“To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.” - G. K. Chesterton
While reading the news the other day I ran across an article indicating that Starbucks had lost $12 billion from boycotts due to its support for Israel. The veracity of the report has been called into question as it is hard to determine by an outsider for many reasons including that companies are understandably reluctant to admit that boycotts work.
However, it was not the accuracy of the claim that struck me but evidence, circumstantial as it may be, that boycotts of companies for geopolitical and social issues appear to be on the rise as Bud Light, McDonalds, and X (Twitter) have also been the targets of boycotts in recent months.
I confess that I had not given much thought to boycotts until recently. Having grown up during the 1980s I was aware of them; having seen the West boycott the 1980 Olympics and the Warsaw Pact return the favor in 1984. I was however surprised to learn that boycotts were used prior to the American Revolution by the First Continental Congress in 1774 in an effort to pressure Parliament into addressing the colonies’ grievances (ex. The Intolerable Acts).
Boycotts were viewed as a peaceful way to settle the disputes and while they did have an effect on trade between Britain and the colonies they did not prevent the outbreak of the American Revolution. The term however is more recent having arisen during the Land War in the late 1870s when Charles Stewart Parnell, leader of The Irish National Land League convinced the community to shun land agent Captain Charles and others who took the farms of evicted tenants. The success of the actions led to the use of the term spreading through the English-speaking world.
There is much to be admired in the use of boycotts. It is a more tempered approach to opposing actions than violence and much harder to oppose. Violence provides an obvious target for counter actions whereas boycotts are more difficult to resist. Private security, the police, and the National Guard can be called out to deal with violence. Attempting to force people to spend their money where they do not wish is much harder. Boycotts also have a history of success including:
Montgomery Bus Boycott - Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give up her seat to a white passenger which led to a 13-month protest during which black residents refused to ride city buses. This propelled civil rights into the national spotlight ultimately leading the Supreme Court to outlaw segregation on public buses.
Delano Grape Strike – Beginning on Mexican Independence Day in 1965, Cesar Chavez assisted Filipino-American grape workers in protesting for better wages and working conditions. The strike lasted until 1970, resulted in an international boycott, and culminated in the country’s first farm workers union.
Nestle Company Boycott - In 1977, the Infant Formula Action Coalition organized a boycott in opposition to the company’s efforts to market infant formula in poor countries as being "better than breast milk.” Nestle spent approximately $100 million fighting negative press before agreeing to comply with World Health Organization (WHO) standards regarding infant formula sales.
Nothing is 100% effective of course and boycotts are no exception. Attempts to boycott the 1980 Summer Olympics and the 1984 Summer Olympics, can at best be viewed as symbolic as they did not prevent the Olympics from proceeding nor did they result in the desired political changes.
Boycotts are an extension of a citizen’s democratic rights, however, just as there is such a thing as too much democracy, boycotts can be abused. By way of example, the Ethical Consumer maintains a list of 27 boycotts it promotes against many companies I’d never heard of. While I applaud their efforts to control where they spend their money, and not to belabor a point, how effective is your boycott if very few people are aware of it? There is of course the principal, but as real change is no doubt the goal, better publicity is clearly needed.
My issue is less with who is boycotted or boycotting than with why the boycotts are arising in the first place. It’s one thing to boycott an organization based on its actions and quite another to boycott them because you disagree with their politics or what they’ve tweeted.
When I walk into a Starbucks it is to buy a coffee and my thoughts are more along the lines of “OMG it’s expensive,” and “I hope the barista gets my order right” rather than “I wonder what the geopolitical position of Starbucks is vis-à-vis X.” I want Starbucks to focus on quality and affordability and I suspect most of us feel the same way.
Problems arise when companies weigh in on political issues failing to understand that there are usually activists on both sides of most issues, and you can’t please both. This leads to businesses annoying one side, prompting the call for a boycott. The obvious solution, which these companies seem incapable of understanding, is to focus on your core product rather than weighing in on social and political matters. I imagine that very few people determine their political position based on the Tweets of their favorite coffee shop.
The failure of so many companies to grasp this makes one wonder if the marketing departments of these corporations have been taken over by activists more interested in “changing the world” than in selling products. How else can you explain that corporations continue to make political statements long after the dangers were made clear by Bud Light?
Bud Light Boycott – When Bud Light's vice president of marketing, Alissa Heinerscheid decided to make the brand “more inclusive” by hiring TikTok personality Dylan Mulvaney and moved away from the company’s traditional market, the resultant boycott was catastrophic. Bud Light's sales fell between 11 and 26%, the stock price fell 20%, and the brand lost its status as the top-selling beer in the United States (a spot it had held for 20 years). Heinerscheid also lost her job.
At the end of the day, an individual may spend their money where they see fit, and a company can take whatever political stance it chooses. I might disagree with their decision but would never argue that they did not have the right to make it. It seems to me though that some decisions are wiser than others.
The problem with taking a political stance is that you will inevitably annoy someone. As Michael Jordan allegedly said when asked to take a political stance, “Republicans buy sneakers too.” My advice to marketing executives is to let your products do the speaking for you. Quality speaks for itself. If that’s not enough focus on a catchy phrase. Nike has “Just do it,” De Beers has “A diamond is forever,” and Capital One has “What’s in your wallet?” All memorable and all apolitical. Then there’s the classic, “Have a Coke and a Smile.” Or don’t, but please just shut up and let me drink my coffee in peace.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
It might expose some people to an opinion they're not familiar with, but the impact is probably minor.
This is marketing. It's telling people what they want to hear so they'll feel good about buying a product.
> I imagine that very few people determine their political position based on the Tweets of their favorite coffee shop.
Not directly, but those tweets do affect the Overton window.