I understand the logic behind their choice, and trying to appeal to a new generation. But, I think they completely forgot to consider their established clientele, and they're not going to gain enough from the younger crowd to offset the age 40+ crowd that they just sent running.
Personally, I think that if Bud/Bud light want to appeal to a wider audience, they should try making better beer.
The younger crowd already skews more toward smaller batch beer and micros. A-B recognized this years ago, and adopted a "if you can't beat them, buy them" model (I may never get over them buying and then ruining 10 Barrel Brewing). That hasn't really been that successful for them, so I think they should shift to a "since we still can't beat them, we should become them" model. But it's hard to recover from over a century of making bad beer.
Responding to a different conversation here -
Coors light is tolerable in a bottle...barely. But there's barely a reason to drink it, since it has almost no flavor and just makes you piss.
I used to enjoy $2 pitchers of Oly at Ricos. A lot. Now, I'm fairly convinced that Oly, Rainier, and Schmidt all come from different taps on the same tank.
Oly, Rainier, Schmidt, Lucky, and Coors original are good when you've got a good fire going somewhere in the woods. And that's the only time I still drink beer from a can.
Bud and Bud light....aren't even good in the woods. Last time I had one was in the shadow of the brewery in St. Louis in 2009. Figured that if I had one near the source, it might be OK. I was mistaken.