Sunday, January 18, 2009


I have to post on this. Bud Light wont let this ridiculous ad campaign go; instead, they've taken to fighting back against those mindful few that have voiced their frustration with the misuse of the "word" drinkability. In their newest ad, Bud Light offers as a definition the same explanation that is the first link provided when searching for "drinkability" on Google - which is obviously the most easily available definition of the word therefore seeming to have taken this issue not at all seriously: "Suitable or fit for drinking; potable." But I, being an argumentative prick, beg to differ on the grounds that bleach, liquefied cyanide, and pomegranate juice are all drinkable given their fluid traits. You wouldn't want to drink any of them, but they are indeed drinkable; therefore, each has at least some level of drinkability. On the other hand, some things are just clearly not drinkable such as: a brick, the Nation of Guam, and Carl Yastrzemski. Bud Light's ridiculous and obvious and completely fictional response to this would then probably be that drinkability refers to a liquid that will not kill you and provides a reasonable level of enjoyment to the consumer assuming the item is used in its intended form which is of course the form of drinking, hence expertly defining their meaning of the "word" drinkability and supposedly putting an end to meaningless blog posts all over the Internet exactly like this one. Well, if that's what they meant, then why didn't they just say it?

"Bud Light: It's a liquid that will not kill you"


Mauigirl said...

I remember when Schaefer Beer had the motto "Schaefer is the one drink to have when you're having more than one," which I suppose would be politically incorrect now given the disapproval people have over excess consumption of alcohol. I think what they meant was the same thing as what Bud Light probably means by "drinkability" - they probably mean it goes down easy and isn't that filling - or, as I used to feel, "It tastes like piss so it won't taste good until you've had a few and don't notice the taste anymore." This definition probably would fit Bud Light as well.

Mauigirl said...

Oops, "one BEER to have," not drink!

Dick Tremayne said...

Why does one choose a beer? The alcohol content is pretty much the same (unless you're drinking Duvel). Price is certainly a factor. Like most beer snobs, I opt for how a beer tastes when making my selection. The term drinkability, to me, infers that the beer is easy to drink (unlike beers like, say Old Peculiar) and that you could easily have many of them. In that respect, beers like Corona, Stella Artois and the inexpensive Yuengling are far superior choices. At any rate, the only Bud Light you'll find in my fridge was purchased by someone else.