Why pay $52 billion for the name “Anheuser-Busch” only to abbreviate it to AB InBev. The eagle is really ugly.

It’s like I said on twitter: The old design is conservative. But it was bold and assertive, it made you feel string when you looked at it.
This is kind of smarmy. Plus the Eagle is Flying AWAY! Maybe they should try one with it landing ON…

If it were me designing this, I would not change it this dramatically.

This looks retarded.

well at least the major shareholders didn’t make the new logo, all it would be is dollar signs. what a mistake.

That is horrible. It looks like something that should be on an 80’s vintage tee.

late breaking news (clarification) from Dave Peacock… A-B InBev North America will retain the iconic A & Eagle logo.

whether this is an instant reversal or a just a snafu - I give the home team props for realizing the gliding golden pigeon was a disaster.

Embarassing. Flat out embarassing. Looks like something a sixth grader slapped together on a computer in about 5 minutes.

Consider this a small sign of the disaster to come. Stock up on your Bud now before the Brazilians run the company and its iconic brands into the ground.

Keep traditional A-B logo with less prominent In-Bev lettering. In-Bev is taking the first step towards the ultimate destruction of a very popular product brand. Consumers in the US and worldwide recognize and identify this brand and the product performance associated with this brand.

Here we are in the middle of a worldwide financial crisis. Each of David’s blog entries affecting that attract 2 or 3 comments. But the change in the A-B logo attracts 56 comments to this point. While reinforcing Tip O’Neill’s observation that “All politics is local,” it also illustrates that much of “politics” is based on “personal economic interests.”

It also recalls the fallacy stated many years ago under a Republican administration that “What is good for General Motors is good for America.” For decades, that was used by Democrats as a criticism of the economic idea espoused mostly by Republicans that prosperity “trickles down.” So, which party is primarily supporting GM now? The non-partisan truth is that some things that are good for GM (and its cohort, the United Auto Workers Union) are good for America, and some are not.

People who aren’t sufficiently intelligent and intellectually honest to recognize the complexity of this issue do not contribute much to resolving it in a way that achieves what I consider to be in the best national interest: having an economic policy that provides the maximum economic benefit to Americans as a whole, while taxing the majority who benefit from it to compensate the minority who lose from it.

In the case of the A-B buyout, the “winners” are the shareholders in A-B and — probably — consumers of beer worldwide. The prospective “losers” are A-B employees and — to a lesser extent — the various businesses in St. Louis where they spend their money. But the “big picture” is that, while the contribution of St. Louis to the world’s consumption of beer may decline, it’s contribution in other areas may expand. Chief among these is healthcare, with the Washington University/Barnes-Jewish consortium (and also St. Louis University and St. John’s Mercy) being foremost.

Would anybody like to argue that being “first” in the production of beer is a more important societal goal than being pre-eminent in the provision of healthcare? Perhaps some of you folks who are so “brilliant” at selling beer should consider re-training for a career in healthcare that will be of a lot more benefit to society. And I say this as somebody who enjoys drinking high quality beer (better than most that A-B produces) but recognizes that it is not life’s ultimate gratification.

this new symbol,of the combine merger of the two brewers,doesn’t leave very much meaning, for the SPIRIT OF ST. LOUIS, looks like its flying away, from the greatest, beer city in the country.