5 Boycotts that Lacked Bite
The call for a boycott doesn't do as much as people think.
When businesses and corporations engage in behavior people find reprehensible, sometimes it's not enough to not be a customer. Sometimes people want to try to apply economic pressure to these companies to get them to change their ways. They loudly encourage others to follow the lead. Deny that business enough money and they'll have to alter their behavior. Visions of the noble Montgomery Bus Boycotts dance in their heads.
In reality though, boycotts, particularly national ones, are hard to pull off. The success of a boycott is proportional to that business's dependency on those who are aggrieved. In the case of the bus boycotts, Montgomery's public transit system was extremely dependent on the very customers they were segregating. The quick development of alternative transit systems like cheap taxis also put the screws to the bus system. The successful boycotts of the South during the civil rights era spoke to the dependency of Southern businesses on the very black customers they treated so poorly.
But those lessons are rather lost now. As the recent Chick-fil-A adventures show us, boycotts don't have the same force when spread across a nation with an increasingly diverse community and an even more diverse marketplace.
Here's a look at 5 boycotts that haven't accomplished so much.
1. Chick-fil-A
Anybody spending a chunk of his or her life in the South knows about Chick-fil-A. They were in every single shopping mall food court. Their sandwiches were simple, but delicious. And they were always closed on Sundays. Even as competitors have expanded their hours to the point that there are now 24-hour drive-thrus, Chick-fil-A has remained resolutely closed on Sundays. The company's Christian roots are obvious to those who have lived among them.
But as the company expanded, it started reaching customers who were not so familiar with Chick-fil-A's history. The current conflict first surfaced in 2011 when Chick-fil-A's donations to Christian organizations were uncovered. Some of the money—albeit a small amount—specifically went to groups that engage in anti-gay activism, like the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund. A boycott was recommended within the gay community, though it didn't get much publicity beyond those playing close attention to the gay marriage battle (even gay dad Neil Patrick Harris had no idea until he tweeted about one opening in Los Angeles).
In July, the controversy blew up when comments by company president Dan Cathy supporting "traditional marriage" hit the mainstream press. Suddenly it became a big deal, and gay marriage culture war carpet-bombing ensued. Boston's mayor and a Chicago alderman strongly suggested they would use their influence to attempt to block the opening of restaurants in their communities. Supporters of Chick-fil-A flooded the chain on August 1, setting new sales records. Gay marriage supporters promised a "kiss in" August 3 in response.
Message management on this attempted boycott has not gone well. The nature of the response (especially by progressive politicians) has turned the issue on its side into a free speech issue, rather than an issue of political activism that affects the rights of others. Once a boycott appears to be based on objections to a company official's opinions rather than its actions, don't expect much support in the U.S.
Next: Archie Comics (Chick-fil-A in Reverse)
2. Meet Kevin Keller
The boycott backfire demonstrated by Chick-fil-A cuts both ways. In 2010 Archie comics introduced Kevin Keller, a clean-cut openly gay teen, to its Riverdale crew. It got the Archie comics more attention that it had received in years, answering such important questions as "Do they still make Archie comics?"
A comic book showing Kevin's future, serving in the military and getting married to a guy, drew the ire of One Million Moms, an offshoot of the American Family Association that seems devoted to calling for boycotts and complaining to advertisers about anything gay friendly or sexual in the media. They threatened Toys 'R Us for carrying the offending comic book.
The result: The issue sold out. Much like the Chick-fil-A hubbub, the publicity from the objections caused a significant response in the opposite direction. He now has his own monthly comic book.
Next: The Boycottiest Place on Earth
3. Disney
From 1997 to 2005 the Southern Baptist Convention had ordered a boycott of the massive Walt Disney Co. empire for not being "family friendly" enough (as in, being too supportive of gay issues) and for releasing controversial films like Priest and Pulp Fiction from its subsidiaries.
During that time, Disney saw higher earnings and increased attendance at its theme parks. The company is still as gay as ever, the parks still have their gay days (these are independently organized and not officially sponsored by Disney), and ABC, owned by Disney, has gay characters all over the place. There's even a lesbian teen on Pretty Little Liars, a teen drama thriller on ABC Family. And if you think Disney's stranglehold on American children has lessened at all, two words for you: Phineas. Ferb.
The Southern Baptist Convention boasts about 16 million members. That sounds big, but it's actually a little bit less than the number of visitors at the Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World in Orlando in 2010. And that's just one of their many parks.
Next: Dominos that Won't Fall Down
4. Domino's Pizza
In a protest similar to the current Chick-fil-A activism, the National Organization for Women called for a boycott of Domino's Pizza in 1989 due to the company founder's anti-abortion activism.
Tom Monaghan, a devout Catholic, founded the pizza chain in 1960. As Snopes.com explains, despite what boycotters might believe, the company itself has not donated to anti-abortion groups. But Monaghan has, and so therefore any money that winds up in his pocket as profit could end up funding groups like Operation Rescue.
The pizza company appears to be growing (partly by essentially changing and relaunching its pizza, which even Domino's admitted tasted awful). It has more than twice as many restaurants as competitor Papa John's. Monaghan is no longer connected, having sold the company in 1998 (to Bain Capital!) for $1 billion, not exactly a sign of boycott success.
Next: Rebel Yelling
5. South Carolina
In 1999, the NAACP called for a boycott of South Carolina to try to force the state to take the Confederate flag off the top of the state capitol building in Columbia.
In 2000, the civil rights group got its wish, but then the flag was moved to a monument on the state grounds for fallen Confederate soldiers and is pretty much just as visible as it was before. So the NAACP has refused to end its boycott.
The NAACP claims support is strong for the boycott, pointing to conferences looking elsewhere and the Harlem Globetrotters and NCAA tournaments avoiding the state. But in 2010 black South Carolina state Sen. Robert Ford, responsible for the compromise that moved the flag from the state house, said that the boycott was essentially over and no longer held public support.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Streissand Effect: kicking up a fuss about something makes it more popular than if you had kept your mouth shut.
As the recent consumer activity surrounding Chick-fil-A shows, boycotts are not often effective tools in today's civil rights movements.
I don't know if that says as much about the effectiveness of boycotts as it says about how awesome their food is.
Well, if that were the only thing, the Dominoes boycott would have worked.
If a boycott falls in a vacant restaurant, does it make a sound?
Boycotts can be effective. Before you launch one, however, don't forget to do the math.
If the number of your supporters who will quit buying the target's product is less than the number of opponents who will make a point of buying the target's product because of your boycott, you're screwed right out of the gate.
Witness last Valentine's Day boycott of Starbucks by anti-gun folks, because the coffee people wouldn't ban concealed carry. Gun-rights supporters got $2 bills (get it? Second Amendment) and flooded the tip jars.
The same thing happened at Chick-fil-A. In fact, the mayor's threats produced an entirely predictible double reaction with "traditional family" folks and First Amendment supporters. Backfires are loud.
As the recent consumer activity surrounding Chick-fil-A shows, boycotts are not often effective tools in today's civil rights movements.
The problem is that most normal people know that it's absolutely ludicrous to try and compare Dan Cathy's personal opinion to the state-permitted discrimination going in the south decades ago.
Everyone knows full well that Chick-Fil-A isn't violating anybody's civil rights, so compared to the boycotts of the sixties, the boycotts of today carry all the moral heft of a small plastic bag.
carry all the moral heft of a small plastic bag
Is that like the grocery-size bag, or the really small ones, like you get at 7-11 when you buy some smokes?
I need to know how little the kerfuffle should matter to me (values ranging from zero to negative-infinity.)
Plastic bags are verboten! Why do you hate the earth? and children?
Except it's not Dan Cathy's personal opinion which is the issue, it's CFA's corporate donations.
Mischaracterizing the issue, or (willfully) misunderstanding it, does no favors for anyone.
If the anti-CFAers were also chimping out about Hobby Lobby, I might take that line of argument more seriously.
The problem is that most normal people know that it's absolutely ludicrous to try and compare Dan Cathy's personal opinion to the state-permitted [state-mandated] discrimination going in the south decades ago.
The NAACP boycott has always been absurd. Sure some national organizations actually listened but actual black people for the most part never did. Just head up to Atlantic Beach on Memorial Day Weekend.
At least it lead to a great South Park episode!
Why not morecotts? Where you buy more from a right-thinking organization?
buy-cotts?
Yes, that's better.
Pick up your Lagunitas at Whole Foods.
Yeah liberals were in a rage when the founder of Whole Foods came out opposing ObamaCare. They felt betrayed because that place is frequented by proglodytes.
I have liberal friends who were shocked, SCHOCKED!!! to learn that WFM's John Mackie is a libertarian and voted for Bob Barr.
Is the Prop 8 based boycott of Utah still going on? In case people forgot about that one, anger over the passage of Prop 8 in California prompted some people to call for a boycott of Utah. Not California, where the people actually voted for it, but Utah. Because some Mormons funded the pro-campaign and everyone who lives in Utah is Mormon, or something like that. Catholics were the other big contributers but I don't remember the calls for boycotting Italy, Spain, or any place with a Catholic majority population. Boycotting someplace you don't plan on going anyway is so much easier.
Boycotting someplace you don't plan on going anyway is so much easier.
Well you don't expect anyone to actually inconvenience themselves to make a political statement do you? Most of this shit is about patting yourself on the back for having the RIGHT VIEWS than actually accomplishing something.
Some of this depends on what the expected goal of the boycott is. I'm not boycotting Chick-Fil-A because I expect the company to go bankrupt or to change it's policies. I'm boycotting it because, to the extent feasible, I don't want my money going to groups, like the FRC, that advocate for violence against me. And behold, since my boycott began 15 some years ago, Cathy has not been able to give a sent of my money to them. So in that regard, it has been successful.
Awe.
Do you also boycott every Middle Eastern or Indian restaurant owned by Muslims? Islam is intrinsically anti-gay, and good Muslim owners pay zakat to spread their religion.
Don't forget oil that comes from OPEC countries, which execute gay people.
Actually, I do my best to buy all my gas from Sunoco, which uses domestic oil sources.
It's a trick, Stormy. He's trying to build a case that you're not allowed to boycott anyone unless you boycott everyone even theoretically hostile to you.
Butt-hurt time-waster is running scared.
He's trying to build a case that you're not allowed to boycott anyone unless you boycott everyone even theoretically hostile to you.
At least in that case you'd have some grounding in general principle as opposed to the selective outrage currently on display.
So, RRR, you're absolutely consistent and pure in everything you do? Congrats, I've never met a paragon of virtue before.
So, RRR, you're absolutely consistent and pure in everything you do? Congrats, I've never met a paragon of virtue before.
As I pointed out above, when gay activists start limping out with public kiss-ins at Hobby Lobby, I'll take their outrage a little more seriously. As it stands right now, this is just stupid culture war bullshit made into a national issue by Rahm Emanuel--you know, the city whose "values" include having one of the world's highest murder rates and epitomizing government corruption.
WTF is Hobby Lobby anyway? I can't boycott something that doesn't exist.
(Wikipedia says it's a real thing with a presence in 41 states, but I don't believe it.)
Of course you're allowed to boycott anyone you want. Just don't think that your position is the only reasonable one. I'm good with probabilities and I'm certain that the expected value of the contribution to harm gays is greater when you eat chicken tikka masala than when I have a Chick-fil-A sandwich. But I don't go around and tell people what they can and cannot eat. I'm not a leftist like you.
You're either exceedingly clueless or astoundingly dishonest. I wouldn't presume to tall anyone what they can or can't do, unlike you. Again, I challenge you to show where I did this.
Leftist? Yeah, sure, whatever. The fact that I'm regularly dissed by leftists for being conservative, or worse libertarian, makes your contention risable.
To the extent that I am aware of the restaurants advocating for violence against gays, yes I do.
So what if they don't, grrizzly?
Good for them. But it's a reasonable assumption that they do.
Missing the point.
There was one?
Once you exchange your money voluntarily with someone in exchange, it ain't your money anymore. So even if you did eat there, Dan Cathy wouldn't be sending one thin dime of yours to FRC.
+100,000.
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous oversimplification to avoid culpability.
"I didn't pay people to club baby seals, I just bought a baby seal fur coat. The coat manufacturer was paying the clubbers, but it wasn't my money anymore."
It would be more like you bought a chicken sandwich and the guy who took your money then used it to buy a baby seal fur coat. Denying gay rights isn't part of the actual process they use to make the sandwich.
Maybe it is. I'm not privy to the entire process used in producing a delicious Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich. For all I know it may be a very complicated process that does, in fact, involve denying basic rights to homosexuals. I cannot conceive of a scenario where that would be necessary, but I also can't rule it out entirely.
Also, I don't like the term gay rights. It imples that their rights are somehow different from everybody else's rights. They're not.
Pedantism contributes nothing to the discussion.
If I may be pedantic, the proper noun form is "pedantry".
But how does the "sent" of your own farts smell? Pretty good I bet.
I don't want my money going to groups, like the FRC, that advocate for violence against me.
[citation needed]
Protip: saying you shouldn't be able to get married != advocating violence against you.
Reparative therapy could be pretty nasty. Oftentimes it was just a more creepy version of counseling, but there were many instances of coercion and abuse. Ever since a bunch of people committed suicide after being "cured", the usual suspects (Family Research Council included) have kind of backed away from it.
Of course, that now leaves them in a peculiar position (gays are bad, but we don't know what to do about except keep 'em from getting civil marriages).
But in 2010 black North Carolina state Sen. Robert Ford, responsible for the compromise that moved the flag from the state house, said that the boycott was essentially over and no longer held public support.
Clearly he's just an Uncle Tom. /progresso-tard
Boycotts take time to yield results. Two days of "record" sales are easy to achieve, and even easier to claim. Also, I remember when Nestle said how "boycotts just don't work" for a couple of years before capitulating to the INFACT boycott.
Boycotts take time to yield results. Two days of "record" sales are easy to achieve, and even easier to claim.
A dropping stock price, however, isn't so ambiguous.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/1...../index.htm
Of course, I'll continue to shop at JC Penney just like I'll continue to eat lunch at Chik-fil-a, because this "the personal is political" bullshit is nothing more than tedious narcissism.
A dropping stock price, however, isn't so ambiguous.
Actual headline from TFA: "J.C. Penney stock plunges on president's exit". Absolutely nothing about teh gays in the article. Also - BM retail is doing poorly and JCP and other retailers in that segment are getting squeezed out by Wal*Mart.
Go ahead and think that my quest for rights is tedious narcissism. I'm still here for you and your rights, because I know that a loss of rights for anyone is a loss for everyone.
Go ahead and think that my quest for rights is tedious narcissism.
Yes, because it's all about YOU, isn't it?
I'm still here for you and your rights, because I know that a loss of rights for anyone is a loss for everyone.
Can gays lose rights they never had in the first place? And spare me the unwarranted sense of self-regard, the only thing you're actually "here for" appears to be your own self-aggrandizement.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. ? Article IV, Section 1
We could quibble over the definition of "full faith and credit" though.
We could quibble over the definition of multiple things in the Full Faith and Credit Clause. What happens when one state passes an act (such as the 39 states which have defined marriage as between a man and a woman) which contradicts a law passed by another state? How does "full faith and credit" apply there? What about "records"? Two federal appeals cases have said opposite things about this - Finstuen v. Crutcher and Adar v. Smith. How about "judicial proceedings"?
Point being - I don't think the Full Faith and Credit Clause is a great thing to rely on for those who wish to see gay marriage legalized. Just as it wasn't during the interracial marriage debate.
Actual headline from TFA: "J.C. Penney stock plunges on president's exit".
I guess you missed the part that shows it's been dropping steadily since February.
I worked at Dominos in 1989. Business was booming. A customer asked if the boycott was having any effect. No one, including the manager, was aware of its existence until then.
How does the CEO's definition of family affect the taste of a chicken sandwich?
It doesn't. Therefore, I'm not in the least motivated to change my behaviour re chicken sandwich procurement.
Teh g@ys over-rate their own importance.
It's all about the evil corporations and their money that really runs our political system instead of, you know, votes.
A big part of this is that people resort to boycotts for the most petty and retarded reasons anymore. The number of issue/interest groups in this country is rapidly approaching the actual number of individuals. At any given time you can almost guarantee yourself as a corporation that somebody is boycotting you for something somewhere. I'm just waiting for the anti-globalization, environmentalist, anti-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-gay marriage, freedom from religion foundation, anti-meat, fair trade, and anti-GMO people to all accidentally schedule a rally against the same company on the same day in the same place and end up completely forgetting what it was they showed up for because they're so busy killing each other.
Thank you for your well-thought content.
You are much welcome, bringing the well-thought content delivers to me happy joyousness.
i truly appreciate this article i have some ideas from this thanks exactly what i was looking for
very interesting details thanks very interesting liked your article post
wonderful post good info very good submit
very informative post very interesting details iam happy linked to this place
good info just what i was searching for keep this going please
thanks again much obliged i have some ideas from this thanks following this cool website