Arch_Genesis wrote:JMedwick wrote:The concern should be less over the promise of the North American HQ as it should be over whether InBev is truly committed to Budweiser as the flagship brand for the combined company and continuing the AB family of brands. Somehow, I see InBev making this deal to get access to the AB wholesale system in the US and its investments in China and India and not caring much about Bud or the AB family of brands. In particular, the wholesale system allows InBev to strengthen the global cachet of its existing brands at the expense of growing Bud, Bud Light or any other AB brands market share in the US or abroad. It would not surprise me at all to see in five years that the AB brands market share in the US has fallen significantly but that the overall market share of the combined company remained constant. In such a situation, St. Louis could be hard hit with job losses. Moreover, given that AB has always chosen to develop its own version of beers to mimic the types produced by rivals rather than buy out those rivals, it would not be surprising to see the overall number of AB beers reduced. Michelob, as the designated higher quality AB beer label, could be hard hit in particular as the range of InBev existing products are used to reduce operating costs by retiring the AB versions. By reducing the number and amount of beer produced by AB factories, job losses will mount. It will be interesting to watch how the system plays out. AB should push for St. Louis to be the HQ of the Americas not just North America.
The post dispatch is pushing for St. Louis to be the global headquarters for inbev and for inbev to change their name to A-B. It also suggests that this wouldn't be much of a stretch at all. Pretty decent article.
"Can InBev lead to a St. Louis renaissance?"
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument
Hmm. The article above isn't nearly as prudent as this article:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument
Personally, and I'm sure like some forward-thinking St. Louisans, I have mixed feelings about the newly formed A-B-I. On one hand, I'm a bit down knowing a 150+ year institution in St. Louis is set to change. However, on the other much more optimistic hand, I'm excited of said change having read the background of Carlos Brito. Furthermore, the former article sited, as well as jlmedwick's summation, quite frankly, highlights some of the most asinine and endemic issues evident in our region: St. Louis is uncomfortable with change and often proud to a fault.
"Instead, InBev should rename itself Anheuser-Busch and move its world headquarters to St. Louis." Asking A-B-I to rename itself A-B does nothing for the general consumer or shareholder. Instead, it merely helps St. Louis swallow a bitter pill. This point is effectively moot considering the "brand" names of A-B products would never change.
I will concede one point, I believe its imperative that the civic leaders of St. Louis urge Brito to keep his word on making STL the North American headquarters of A-B-I. However, in doing so, our leaders need to realize that perpetuating heritage A-B culture (although finely interwoven with STL culture) is not on Brito's agenda. Allow me to offer up an adage; "Save it or make it." Brito is a master of the former.
"Brito eschews the kind of corporate perks that have become typical today. He and other executive board members fly business class only on flights over 6 hours; otherwise they go coach. There are no company cars, free beer or reserved parking spots."
Honestly, I'm glad to see such frugal examples being set by the leader of this new company, and I can't wait to see the positive change that Brito puts in place for A-B-I. A-B has long been known to have quasi cronyism and its stagnating stock price is clear evidence of it's leaders complacency and resistance to making the tough decision: cutting the fat.
"Brito's reputation as a cost-cutter was affirmed during his brief tenure as InBev's head of North America. Within months of his arrival after the 2004 creation of InBev through the merger of Interbrew and AmBev, Brito shut Labatt Blue's Toronto brewery and fired 20 percent of its salaried work force. 'My impression of Carlos Brito was that he came here to do it his way,' said Guy McClelland, a former Labatt manager who left the brewer a year before Brito took over and now runs a beer import company in Toronto. 'The one thing you cannot argue with is that he more or less doubled the bottom line (at Labatt) in five years."
ttricamo's alternate assumption to jlmedwicks: A-B products do not lose market share in the US. StL has the opportunity to welcome A-B-I with open arms ONLY if they're willing to realize that Brito is not the Busch Family or their cronies. Jobs, both white, blue, and contract are cut at A-B-I but because it makes sense to both the bottom-line and the shareholders. Clydesdales everywhere are spared.
sidebar: I hope Brito cans Bud Light Lime
