, than elaborating on a notable movement. I live in the US and soccer is not a big deal in my community, so I can't really say whether or not a significant number of manchester fans are actually taking part in this boycott. Regardless, the NPOV of this section needs to be addressed. Shaggorama 08:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I dont know where this fits in this argument but I recently worked at Old Trafford at a recent England game and the only alcoholic beverage they sold was Budweiser and I was made to wear a Budweiser shirt. it seemed to sel well and i'm just wondering if it's the same and Man utd games cos if it is.... the boycott isn't going well Dangerhertz 14:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed

in China, where Anheuser-Busch has had a brewery in Wuhan since 1995, 2.7 million barrels of Budweiser were brewed there in 2004, a number which is expected to grow to nearly 3.5 million barrels in 2005; in the United Kingdom, where Anheuser-Busch owns Stag Brewery in Mortlake, Budweiser is the number one on-premise, premium packaged lager and the country's number two such lager; in Canada, where Labatt Brewing Company brews and packages Budweiser and Bud Light for the Canadian market; Budweiser became the country's number one brand in 2004. This section needs clarification. In the China case, sheer numbers are of little relevance, especially in a large market such as the Chinese. Percentages are much more important. If these 2.7 million barrels are only 0.1% of the Chinese market and 1% of the foreign brand market they are not a sign that Bud is doing well in China. Also what does number one brand in Canada mean? Number 1 of beers? Of lagers? As for the UK figure, what exactly is a premium packaged lager and how is it defined? Is there a well accepted definition in the UK? If not, this figure has little meaning. We also need some more independent verification of these figures. The Bud page is not independent... Nil Einne 11:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

trademark

Hey, don't you guys think we should create a separate case for the trademark dispute? Now it's only covered in a couple paragraphs, and not including any evidence whatsoever. That page could also contain info on current usage rights etc.--Elmeri B. Suokirahvi 15:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Done! see Budweiser trademark dispute. Ewlyahoocom 05:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ganymede?

I'm sorry, but I've never seen the "Ganymede" ad. Never even heard of Ganymede until then, either. When I looked up the Ganymede article, I got the feeling the page had been vandalized. Seriously, how are Bud drinkers like myself supposed to appreciate an obscure cultural reference like Ganymede?

(Personal attack removed)

Following unexpected links and learning new stuff - serendipity, to be pompous - is one of the great joys of wikipedia. Thank for you for playing. - DavidWBrooks 11:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit, I learned something re: "Ganymede". Still, can you or anyone else provide a link to a Bud Ganymede commercial?

(Personal attack removed): serendipity was one of those $10k words they threw at you in the first grade, you (Personal attack removed) intellectual.

The first hit on my first Google try ( (Personal attack removed)) is ... [2]- DavidWBrooks 01:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, google is such hard work. (Personal attack removed)

Lets stick to WP:CIV guys.--CastAStone|^(talk) 03:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

Several sections, most notably this one seem to be very POV and are unsourced. This needs attention. QmunkE 18:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That last line should obviously go. I think it needs sourcing and a removal of weasel words more than anything else though.--CastAStone|^(talk) 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed a couple of sentences - more should perhaps go. - DavidWBrooks 01:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to the beer section, trying to offer some negative perceptions as to the beer's taste. I feel that if the brewery's claims as to the taste are to be included it's only fair to add the comments of those who aren't fans. The claims are sourced and not, I feel, outrageous though if anyone has any problems with them I'll be glad to try to work them out. --Daduzi ^talk 05:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Direct Comparison of both Brands Taste

• Budwars Taste Contest with American Soccerfans during the Soccer Worldchampionship 2006 by Gemany's leading Newsmagazin. Funny and informative at the same time.--Nemissimo 19:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That would have been interesting, too bad your link is dead.--Metalhead94 (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

FIFA world cup 2006

I've made this change, because:

• Bitburger is not a microbrewer, IIRC it's in the German top 5
• in this (German) interview Tony Ponturo of Anheuser-Busch does agree on a question about problems of Bud sounding too much like Bit (Bitburger)

--32X 12:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

One Big Advert?

this article seems likes it just one big marketing handout for an anheuser busch product. Dangerhertz 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Certianly some clean up could be done to make the article more encyclopedic, but I didn't find the article too much like an advertisement (i.e. I've seen far, far worse).--Will.i.am 21:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the negative commentary on Bud come from those arguing that it tastes like diluted water, and ultimately it's very difficult to properly insert that into an article without using weasel words. If you can think of some relevant criticisms of either the beer or the company and can provide reliable sources that mention them then feel free to add them, but as someone who really isn't that keen on the beer I personally can't see anything to add. --Daduzi ^talk 21:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

commercials

I have a vague impression that several Budweiser-Light commercials released this month, or this week, seem racist,... In addition to whatever about this industry.

Does anyone know of any articles thereof?

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 14:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The racist budweiser-light icon is named "Zagar", possibly portrayed by a dark-pigmented character.

Each of these commercial-spots has this "Zagar" engaging in the same sorts of stereotypical traits otherwise | elsewhere implied by Senator George Felix Macacallen.

I do contend that this "Zagar" icon deserves an article.

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 03:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncited Budvar story

I moved the following as uncited:

• When brought to the Czech Republic where the original Budvar, the name budwiser chose to copy. While rearanging the catch phrase from "The Beer of Kings" to "The King of Beers", the Czech company was more than happy to share the European market with Anheuser-Busch. The Busch company then flew in free beer for the entire town where Budvar is produced. The Czechs bieng rather particular about their beer tasted a small amount and threw away the remaning kegs. From this point on American BUD can only be sold in Europe under the name of BUD.

Thoughts?Jvandyke 20:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe that issue speaks to the joke the Monty Python troupe told at their Hollywood Bowl show. Wahkeenah 21:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Expense and Advertising

I can't figure out the original intent of author in writing the following sentence so I moved it here:

• It is interesting to note that budweisers beer clearly states on the lable that it is the most expensive to produce, also they account for more marketing than any other beer company to date.

I *think* the author intended to 1) repeat information in the credo section ("We know of no brand produced by any other brewer which costs so much to brew and age.") and then 2) note that Anheuser-Busch has spent more on advertising Budweiser than is/has been spent by Anheuser-Busch's competitors. I think that 1) is already noted in the credo. I'm not sure that 2) is an actual fact so I'd want to see a citation.Jvandyke 21:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Anecdotal evidence would suggest it's true, since Bud seems to be more visible than any other beer, at least on American TV. That's not the same as fact, though. Wahkeenah 21:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not sure American TV is a good proxy -- on a *world-wide* basis InBev and SABMiller are both larger (by volume) than Anheuser-Busch.Jvandyke 21:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
      • There you go. Wahkeenah 21:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ad Copy

The edits done to this page in the last couple of days, almost all by Griffise, have turned this into an advertisement for Budweiser, eliminating all criticism or mention of their lawsuits, and describing every drink like it's right off their ad copy, "Anheuser-Busch’s exclusive beechwood aging process gives Budweiser its clean, crisp taste," "a beautifully rich, deep amber color with a complex, malty, full-flavored taste that is also low in calories and carbohydrates", no citations and turns the Budweiser page into a listing of Anheuser-Busch's products, almost none having to do with Budweiser. Anyone like to comment on these edits and whether they should be reverted? Griffise especially?--TheGrza 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

FUNNY YOU SHOULD MENTION THAT:

The only reason I came to this page was to find out if Wikipedia could be exploited to become an advertisement. Especially if none of the administrators ever got a chance to notice the entry. Anyway I also noticed that the article mentions that Bud Ice was introduced in 1984 but in the next paragraph mentions that Bud Dry took a back seat when Bud Ice was introduced in 1994. Something needs to be fixed, either the first paragraph meant to say 1994 or the second paragraph was supposed to mention that Bud Ice Light was the reason Bud Dry fell out of any kind of favor. Jaylectricity 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I came to the discussion page to make a note of that...and lo and behold, over a month later, that discrepancy/error/whatever it is, is still present with no hint of resolution. However, considering there's two (now three) posts made in 2007, I suppose maintenance, or at least the commentary of this page, is somewhat lacking. Anybody with the inclination to research and fix that? =P -Fyrie

Someone please tell me why imbecile terrorist Greenpeace is quoted in a "In the News" section(bogus unattainable history if there ever was one) concerning "genetically modified" rice which oh yea represents a small share of the total rice used by Bud and oh yea is harmless? What the heck.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RT21Marine (talk • contribs) 03:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum caution and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform the project members on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose that we move this article to Budweiser (Inbev). Any objections? StaticGull  Talk  12:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We can't because the A-B/Inbev merger isn't official yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.131.185 (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Belgian Lager???

Someone added "Budweiser has been traditionally known as the belgian lager" to the first section. I have never heard of it being called this, and Budweiser certainly does not come from Belgium, so I deleted it as vandalism.--Metalhead94 (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed removal

I propose we remove the short paragraph in the 'Beer' section which refers to ratebeer.com's rating of Budweiser. For one thing, it is from only one source, a website whose members are likely biased against beers like Budweiser. For another thing, the link it provides is dead.--Metalhead94 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I waited 1 week and since nobody responded to my proposal I went ahead and removed the paragraph and (still) dead link anyway.--Metalhead94 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Bud Light

I thought Bud Light was not a variety of Budweiser, until I found out here. Tell me if I'm wrong? -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 02:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

...uhh, no offense but that should be pretty obvious. It's in the Budweiser Family, so I guess it could be called a "variety" of Budweiser.--Metalhead94 (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 04:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bud Light is one of the best selling bears in the Western world. It warrants its own article. Whats more, the article makes no mention of Bud Light's vital information such as AV, calories, carbs, etc.

Bud light is the top-selling beer in the US (see http://www.realbeer.com/blog/?p=230), yet it lacks its own page and has merely snippets on this one and on the Budweiser Brands page. It's amazing that there isn't a page for Bud Light, and there really should be one. There's a lot to say about the beer, its popularity, and its marketing. Further, there are Wikipedia pages for both Miller Lite and Coors Light, both lesser-selling beers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alewin99 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Superbowl 2009 Advertising

Budweiser was a sponsor for the 2009 Superbowl, just as they have been for many years. The cost for advertising for the 2009 Superbowl was estimated at $1,000,000 [U.S.] per second. Not counting the time before and after the game, Budweiser ran 6 commercials at 30 seconds each, bringing the total cost of advertising during the game at $180,000,000 [U.S.]. Many of Budweiser's customers feel that this was/is an extraordinary amount of money to spend on name-recognition advertising for a company as profitable as Anheiser-Busch, Budweiser's parent company. It is hoped by many that this kind of lavish spending on unnecessary advertising will be curtailed in the future, in favor of lowering the cost of their product.207.69.140.35 (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rice

When lighter lager beers became popular in the USA in the later 19th century it was difficult to produce a clear clean beer using the high protein six-row American barley of the time. Rice was found to be a good adjunct to use up the excess enzymes present in the malt, during which process the starches in the rice were converted to sugars thus killing two birds with one stone. Whilst nowadays a lot of the lower protein European / British style of two-row barley malts are used, rice is still incorporated because it's the taste that the public have grown up with. In fact since the rice shortage, breweries often have to pay more for rice than for malted barley. --MichaelGG (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Budweiser record label

Why is there no mentioning about that famous funk label? All of the records issued by this label are sought-after collectors' items these days and this label is NOT your common-or-garden label spin-off from a random company, but a label with over 50 releases on vinyl. I'm a bit surprised that nobody has ever mentioned this in the article. Do you guys consider that too unimportant really? -andy 92.229.72.152 (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Mention that shit then! BTW I changed the box at the top that lists the ABV of each type of budweiser to display that Bud Ice Light now is 5.0% instead of 4.1% like it used to be. 24.98.145.143 (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)