Can Holiday Shopping Boycotts Make a Difference?

How often do boycotts and other consumer protests change corporate behavior?

Studies find boycott attempts are successful 25-40% of the time. However, boycott attempts only get analyzed after they’re getting some traction, and corporations don’t always follow through on their promises. So all we can say for certain is that boycotts lead to substantive changes often enough for activists, customers, and corporations to take them quite seriously.

How should organizers frame their actions to get attention and persuade others to join in, while minimizing backlash (especially in the holiday season)?

Getting attention is key because boycotts succeed primarily through reputational damage, not direct loss of revenue. It helps to target a well-known brand on a specific date with a timely reason. Boycotts that get national media attention have been found to lower the target’s stock price by 1% for each day of coverage. Even boycotts that don’t have much impact on sales or share price can force change by undermining employee morale or harming relationships with suppliers or board members. Boycotts should be part of a broader campaign, including elements like strikes, protests, lawsuits, and shareholder activism.

The behavioral factors determining whether a boycott influences customer behavior are switching costs and friction. Airline boycotts rarely move the needle for long because they’re not easy to act on; flyers have to be willing to sacrifice significant money and convenience along with any frequent flyer perks. And most flyers only buy airline tickets once or twice a year. Outrage doesn’t usually last long, so willingness to sacrifice declines quickly.

On the other hand, boycotts asking customers to delete an app with a direct substitute can succeed by being easy to act on and hard to reverse. Customers can delete the app and upload the competitor’s at the moment of peak outrage, even if they’re not making a purchase. After outrage declines, friction remains on the side of the boycott because customers have to reload the app again before they can purchase.

You asked about backlash. “Buycotts”—when consumers make purchases in order to support a company—have the same motivation as the boycotts they try to erase: moral identity. We’re motivated to act when we feel that the people or values we care about are being attacked, and when we construe our action as moral self-expression. Withholding our money might not do much harm to the company, but it can reinforce our belief about the kind of person we are—one who doesn’t tolerate wrongdoing. So boycotts construed as attacks on groups of people or values are more likely to spark backlash. That said, some organizers don’t want to minimize backlash because it increases attention, amplifying the underlying moral issue they care about.

How can companies respond without appearing to take sides in a polarized era?

The right response depends on the situation, since boycotts can be well-deserved—and they can present an opportunity for self-reflection. For instance, if a company’s marketing espouses a particular value but strategy and budgeting reflect a lack of commitment, customers will righteously want to punish the firm. It’s tempting for company leaders to assume that boycotts of their firm are unfair, but a boycott should be an opportunity to step back and reevaluate the firm’s values and choices. Might we have gotten off track, and is there something that should change?

If the boycott is merely aimed at punishment and cancellation, productive dialogue isn’t possible; the goal is attention, not change. But if boycott leaders are asking for specific changes and you’re open to learning from them, engage them in conversation and really listen—especially if they include employees. When we hear each other’s voices, we’re more open to persuasion (on both sides), and we find each other more likeable and intelligent. We also come to more creative solutions.

Whatever the outcome, the decision should be explained clearly from a values perspective—not a political one—and actions should be aligned with messaging.