Why They're Slinging Mud over Bud

Many opponents of InBev's takeover bid of Anheuser-Busch simply don't want a Belgian company touching a "nation brand" like Budweiser

by Matt Mabe

• View Slide Show

Hot dogs, apple pie, and Route 66 rank high as emblems of American culture. Some might say that brands associated with them—Oscar Mayer, Sara Lee, and Chevrolet—are no less representative of America's national identity. So what happens when a beloved U.S. brand is acquired by a foreign company?

That's the situation bubbling up right now in the hotly contested $46 billion hostile takeover bid by Belgian brewing giant InBev for Anheuser-Busch, the St. Louis maker of Budweiser. A militia of petition-wielding cyberactivists has come to the defense of Anheuser-Busch (BUD), intent on impeding the attack by InBev (INTB.BR). The volunteer league of supporters highlights the economic patriotism that such controversial acquisitions conjure up.

Rather than focusing on how a stronger corporate parent might help lift Budweiser, online bloggers and activists have instead drafted petitions and enlisted politicians to fight what they see as foreign encroachment. "More Americans are realizing that we can't remain an independent country if we are under foreign control," says Roger Simmermaker, author of How Americans Can Buy American: The Power of Consumer Patriotism. "The Anheuser-Busch brand has a lot to do with American culture and American life."

Loss of Jobs and Tax Revenues

Simmermaker, who says he became a brand activist in 1994 when he realized how hard it was to shop for American-made and American-owned products, is one of several people to create an online petition to block the InBev deal. He's concerned that the deal could cost jobs in St. Louis and siphon corporate profits and taxes from America to Belgium.

So far, the threat posed to Anheuser-Busch hasn't created the near-hysteria that arose in 2006 when Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates, bought a half-dozen U.S. port operations. (The company finally bowed to political pressure and sold its U.S. assets to American International Group (AIG), embarrassing the Bush Administration, which had vigorously supported the initial deal.)

Nor has the xenophobic rhetoric over InBev reached the level seen after France refused to participate in the invasion of Iraq. Weeks of boycotting ensued, during which people poured bottles of Bordeaux down sewer drains and restaurant menus began sporting references to "Freedom Fries" and "Freedom Toast."

The wave of French-bashing even prompted the maker of a popular condiment to issue a defensive-sounding press statement: "For the record, French's would like to say, there is nothing more American than French's Mustard." Oddly enough, that product—as well as numerous other famous "American" brands such as Lysol, Woolite, and Air Wick—is owned by Anglo-Dutch consumer products company Reckitt Benckiser (RB.L).

Muted Reaction

The fact that French's is an American staple owned by Europeans points to the slippery nature of brands in the era of globalization. It's now common for foreign companies to acquire U.S. brands—just as U.S. companies have been doing abroad for decades—and usually the deals occur with little publicity or opposition. But when resistance does occur, often fanned by the increasingly influential online crowd, the battle can get ugly.