How Do Boycotts Work?

Boycott is a word we’ve heard a lot recently. As the political landscape ebbs and flows with the induction of a new president and the evolution of our own sensitivities and sentimentalities evolve, our calls to action are not only emboldened, they’re empowered. But, as boycotts slam business after business, the question of their validity arises as doors stay open, profits continue to rise and conversations surrounding their ill intents turn silent. 

What is a boycott? 

When defined by Merriam-Webster’s, to boycott something is to “withdraw from commercial or social relations with an entity as a punishment or protest.” A more poetic definition, given by Irish Nationalist Charles Parnell in 1880 during a speech in Ennis, called it a “show of detestation for the crime a man committed.”  

Parnell’s speech is important because it was the first time the idea of social ostracism was discussed as an alternative to murder – a more, as he put it, “Christian, charitable way that gives the lost man a chance at repentance.” 

Soon after this speech, a captain by the name of Charles Boycott was undergoing the very same ostracism over matters of land and unfair treatment towards his tenants. The landowners and nearby townsfolk, siding with the farmhands, had denied Boycott every right possible – he received no mail, was not allowed to trade any of his goods and wasn’t allowed to work with any of the nearby businesses. Eventually, he ended up having to hire migrant farmers at twice the price of the farm’s worth, just to ensure his lands weren’t ruined for the next harvest. 

This cultural shunning, soon named after the captain as a ‘boycott,’ became a way to seek justice for a singular, grievous wrong. Since then, boycotts have been catalytic components to wars, revolutions and major change in the world. In America’s history, the Boston Tea Party is one such boycott – and serves as a crucial powder keg for the following revolution that claimed our independence from British rule. 

Fast forward to 2017 and boycotts continue in various forms. With the advent and adoption of the internet and, more specifically, social media as an everyday necessity for so many, the practice of boycotting has mutated into a beast of epic proportions. Rarely are they used to negate influence of a person, but now are utilized as supposed safeguards against entire businesses.

Outliers still exist, of course, such as we’ve seen with millionaire and businessman Martin Shkreli – the pharma-tycoon made famous in 2015 for hiking prices of HIV/AIDS medication into astronomically-unaffordable figures. Since then, his dirty laundry has been front and center in the public eye, and he’s been indicted on securities fraud, kicked off of Twitter and had a bag of dog shit thrown into his face by a stranger. While still earning a paycheck on investments beyond most of our wildest dreams, Shkreli’s social and entrepreneurial reputation is, at the moment, ruined. His net worth also took a substantial hit, declining to four million dollars as of February this year, compared to the 45 million he was worth in 2016, according to Fortune magazine. 

So Boycotts Work Then, Right? 

While you could look at the Shkreli story and close the book on the question, let’s take a look at another example: Chick-Fil-A. In the case of the chicken joint that Jesus built, Dan Cathy, president of the company, sparked a boycott in 2005 after siding with the ideal of the “traditional family unit,” which states that a family can only consist of a mother, a father and their biological children.

While this shouldn’t have come as much of a surprise from the company that is closed every Sunday, what did strike an unharmonious chord was that the organization also regularly donated large sums of money to support anti-homosexual initiatives. As the controversy ignited, civil rights and pro-LGBTQ groups began to boycott the hallowed halls of chik’n. 

But, for every defector of Chik-Fil-A, there were just as many who came in defense of the company’s values, such as former Arkansas senator Mike Huckabee and the Reverend Billy Graham. The boycott sparked a national appreciation day for the chain and, instead of closing its doors, Chick-Fil-A enjoyed a 14-percent sales increase, according to the company’s released financial reports.  

And that’s just one example. We’ve also recently witnessed it on a local level when Bread & Circus came under fire for the release of a shirt that many felt promoted sexual assault. Larger companies, like Nordstrom and Target, have also seen boycotts after the recent presidential election, but both have released statements saying the impact of such practices have had little to no effect on their bottom line. Bread & Circus? Like Chick-Fil-A, saw an outcry of support from its fans who began to frequent the establishment more regularly to show their support.

Ok, So…They Don’t Work? 

Well, that depends on the boycott. What makes some successful and others flop, according to Daniel Dermeier, dean of the Harris School of Public Policy, is two-fold: the purpose and the timing. In an age where we’re so connected, it’s more important than ever for businesses to stand firm in what they believe and, for the most part, according to a 2014 study by the Global Services Group, 56% of consumers want corporations to stand behind a political opinion, because it makes choosing who they shop with easier. This means that, unless you side with something that your targeted demographics are against, you’ll always have brand ambassadors and a line of support.

As far as the time aspect? Well, Dermeier says that effective boycotts in this day and age take years and, in such a fast world where there’s always a new cause to champion, the majority of boycotts don’t have the following they need to truly sustain themselves. 

This isn’t to say that you shouldn’t withhold your hard-earned cash from companies you disagree with. By all means, shop where you feel comfortable. But, the next time you sign a petition or signal a call-to-arms, maybe make sure the cause is really worth fighting for, or you may end up truly doing more harm for the cause than good.