Boycotts, a form of protest that has been around for centuries, have become increasingly popular in recent years. From companies to celebrities to entire countries, boycotts are being used as a way to voice displeasure and affect change.
But what is a boycott? According to Merriam-Webster, it is “a concerted refusal to have dealings with (a person, organization, or country) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions.” In other words, it’s when individuals or groups decide not to support something they disagree with.
Boycotts can be effective in achieving their intended goals. For example, the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955-56 was instrumental in ending racial segregation on public buses in Alabama. More recently, the #DeleteUber campaign led thousands of users to delete the ride-sharing app from their phones after Uber continued operating during protests against President Trump’s travel ban.
However, boycotts can also be controversial and divisive. Supporters argue that they are an important tool for social justice and accountability while opponents argue that they stifle free speech and harm innocent parties.
One highly publicized example of this debate occurred when Nike announced its ad featuring Colin Kaepernick in September 2018. Kaepernick had been blacklisted by NFL teams for kneeling during the national anthem as a way of protesting police brutality against Black people. The announcement sparked both praise and backlash from consumers who either supported Kaepernick’s message or saw it as unpatriotic.
The controversy reached its peak when some consumers burned their Nike products on social media using the hashtag #JustBurnIt while others posted pictures of themselves buying new Nike gear with hashtags like #ImWithKap. Despite the initial backlash from some customers threatening boycotts over supporting Kaepernick’s cause through their marketing campaigns — including angry tweets from President Donald Trump himself — Nike’s sales soared following the ad campaign.
Another instance where a company faced backlash was Chick-fil-A in 2012 when CEO Dan Cathy made comments in support of traditional marriage. LGBT+ groups and their supporters boycotted the company while conservative groups rallied around it, leading to a highly polarized debate.
However, what is often overlooked are the consequences of boycotts on workers employed by these companies. In the case of Chick-fil-A, many franchise owners were affected by the boycott despite not necessarily sharing Cathy’s views. While some may argue that those who work for controversial organizations should simply switch jobs or face the consequences, this viewpoint ignores the fact that not everyone has access to other job opportunities or can afford to leave their current position.
Boycotts have also been used as a way to punish entire countries. The United States has imposed sanctions on numerous countries over the years as a form of economic pressure in order to achieve political goals. For example, in 2014 after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, Western nations imposed economic sanctions against Russia with varying degrees of effectiveness.
While such actions may seem justified in certain circumstances, they can lead to unintended consequences such as food shortages or higher prices on essential goods for citizens living in targeted countries. Additionally, sanctions often hurt smaller businesses and everyday people rather than government officials who are typically the intended targets.
Another argument against boycotts is that they can be ineffective if not properly organized and only targeting one company or individual cannot solve larger systemic issues like racism or climate change.
Ultimately it is up to consumers whether they choose to participate in boycotts and how effective they will be depends on various factors including organization tactics and public support at large. It is important however for individuals involved with a cause — regardless of whether it’s through boycotting a company or donating money towards an advocacy group — must do so thoughtfully weighing all impacts; positive outcomes achieved versus negative collateral damage caused along the way.
In conclusion, boycotts are becoming more common now than ever before due partly because social media allows for a vast and immediate audience to be reached. But despite the potential benefits, boycotts can also have unintended consequences including economic hardships for employees or innocent parties involved, as well as being an ineffective way to bring about change if not executed properly. At the end of the day, it’s up to individuals to weigh these pros and cons before deciding whether or not they want to participate in a boycott.