(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Deal or No Deal: The Boycott Strategy Examined [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2025-02-23
If you were unaware, there are multiple boycotts or “buy-ins” being planned or are already in the works. There are more calls for boycotts every day - especially against corporations that have abandoned DEI policies.
Boycotts have been called for since the Musk/Trump administration was elected on November 5th. This article will cover the planned and ongoing economic boycotts of the Musk/Trump administration. These will cover economic boycotts ONLY.
What makes a boycott successful? Where do boycotts fail in their goals? Towards the end of the article, there will be criteria using examples of successful and failed American boycotts.
So what is a boycott?
Of course, boycott actions precede the formation of the word as they worked even long ago.
A boycott is an act of nonviolent, voluntary abstention from a product, person, organization, or country as an expression of protest. It is usually for moral, social, political, or environmental reasons. The purpose of a boycott is to inflict some economic loss on the target, or to indicate a moral outrage, usually to try to compel the target to alter an objectionable behavior.
The word has a fascinating history, tracing back to the Irish Land Wars.
The boycott was popularized by Charles Stewart Parnell during the Irish land agitation of 1880 to protest high rents and land evictions. The term boycott was coined after Irish tenants followed Parnell’s suggested code of conduct and effectively ostracized a British estate manager, Charles Cunningham Boycott.
Basically, every Irish person in the area decided to not work for Charles Cunningham Boycott because he represented an absentee landlord. Businesses refused to trade with him. Even the post offices refused to deliver his mail! This required an amount of sacrifice on the part of the people doing it but this prolonged action caught on and spread. Eventually, the absentee landlords and their representatives feared that they would be next: The Daily News wrote on December 13, 1880: "Already the stoutest-hearted are yielding on every side to the dread of being 'Boycotted'."
What boycotts of President Musk or Trump can you join?
Europe may not have called for a boycott of Tesla, but their buying patterns show a clear boycott action.
There are so many planned boycotts that it is next to impossible to list them all! Some of them are explicit calls for a boycott while others are more changes in purchasing patterns that are a boycott in all but name. Here are some examples I could find quickly:
A new Latino group is trying to launch a boycott of Coca-Cola and other companies hostile to DEI.
The Latino Freeze Movement, which describes itself as a grassroots movement founded this year that shows the “value that Latinos, other minorities and allies have” in America, is calling for the Latino community to shop only for essentials and be “selective” in where they shop in response to the rollback on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies and more. The Latino Freeze Movement named more than a dozen companies to not purchase from, including Coca-Cola, alleging that these companies “scaled back Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion or have been passive.”
Target has especially been targeted by pissed-off activists. There is a separate boycott that is planned for March 5th and stretching through Lent.
[The next] particular Target boycott begins on March 5, or Ash Wednesday, which marks the start of Lent, a 40-day period observed by some religious communities that leads up to Easter and involves fasting. According to Targetfast.org, it’s described as a corporate fast and “spiritual act of resistance” and calls on people not to spend any money at Target during Lent and to sell any Target stock they own.
The next boycott group — the one that prompted this article — has an event February 28th, next Friday. It is a one-day affair where the organizers are asking backers to refrain from purchasing anything but essentials from small businesses .
It is a part of a loose plan to disrupt the USA and show people they still have power to influence events.
Another effort is being promoted by the NAACP. It isn’t encouraging a total boycott like the efforts above but instead is calling out corporations who have knuckled under to the Musk/Trump regime and eliminated their DEI initiatives. At this time, the NAACP would rather encourage Black people to “buy-in” with companies that back their values.
What makes a boycott successful?
I have found different criteria on what makes a boycott successful depending upon who you ask. Boycotting is flexible enough that there are multiple ways in which it could be a success. The key is whether or not the people calling for the boycott meet their initial goals or not. Here are some possible goals and success criteria for a boycott and examples from history.
A boycott achieves specific and concrete goals. meets its stated objectives , such as influencing a company's policies, practices, or behaviors. The The primary measure of success is whether the boycott, such as influencing a company's policies, practices, or behaviors. The Montgomery Bus Boycott is the classic example of achieving specific and concrete goals in a relatively quick fashion. Everyone knows the Rosa Parks story — or at least they think they know it. History is more complicated. raises public awareness about the issues at hand, educating consumers and the broader community about the reasons behind the boycott. I hesitate injecting I/P boycott information into this article, but I’d argue the A successful boycott oftenabout the issues at hand, educating consumers and the broader community about the reasons behind the boycott. I hesitate injecting I/P boycott information into this article, but I’d argue the BDS movement is a successful example of raising awareness. It does have its counter-boycott and its detractors but in terms of raising awareness it has been wildly successful. BDS and the anti-Israeli movement has had mixed success aside from raising awareness of the issue. change in consumer purchasing habits , it can pressure the targeted entity to reconsider its actions. MAGA If the boycott leads to a significant, it can pressure the targeted entity to reconsider its actions. MAGA can boycott too! The most recent successful boycott happened to Bud Light starting in 2023 because they featured a transgender activist. Bud Light’s reputation took a major hit and it went from the #1 light beer to #4 in popularity Bud Light may be crappy beer, but the brand is a lesson to liberals that MAGA can play this game too. substantial media attention can amplify the message of the boycott and reach a wider audience, increasing its impact. A boycott cannot generate too much attention though as you will see below. Generatingcan amplify the message of the boycott and reach a wider audience, increasing its impact. A boycott cannot generate too much attention though as you will see below. Boycotts of Arizona in 2010 after the racial profiling law SB1070 and boycotts of North Carolina in 2015-16 due to an anti-trans bathroom bill are perfect examples of legislators backing down after media attention was shined on them via a boycott. The North Carolina legislature has vacillated on passing anti-trans legislation many times due to boycotts or the threat of boycotts. sense of solidarity among participants and mobilize them for further action, creating a stronger movement for change. The boycotts of British products preceding the American Revolutionary War are the classic example of this. As the pressure ratcheted up on both sides, many Americans felt a sense of solidarity that was lacking before. That encouraged them to even more drastic actions such as the A successful boycott can foster aamong participants and mobilize them for further action, creating a stronger movement for change. The boycotts of British products preceding the American Revolutionary War are the classic example of this. As the pressure ratcheted up on both sides, many Americans felt a sense of solidarity that was lacking before. That encouraged them to even more drastic actions such as the Boston Tea Party This event is an important one in history, but it has been mythologized to an extent. The boycotts before the event were equally as important! lead to lasting changes in industry practices or consumer expectations. Beyond immediate goals, a successful boycott mayin industry practices or consumer expectations. Sea World changed from having orcas perform live shows to just having them be an exhibit due to pressure from PETA and similar activist groups. A marked decline in attendance during the boycott led to the change and it has stuck. The captive orca program underwent significant changes thanks to a boycott of Sea World. If the boycott prompts dialogue between consumers, activists, and the targeted entity, it can lead to constructive outcomes and negotiations. The grape strike and boycott by the United Farm Workers achieved tangible gains for the poor working farmers in the Central Valley of California. Through shrewd organizing and favorable coverage, some of the poorest and most powerless people in the USA took on big agribusiness and won. Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta are memorialized in a statue in the Central Valley for their work.
What makes a boycott a failure?
Even though we are upset with these corporations, most of them can withstand a boycott easily.
Most boycotts end in failure. They do not achieve the goals that spurred the initial effort. In fact, over time even successful boycotts can backslide because people don’t want to be inconvenienced or because people forget about it. Here are some possible reasons a boycott will fail, with more examples from history.
does not participate in the boycott, it may fail to create the necessary pressure on the entity being boycotted. This could happen if the company has a strong customer base that remains loyal despite the boycott. This is why Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby are If the intended audience or target groupin the boycott, it may fail to create the necessary pressure on the entity being boycotted. This could happen if the company has athat remains loyal despite the boycott. This is why Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby are immune to boycotts from progressive boycotters. Progressives already were boycotting these corporations and fascists see patronizing such businesses as a part of their identity. We can stop boycotting Chick-fil-A. It will never work. does not significantly affect the sales or reputation of the targeted company or organization, it may be deemed unsuccessful. Disney has been boycotted If the boycottof the targeted company or organization, it may be deemed unsuccessful. Disney has been boycotted so many times that the corporation knows what to do in the face of yet another boycott. Starbucks, Nike, Coca-Cola, and Wal-Mart are common targets of boycotts. They are used to these problems and can reputationally and financially ignore boycotts. Starbucks has seen so many boycotts over time that they know exactly how to handle them. not sustained over time may lose its effectiveness. If participants quickly return to their previous purchasing habits, the boycott may not achieve its goals. Either there needs to be a readily-available substitute or not much inconvenience from doing without. The A boycott that ismay lose its effectiveness. If participants quickly return to their previous purchasing habits, the boycott may not achieve its goals. Either there needs to be a readily-available substitute or not much inconvenience from doing without. The BP boycott failed after the Deepwater Horizon spill for this reason. The effort to boycott BP after the Deepwater Horizon spill didn’t last very long. not clearly communicated , it may lead to confusion and lack of support, resulting in a failure to mobilize people effectively. The so-called “ If the objectives of the boycott are, it may lead to confusion and lack of support, resulting in a failure to mobilize people effectively. The so-called “ Great American Boycott ” in 2006 suffered from this problem. It tried to put a focus on the plight of immigrants and protest their criminalization but the objectives of the boycott were unclear and it faded quickly from media coverage. Many immigrants started a boycott in 2006, but their objectives were unclear and not communicated. If a counter-movement arises in support of the entity being boycotted, it can undermine the boycott's effectiveness and create a backlash. Goya Foods looked vulnerable to a boycott in 2020 after its CEO endorsed Trump. Instead, a funny thing happened to that boycott once it became too well-known. Northwestern University researchers showed that the spike in exposure actually drove up sales immediately after the remarks. This was especially the case among first-time purchasers, and those in heavily Republican areas. The Goya boycott actually caused MAGA to start purchasing the brand! The boycott failed miserably. A boycott that does not receive adequate media coverage may fail to raise awareness and generate public support, limiting its impact. Most boycotts fail because people don’t know about them. If the boycott isn’t covered enough by the media, does it make an impact? Nope. disagreements among the participants about the goals or methods of the boycott, it can lead to fragmentation and weaken the overall effort. This is what happened in the If there areabout the goals or methods of the boycott, it can lead to fragmentation and weaken the overall effort. This is what happened in the second boycott launched by the United Farm Workers. They tried to get people to stop buying lettuce but internal frictions led the boycott to be unsuccessful. Only when the governor intervened did the strikers get what they wanted. After the successful grape boycott, the UFW tried a lettuce boycott. Frictions with the Teamsters union caused the boycott to be largely unsuccessful until the governor intervened. Ultimately, if the boycott does not lead to the desired changes in policies, practices, or behaviors of the targeted entity, it can be considered a failure. The Flush Rush, Fox News, and Xitter advertiser boycotts are a perfect example of this. There was some initial success in convincing corporations to drop advertisements on right-wing bilge programming but many of them eventually went right back to advertising on such programs or platforms.
x "Big advertisers, who had largely abandoned X after hate speech surged on the platform and ads were seen running alongside pro-Nazi content, have begun to return..Amazon and Apple are both reportedly reinvesting in X campaigns again, a remarkable endorsement from two brands with mass appeal"
[image or embed] — Ketan Joshi (@ketanjoshi.co) February 21, 2025 at 5:33 PM
Conclusion
Are boycotts still an option? I think so, but people supporting them need to have lower expectations of success. Most of the called boycotts are doomed to fail.
A post strategizing about boycotts gives some excellent advice on what could make them succeed.
The best form of economic boycott is targeted, limited, and rolling, with clear messages as to who, what, and why the boycott is being launched. What I mean is that you choose one target, say Coca-Cola, and announce a one week boycott of all Coke products due to it rolling back DEI policies and caving in to Trump. You give plenty of time for the target list to build and for the participants to get ready for it. You put out the next target, say Pepsi, for the following week. And so on, so that people understand what you are doing. Focus on a sector at a time (consumer products, for example). Also, give the actions that would remove the company from the list. You want the boycott to have an observable impact on their income stream. It may take a month at a time instead of a week to impact, but you can’t let the boycott go too long since supporters lose interest and don’t let them lose focus. Choose products and companies Democrats tend to use. For example, Tractor Supply probably wouldn’t work as a boycott target since it has a largely rural or suburban presence.
Looking at the boycotts mentioned in the middle of the article and then analyzing them using the criteria above, it looks like these efforts are more boycotts that are doomed to fail.
The new Latino group is very unlikely to get enough media attention or mobilize enough market share to make a boycott of Coca-Cola meaningful. Coca-Cola is also a hardened target after many failed attempts to boycott it.
Target has already been attacked by MAGA successfully and thus is likely less receptive to new attacks from the left. It will likely retreat from the culture wars as much as possible instead of returning to a commitment to DEI.
The February 28th boycott is not a targeted one and is too vague. It also is supposed to only happen for one day. That’s not long enough or financially significant enough to make any difference.
The one with the best chance is the NAACP “buy-in” because Black consumers have enough market share to matter to the bottom line. However, it remains to be seen if it can last long enough or get enough media attention to work.
There are brands that are vulnerable to a sustained boycott — Tesla comes to mind immediately. A recent Daily Kos diary argues this very point. The diary goes on to say a boycott of Florida would be successful but I fear that the goals of that boycott would be too vague to be successful.
With the proliferation of social media, I fear that the boycott has lost its meaning for the most part. This article from the University of Texas in 2017 summarizes the problem accurately:
Additionally, the recent increase in boycotts is likely limiting their effectiveness by overwhelming the public. Between 1990 and 2007, only 213 boycotts were mentioned in the six largest U.S. newspapers; by contrast, in the 200 or so days of its existence, the anti-Trump #GrabYourWallet campaign alone has launched boycotts against over 50 companies. Beyond this campaign, if you’re on social media or have friends who are, you already know that you’re expected to boycott Target because of bathrooms, Chick-fil-A because of gay marriage, Fox News because of Bill O’Reilly, and Nordstrom because it was unfair to Ivanka. This explosion in activism is overwhelming for consumers, and each new boycott decreases the likelihood of any individual one achieving its broader goals.
For a boycott to cut through all of the noise these days is a challenge. For enough people to agree to sacrifice something in order for a boycott to be effective only compounds it. I am a skeptic, but others are much more optimistic that boycotts are part of the answer:
There may be some skepticism about the effectiveness of boycotts but looking back at history, there should be no question regarding whether boycotts can actually work—the answer is clearly yes, but there is a caveat: boycotts should be one of many tools in our arsenal for social change. When coupled with other collective actions like raising awareness, amplifying the needs of those directly impacted, contacting elected officials and sending tangible resources, change can happen.
I wish the organizers of each boycott luck, because they may need it in order to reach their goals.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/2/23/2304262/-Deal-or-No-Deal-The-Boycott-Strategy-Examined?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
