Yes, they are implying that their particular alcoholic beverage has some sort of magical qualities that bring people together, unlike their competitors. It just wouldn't be the same if they were drinking MGD.

I think this is awesome! It it pretty great that they did not make it clear that the men were not a couple!

Wow! I have to say, it's really refreshing as a beer commercial simply because it doesn't play on ridiculously slap-you-in-the-face heterosexuality!

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that Budweiser would create an ad featuring a gay couple. No way.

But especially since one of the two men is in the military.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if Budweiser comes out with some sort of clarification that defines their relationship.

I saw this a few days ago and a couple things come to mind:

-I'm pretty sure that this ambiguity is 100% what the marketing agency/Budweiser themselves were going for. It's gotten people talking about the ad, after all, and has the potential to strike up controversy: a marketer's dream.

-This controversy is in itself really interesting, because the ad becomes politically loaded when we consider that one of the possibly-gay-men in question is a soldier. This isn't the same thing as featuring a civilian gay couple in a beer commercial, which would certainly be progressive in itself; this is a potentially gay couple in a military context in a time when it's still against the law for American soldiers to be "out" in the army. How Budweiser responds to this conversation, if they do respond at all, could be striking.

If they say "yes, these guys are meant to be read as a couple," or even as much as "whether or not these men are gay is irrelevant," then they're saying that they are on board with, or at least indifferent to, gays in the military. (If it's irrelevant that the men are gay, after all, then that means gays in the military is a non-issue. One couldn't intentionally produce an ad with even an ambigiously gay soldier if they are opposed to full gay integration into the US army.) That's a bold sentiment for an apolitical, profit-driven company, akin to when Google released an anti-Prop 8 statement back in 2007. Because even indifference is somewhat political of an act - it means that, if nothing else, they're not against gays in the military.

If, however, Budweiser says "these men are friends/brothers, and we didn't mean to imply a homosexual relationship," then they're banking on the controversy to get them some attention while still remaining entirely apolitical - a very smart corporate decision. Same deal if they don't respond at all.

And yes, I realize that it is not illegal for gays to serve in the military - Don't Ask Don't Tell doesn't prohibit their service, it just prohibits their open service. So, the soldier in this commercial, if he is gay, isn't really doing anything illegal. That's also a smart move by Budweiser, however - they can theoretically stand behind the gay community while not promoting any illegal behaviour or making any grand statement about American military law. But subtly, the statement is there - if Budweiser says that the man is meant to be read as gay, they would be acknowledging that gays do exist in the military and that the media should recognize them, and that's a pretty significant statement against DADT without actually saying so.

It's not unambiguously gay, but if the soldier or the person called had been a woman I don't think we'd be asking whether it was ambiguously heterosexual.

It isn't totally unambiguous, but it seems pretty clear to someone who has watched the majority of media representations of gay people be equally or more subtle. Only recently, and only sometimes, has it been explicitly spelled out that someone on tv or in a movie is gay. This commercial is quite a lot more clear than many, with just enough room for doubt that those people who don't want to see it are not forced to. Budweiser makes a lot of money from the LGBT community, and at least around here is pretty much always the major supporter of pride events. It is not much of a stretch to see them advertise like this, but it is nice to see in the mainstream.

@Leigh all ads are manipulation of course, the question here is whether Budweiser is betting on the financial rewards of those who react positively to their challenging ad over those who object to it.

It is rare that a corporation takes a stand that is not directly inline with improving their bottom line, it happens, but it is exceptional, and I don't think Budweiser is trying to fool anyone into thinking this is one of those occasions. It is NOTABLE however, that Budweiser is willing to risk some sales for other sales... And telling about where money is these days.

I agree entirely that their reaction will determine the impact.

I think this was really nice commercial, but I still don't like Bud. Ironically, Klondike has offensive commercials but I love their product.

Even if they're not supposed to be a gay couple, I think it's pretty cool for an advertisement to display men having a relationship where they are not afraid to express emotions and physically hug each other. In the age of ads that tell guys to "man up" or that holding another man's hand for 5 seconds makes them deserve a Klondike bar, it's refreshing to see an ad that doesn't question a man's masculinity (or perhaps sexuality) for showing emotion and being physical with another man.

I'm not 100% convinced... beer commercials are all about male bonding and friendships, so a good friend or a brother welcoming him home seems more likely than a politically charged stance from a national brewery who sells to middle america. But if it was their goal, good on them.

Who would open a long distance phone call to their lover by saying "Hey man"?

The kind of criticism this ad has stirred up is so reflective of a bizarre world view that it's not okay to "maybe" be gay. And I don't think that Budweiser is trying to be progressive on the sly - appealing to people who are pro-gays-in-the-military seems like a lot of work and a big risk for not a lot of profit.

But I'd also like to point out that supporting the military is itself a political statement, and not a progressive one at all. Never mind who's doing the fighting – Bud supports overseas military deployment. Their target is people with conservative views – Budweiser aims for a patriotic, classically American, draught-horse-drawn feelgood brand expression – and there's no way a statement like the one proposed by The Week would come out of the blue. Maybe as damage control but not as a sudden proposition that Budweiser is a progressive company.

I answer, NOT A STEP FORWARD. Big Alcohol has a long history of multimillion dollar target marketing campaigns geared toward vulnerable populations--communities of color, low-income communities, and not least of which, LGBTQ communities. Rates of alcohol problems are higher among people who identify as lesbian or gay than in the general population. The Big Alcohol Industry would like to keep it this way to the benefit of its bottom line and the detriment of the public's health. Let's not congratulate the industry for preying on vulnerable populations.

Reference: http://www.marininstitute.org/site/big-alcohol/industry-tactics/19-marketing-to-target-populations.html

It makes me think of how other mediums have treated gay relationships, foremost in the movie Philadelphia and recently how it's developing on Glee. There is a sort of intimacy, but you could easily write them off as roommates or friends if you didn't know better. The kind of romance that makes the least possible splash for those who don't like it. I think that with that context in mind, you could definately read it as a "gay if you wish it" relationship, with the company being a bit too cowardly to push the envelope any further. Of course, it could also be calculated to be a straight relationship just intimate enough to cause publicity. Which one it is, only the writers know.

It's either a boyfriend or a brother I think. The "it's me" feels very relationship-like but the presumably family lead party planning seems brother like. Either that or they are saying that the entire family supports the relationship, which is uncommon.

They could be a gay couple, or friends, or brothers. Dittoing Celeste's comment; I know a lot of straight guys who have close relationships with their brothers or friends that also aren't portrayed realistically on TV (I could see my ex boyfriend doing this for his brother, for example). Whether they're gay and dating, or straight and just super-close, it's still a subversion of most media, particularly beer commercials, that make it seem like men are all smelly slobs and anything deviating from that is "teh ghey" and therefore bad and wrong. They're acknowledging that their consumer base might not be 100% openly misogynistic and homophobic straight men who consistently scream stereotypically male things just to prove they are "men." Which is still a marketing ploy, but it's refreshing no matter how you look at it.

I read it as a commercial about men's emotions, which should always be soothed or celbrated with Budweiser. They create a masculine space/scenario where it's ok to have feelings (soldier, family, barn, beer).

Wow, it's easy to tug at heartstrings when you take out the cleavage-and-middriff-bearing young women and chest-beating.

I think that the soldier and the man who organises the party are clearly a couple. Come on: he is the first one to be contacted, the first one to hug him, even before mom and dad... They are a couple that has achieved that level of equality where nobody needs to say explicitly that they are a couple (and not because they are in the closet! Mother and father are there for their son and son-in-law).

Therefore: nice ad.

Of course, still an ad, a way to sell products and so on... but still: a good sign.

I actually couldn't view it. Youtube said that it was restricted to viewers age 21 and over. The content didn't seem particularly racy to me, from the description provided, but I'll give budweiser the benefit of the doubt and say that it's because it's a beer commercial (though they don't restrict TV commercials in the same way) and not because of the material.

I don't interpret that as his boyfriend. It's probably a "buddy" (BUDweiser). Too bad though. I DO like the ambiguity of it though; a step forwarded indeed.

Hm, if I were to see this commercial on TV I would probably assume it was a best friend. "Hey man" is usually a "buddy" term. However, when I look at it under this kind of scrutiny I think it's definitely more ambiguous. Perhaps it's because I'm gay and just assume commercials (especially beer commercials) are catered towards straight people that it didn't cross my mind to see it as an ambiguous commercial.

Not exactly a fan of Bud using the military imagery as part of their advertisements. No comment about that in the post?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdWApwbudQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=140s

MAYBE I am reading into it too much, but because there was no thumping each other manfully on the back, it reads as a lover to me.

Everyone is saying the man could be his brother, and that's true, but I read the girl as his sister and the man as his lover, not visa versa.

Either way, I enjoy the ambiguity and the nice feel-good-without-putting-anybody-down ad. Yeah, someone designed it to sell beer, but isn't it nice to see something like this used to sell beer instead of some of the "take off the skirt/be a man" sort of ads we see posted here usuaslly?

Oooh, I want to believe, I do I do I do! That was so sweet, I don't mind the Bud branding.

Regardless of the soldier's sexuality, I'm just happy it's not the usual bikini-clad females or talking frogs.

I didn't get the impression that they were gay at all. I immediately defaulted to "brothers" from the way the acted.

1) He called the guy first. It's very common for brothers to call each other first before calling someone else.

2) The way they hugged. It was definitely an "I really missed you" type hug. The exact type I would expect from a brother after being in a combat zone for a couple of years and just now returning home.

3) "Hey man, it's me." That sounds like something a brother would say, not something a lover would say.

4) The second person he hugged certainly looked like the girlfriend to me.

I believe it is meant to show a gay couple. The thing that stands out most to me is that the partner/friend/brother is standing dead center, out in front of all the gathered friends and family when the soldier comes in. All party goers are fanned out behind him, including the parents. This shows the level of importance the man plays in his life. Regardless of the manipulation involved, it is nice to be manipulated to look upon this gay relationship in a positive manner for a change.

I think they meant for it to be a gay couple, but put the woman in for the second hug as a potential girlfriend to make ppl feel comfortable. Basically--it brilliantly allows it to be whatever makes you feel most hopeful.

It's highlighting emotions between men and they certainly are very connected and endearing.

So again--they wanted to create the gay couple scenario, but needed to keep it undefined to not lock themselves in as promoting gay couples.

I'd echo a lot of other commentary. It is ambiguous and it is pretty likely to be so in a calculated manner.

However, I'd still put it in the "win" column. Beer ads are so often blatantly sexist and/or ramming traditional gender roles down our throats that this is a step in the right direction.

I also like that their relationship (whatever it is) is not made into a big deal. If they are lovers, it is not a big deal. If they are heterosexual men displaying affection for one another, it is not a big deal.

For what it's worth, I would totally call a good friend or brother before my parents if it's late at night, as is implied in the commercial. Sometimes you have news at an odd hour; you need to tell someone, but you don't want to wake up the folks.

Go Budweiser! What I found interesting is this: when you go to view this on Youtube, you get the waring that some content might be inappropriate. Seriously?

I think it's brilliant that there's a commercial where the assumption is gay since everything else else ever the assumption is generally straight until proven gay.

I'm gay. It's the 21st century. If I have to decode an ad to find its gayness, or hunt out subtext like a Doris Day and Rock Hudson film, I'm not interested. Either it's there or it isn't. If they want to play with ambiguity, then they're going to have to be a lot more Art House about it to catch my attention.

Interesting in the comments that there are still those who discount a) the massive target market the gay dollar brings in and b) that many gay couples live in complete normalcy with acceptance of family, friends and communities.

If anyone doubt marketers quests to get the gay dollar, or the repercussions of pissing of the gay community, google the coors boycotts of the '70s - current. It cost them dearly in revenue and also in money to get them back.

Not sure if this a gay couple or not; I'd liked to have seen the commercial *before* reading about it here; I'm sure reading the post colored the way I view the commercial.

That said, I'm skeptical of this being a gay couple; I mean, I think it *could* go either way... perhaps it was created to appeal to bot the gay and hetero markets. I could easy see this being interpreted as a "bros before hos" kind of thing, where reaching out/hugging/etc. your buddies, especially after coming home from something super masculine, like war, is totally 'normal' and not gay at all, but it's part of the 'bro' culture thing.

I saw this commercial first on broadcast TV, and I thought it was a nice story about a family who welcomed their soldier home, but it didn't occur to me that the soldier or others might be gay. I found it refreshing simply because it avoided the usual stereotypes, other than being very male-centered. The only women are a Relieved Mother and an Attractive Young Woman to hug.

I do think that the tagline, "Proudly serving," is designed to let critical or gay-friendly viewers wonder, trigger the association with Bud's sponsorship of Pride Week if you've been exposed to it, and subtle enough to fly under the radar for everyone else.

Not good enough. If they wanted to make a social statement, they'd make it. They are simply trying to kill 2 birds with one stone, that is, two market groups: gays and soldiers. They must have discovered that their special blue bottles and ads in OUT magazine are getting the the sales they hoped it would, haha.

I couldn't watch the damn ad... I'm in Canada and not 19...

All the comments interpreting body signals and mannerisms are kind of ridiculous. Guess what -- this might be a bit too shocking for some of yall, but not all gay people act the same way and show affection in the same way. Same obviously goes for straight folks.

I don't think it was a very bold move for Bud if they wanted to make a progressive statement, but it's an ambiguous ad that could possibly depict a gay couple. That's at least a step in the right direction.

I certainly agree with Greg above on this statement: "I also like that their relationship (whatever it is) is not made into a big deal. If they are lovers, it is not a big deal. If they are heterosexual men displaying affection for one another, it is not a big deal."

As a Soldier for the last 15 years, married and father of two, and a son and brother. With two tours in Iraq; I saw nothing "gay" about this commercial. Outside of my wife and kids, I am closest to my younger brother than anyone else in my family (sister, mom, or dad). On my last homecoming, after making it to the States, after I called my wife, I called my brother first and said I was home.

There are a lot of single Soldiers in the Army. Why should it be assumed someone is gay for calling another guy. You don't know that the guy in the commercial is the only person that would have been called (if this were a real event). It is just showing the bond between brothers, or best friends, or even cousins for that matter.

It's a brother.

The real topic is drug and alcohol addiction and the toll it takes on our veterans. How can Bud act like beer is a good part of coming come?

Alcoholism and drug abuse among veterans is a *valid* topic, but the topic of *this* post is whether or not Budweiser's ambiguous commercial portrayed a gay couple. There are enough views on either side of the question to conclusively show...

That the commercial is ambiguous.

I'm not sure about the ad. I'd like to believe there is a good meaning; but I believe, along with many of the above posters, that the marketing people know exactly whats up to manipulate us.

That said, I don't want to ever watch the Super Bowl with anyone who has commented here.

Well said P.F. Davis! This commercial is great and i never saw anything that struck me as being gay. I hadn't even noticed till i looked up the video on the internet. We can all thank those media pricks for somewhat tainting this commercial.