Boycotts and Free Speech
“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 very 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.
Prior to enrolling in a Master’s in History program I’d never given boycotts much thought. Having grown up during the 80s I was obviously 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). This was viewed as a peaceful way to settle the disputes and while it did have an effect on trade between Britain and the colonies it did not prevent the outbreak of the American Revolution.
While it is difficult to pinpoint the first use of a boycott, it is known that the term itself arose as a result of the efforts of The Irish National Land League to organize tenant farmers to resist landlords and enable tenant farmers to own the land they worked. The term gets its name from land agent Captain Charles Boycott. Charles Stewart Parnell, the leader of the Land League successfully convinced the community to shun Boycott and others who took the farms of evicted tenants and 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 whereas boycotts are more difficult to resist. Private security, the police, and the National Guard can be called out to deal with violence whereas 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 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 outlawed segregation on public buses.
Delano Grape Strike – Beginning on Mexican Independence Day in 1965, Cesar Chavez assisted Filipino American grape workers to protest 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 of 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 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. Having lived through the 1980s I remember the boycotts of the 1980 Summer Olympics and the 1984 Summer Olympics, however the third largest boycott, that of the 1976 Summer Olympics escaped my notice raising the question, how effective can a boycott be if it goes unnoticed or isn’t remembered?
CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=643724
Boycotts, in addition to being a peaceful form of protests, are an extension of a citizen’s democratic rights. What is more democratic after all than deciding where to spend one’s money? However, just as there is such a thing as too much democracy, there is also a point when boycotts get out of control. The recent boycotts of Starbucks and McDonalds lead me to believe we’ve reached that point. Boycotts are much more prevalent than most of us realize. The Ethical Consumer for example maintains a website showing 27 existing boycotts of nations and corporations which it promotes including ones against Amazon, Coca-Cola, and Russia, many of which I was unaware. 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 however is less with who is boycotted or who is doing the boycotting, than with why the boycotts are arising in the first place. It’s one thing to boycott an organization based on its actions, whether they be environmental, labor, tax related, or to let people keep their farms, 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 consequently my thoughts leading up to the purchase 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 [the current issue of the day].” I want Starbucks to focus on selling me a good product at an (ideally) affordable price. I suspect the majority of us feel the same way. The problem is that too many companies feel the need to weigh in on social and political issues in attempts (one assumes) to capture the “lucrative” activist market failing to understand that there are usually activists on both sides of most issues, and you can’t please both. This ultimately leads to businesses annoying one or the other side, prompting the annoyed side to 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’s decided to make the brand “more inclusive” by hiring controversial TikTok personality Dylan Mulvaney and move away from the company’s traditional market, the resultant boycott was catastrophic. Bud Light's sales fell between 11 and 26%, Anheuser-Busch's sales fell about 1%, AB InBev's stock price fell 20%, the brand lost its status as the top-selling beer in the United States (a spot it had held for 20 years) and Heinerscheid lost her job.
At the end of the day how someone spends their money is their business. I might disagree with their decision but would never argue that they did not have the right to make it. The same applies to what a company says online and how it chooses to market its products. 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 Jordon allegedly said when asked to take a political stance, “Republicans buy sneakers too.” My advice to marketing executives is let your products do your speaking for you. Quality speaks for itself. If that’s not enough focus on a catchy saying that stays with the consumer. 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.