Love it or loathe it, boycotting is back with a bang. Brands with unapologetic ties to things their consumers oppose are once again in the news, with some experiencing the backlash.

This has added fuel to the boycotting furnace, spurning on many customers to reconsider the ethical implications of their buying habits. But even in the face of this boycott resurgence, will brands change their ways?  

The big question is do brands’ reputations ever really take a hit? And equally, to what extent does consumer perception of ‘need’ offset the inseparable ethical implications? Much to consider. 

So gather round the campfire folks, it’s story time.

‍

Storytime

‍

Defined as collective and organised ostracism to protest unfair or immoral practices, boycotting is applied in labour, economic, political, or social relations. 

As for its history, boycotting was popularised by Charles Stewart Parnell during the Irish land agitation of 1880, arising from protests about extortionate rent and land evictions. The term boycott was coined when Irish tenants followed Parnell’s suggestions to ostracise a British estate manager.

‍

Fast forward

‍

Whatever preconceptions you might have about boycotting, one thing is clear. It does work. And here are a few recent examples to prove it.

Puma, recently dropped from O’neills in Ireland for sponsoring the Israeli Football team, has since ceased their sponsorship. And although the brand claims the decision is purely business, it seems more than likely that the years of organised action will have played a part.

But that’s not all, consumer action has been making waves across the globe for a long, long time. Cast your minds back… To the ghost of jackets past…

‍

Canada goose

‍

The year is 2018. And Canada Goose are having their moment. Seemingly not just reserved for club promoters handing out free drink flyers, Canada Goose were once amongst the big dogs. 

But… They were let down by their hardline dedication to using real fur as a USP, which naturally drew attention from animal rights groups. Namely, PETA. 

Fast forward to 2021… Following dedicated campaigning by Peta, Canada Goose caved and declared it would stop selling fur by the end of 2021. This was preceded by continuous protests surrounding their macabre use of fur, ranging from lengthy exposes and celebrity action to outright (legal) battles. 

PETA’s boycott of Canada Goose called for the company to stop selling both fur and feathers entirely. Following the move away from fur, PETA suspended its campaigns against Canada Goose and stated it would be “re-engaging with the company to push for an end to its use of feathers”. 

Around the same time, various other high fashion brands decided to follow suit. In September 2018 Burberry stated that it would join Armani, Versace, Gucci, Vivienne Westwood and Stella McCartney, amongst others in banning fur. Naturally, this ripple effect followed another dedicated boycott from PETA.

‍

Fruit of the Loom

‍

Up next, Froot of the Loom. Experts in school uniforms, reliable workwear, and unfair working conditions. In 2009 they faced pressure from a colossal student boycott. This was ignited when workers at a Honduran factory unionised, prompting all of them to get fired. 

In an incredible U turn the company re-opened the factory it had closed, giving all 1,200 employees their jobs back, awarding them $2.5 million in compensation and restored all union rights in the process.

This campaign started in 2009 when United Students Against Sweatshops encouraged ninety six American colleges and ten British universities to sever their contracts with the brand.

One of the workers, Reyna Dominguez, was quoted by the New Internationalist saying that “without this pressure the company would never have come to the negotiating table. There has never been an agreement like this in Honduras or the world.” 

Ultimately, the campaign was estimated to have cost Fruit of the Loom a whopping $50million.

‍

Nike

‍

It seems that even the big dogs have to bow their head once in a while. 

In 2000 Nike declared they would independently monitor social audits across their supply chain, beginning to publish audit details on their website soon after. This followed a successful boycott that caused revenues to fall by 16% and share prices to drop by a whopping 57%. Yike(s).

This was spurred on by laughable claims from the company that the now notoriously poor conditions in its supply chain were not their responsibility. The ol’ classic: “that’s not my problem”. A tried and tested fib that brands still seem to think their customers won't notice. 

‍

And the consumers?

‍

Consumers might have once struggled to establish the veracity of such claims, but not anymore. Websites like Good on You allow customers to explore the truth behind production for most mainstream brands. But this is where it swings both ways. 

Customers who like to turn a blind eye to the reality of where they shop are not granted the sweet freedom of ignorance as they once where. However, this information isn’t always easily accessible, and sometimes people just don’t care.

‍

Turning a blind eye 

‍

When a product benefits outweigh the problematic baggage for an individual, their priorities are laid bare. If the knowledge that a brand supports and perpetuates horrors isn’t enough to put people off them, it is as much a testament to public detachment from other people’s suffering as it is to the perceived value of the product. 

Let’s take Boohoo, for example. Who, although in the midst of a record loss, seems relatively unscathed by boycotting. The evidence points towards shoddy quality rather than consumer ideology, as the bulk of their issue seems to be caused by returns rather than poor sales. 

Do people think a tasty meal or sweet deal is more important than human life? Probably not. But effective marketing, cultural nostalgia and laziness keep customers from reassessing their habits or considering alternatives. 

‍

The privilege of ethical shopping

‍

There are, of course, some financial privileges to shopping ethically. Sustainable shoe brands like Veja are often more expensive than a lot of other trainers, for example. High street shops like H and M and Primark that rely on sweatshops do so well because their clothes are affordable. 

This is often not the case for a lot of ethical and sustainable fashion, as the prices of the recommended brands on Good on You reveal. Failing to acknowledge this is counterproductive, which is why organised boycotts often address it by suggesting feasible alternatives in order to remain accessible.

‍

Is it just a matter of time?

‍

That said, culture seems to pick and choose which figures are demonised while others are quietly given the green light. This is the case across a variety of industries and mediums. No one has any bother playing Michael Jackson or Wiley’s music, but Gary Glitter is a no no. 

Similarly, Papa John's drew criticism when the big fella turned out to be openly racist. And sure, it dented their sales, but the old man is still selling pizzas all around town - (probably) with stores in every UK town. 

Considering time as a factor in a brand’s ability to withstand public outrage adds an interesting element. Both the length of time a brand has existed, as well as the duration of the boycott play significant factors in the outcome. 

It helps us understand why longstanding businesses with atrocious track records continue to succeed, whilst comparatively fledgling companies might crumble. 

‍

Starbucks

‍

I’ve been reading a lot of journalists weighing up the fate of Starbucks, another Goliath being peppered by David’s pebbles. But we don’t need to deliberate over whether or not collective action works. The proof is in the pudding. 

Whether or not Starbucks says they're closing stores across North Africa and the Middle East due to bankruptcy or boycott, it doesn’t matter. The two are inseparable no matter how they try to spin it. Starbucks’ revenue has been declining in Morocco since December 2022 anyway (well before BDS gained popularity), but the boycott will undoubtedly be contributing.

The differing ways brands respond to their loss in revenue is always interesting. With some backing themselves to the hilt whilst others scrabble around frantically, desperate to change their customers’ perception of them.  

‍

But sometimes the giants win

‍

Even in the face of these triumphs of solidarity and action, sometimes nothing changes. 

Journalists have been investigating cobalt mining for years, but it seems like tech companies are free to press on regardless. Do we, as consumers, decide tech is just too important? Do we just need that new phone too much to think about how it’s made? No, but clearly some things do slip past ‘unnoticed’.  

Apple’s more recent allegations of prospering from child labour caused fewer ripples than they should. But why is this? Perhaps due to the tech giant’s declaration that they’ll rely on recycled cobalt by 2025. But how likely is this?

And even then, will people stop chasing shiny, new iPhones if Apple continues to mine cobalt? I think we all know they won’t. Which is worth pondering a bit, ey? 

In such instances, consumers are pretty good at separating the nice thing from the nasty production line. And the recurring theme is that certain industries (namely tech) take considerably less flack than others. 

‍

Moving on

‍

Cultural selectivity aside, one thing is clear. When consumers do decide to band together in favour of a boycott, it tends to work. So, even though people may choose not to act sometimes, the fact of the matter is that when they do, brands tend to pay attention.

After all, a brand is only as big as its customers allow it to be. So if enough of them dislike what they’re doing and decide to take action, brands must either pay heed or find some new fans. If you’d told someone in the 1940’s that customers could force most major brands to shun real fur, I’m sure no one would have believed you. But here we are. 

Historically, most successful boycotts have taken a few years to really do some damage. But brand owners shouldn’t dismiss their customers' opinions so flippantly. After all, their revenue is entirely at the mercy of the consumers. 

The power rests in their hands - should they choose to use it.

‍

If you run an e-commerce brand and are looking for a digital marketing partner to take your business to the next level, please book a call with one of our team here

Written by Conel Freeman Harrison - Content Marketing Executive

‍