For the first time in six years, Target announced a sales drop: a decline of 5% in the April to June 2023 period, compared with the same time in 2022. During that time, the big-box retailer was also embroiled in a controversy over their collection of merchandise for Pride Month, which spurred consumer backlash and boycotts from some politically conservative shoppers.
Coincidence? Perhaps not, said Christina Hennington, Target’s executive vice president, on the company’s Q2 2023 earnings call. She attributed the sales decline in part to a “strong reaction to this year’s Pride assortment” that affected store traffic, and also cut the company’s full-year forecast.
A couple weeks before Target announced its sales slump, international beverage giant Anheuser-Busch InBev also noted a sharp decline in US sales and profits, in part due to a conservative-led boycott of Bud Light. After collaborating with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, the brand said its Q2 revenue had fallen 10.5% compared to the same period last year – “primarily due to the volume decline of Bud Light”, according to the earnings report.
These high-profile boycotts are just two in a string of recent consumer pushbacks that have put popular brands in the crosshairs. Yet as powerful as these movements seem while they’re in motion – and as much they can cut into companies’ bottom lines – expert say many eventually pass.
Emotion and affinity
Most movements against products and companies are emotionally charged, says Maurice Schweitzer, a professor of management who researches behavioural decision making at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, US. When companies take a stance, it often lights a fire under consumers, who have a strong psychological and gut response that causes them to act.
But people must remain upset for a boycott to stick, and the early intensity of the driving emotion usually diminishes – the feeling of urgency to boycott fades along with it, even if it’s hard to imagine it ever will. “It feels intense and overwhelming in the moment, but it tapers. And that’s true for every emotion. It works against boycotts’ effectiveness,” says Schweitzer.
After a while, sustaining a boycott often becomes inconvenient and potentially expensive, too. As much as consumers may react strongly to perceived company missteps, he says they also don’t want to make their own lives harder – whether that means driving an extra 15 minutes to go to another retailer for supplies, or paying more for a substitute product.
In June, some shoppers held rallies outside of Target Stores to protest the company’s Pride Month collection (Credit: Getty Images)
He points to the American boycott of BP after the disaster at the Deepwater Horizon rig in 2010. Thousands of people signed an online commitment to boycott BP’s petrol stations, yet the vow didn’t seem to take hold on a wide scale. “You think there are a million gas stations, and it’s easy to change. But the gas station locations are incredibly well selected,” he says. “Even making an extra left turn to go to another gas station – people prefer not to do that.”
If there are more alternatives, such as in the case of Bud Light, consumers may be willing to hold back their dollars longer. “Bud Light is a mainstream staple beer, and there’s a lot of equal-quality beers sitting right next to it in the refrigerator of any grocery store. So, it’s very substitutable,” says Brayden King, a professor at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, US. The nature of beer specifically, he says, makes it an easier product to boycott for “an audience highly motivated to switch over”. (Indeed, Bud Light lost the spot at the US’s top-selling beer in June.).
Consumers may also hold onto their boycotts a little longer if the product is wrapped up in their social identities. Schweitzer compares Bud Light to Target: at a bar, the people around you will notice you choosing to drink Bud Light instead of another brand; yet “fourth graders aren’t saying, ‘hey, where did you get your pencils?’”.
Boycott backfire
Although the outraged groups are usually the loudest, they’re often not the biggest. Even if boycott movements cut into corporate profits in the short term as opponents mobilise, Schweitzer says the slice of consumers who choose to boycott – and sustain doing so – usually isn’t big enough to move the dial long-term.
In some cases, he adds, boycotts can even boost sales for small periods.
In 2018, when Nike debuted an advert with American football quarterback and racial-justice advocate Colin Kaepernick, the brand was met with uproar – along with calling for boycotts, some consumers even burnt their trainers in protest alongside the hashtag #JustBurnIt.
Yet Nike’s online sales grew by 31% during the bank holiday weekend following the ad’s launch; the stock soared, and some analysts estimated Nike notched a $6bn (£4.75bn) gain throughout the following weeks, propelled largely by groups endorsing Nike’s move. It was a kind of backlash to the backlash – pleased shoppers patronised Nike in support of their public stance in favour of Kaepernick’s values.
And although boycotts are meant to drag companies into the spotlight to punish them, increased visibility can sometimes have an upside.
After Robert Unanue, CEO of Latin food purveyor Goya, praised then-President Donald Trump at a July 2020 White House meeting, boycotts broke out against the company, especially among liberals and Latino leaders. Yet the boycott may have been primed to fail, especially with the intense brand loyalty around Goya, and the fact that many of their products don’t have comparable substitutes.
In fact, Northwestern University researchers showed that the spike in exposure actually drove up sales immediately after Unanue’s remarks. This was especially the case among first-time purchasers, and those in heavily Republican areas.
Perfect timing
As for the current environment of boycotts, both experts say perfect timing is making the controversy around both Target and Bud Light stick, for now.
At the core of these boycotts is one of the hottest-button issues in the deeply polarised US: gender, sexuality and identity. Especially as the US presidential election cycle begins, politicians are heightening the importance of these conflicts as they make the issues central to their campaigns, says King. In some cases, they’re inserting themselves into the boycott conversations directly; in July, Florida governor and Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis announced an inquiry into Anheuser-Busch InBev regarding its partnership with influencer Mulvaney.
In 2018, as some groups boycotted Nike over their campaign with Colin Kaepernick, others patronised the brand, ultimately boosting sales (Credit: Getty Images)
What’s more, adds Schweitzer, these conflicts centre on physical products and spokespeople, giving the controversies a visible presence in consumer consciousness. People can tangibly latch onto these images and share them to mobilise outrage, especially on social media.
Specifically for Bud Light, King says the boycott may endure for a while as the brand is in a particularly difficult position, with few easy concessions to make. It’s a more straightforward move to nix offensive products from shelves, for instance, but it’s harder for a company to address ideological qualms, especially when they risk course-correcting too far in one direction.
Yet again, however, the issues of the moment change, as do shoppers’ attention. Especially as the amount of US consumer backlash skyrockets, especially among anti-“woke” sentiment, people simply get overloaded and re-directed over and over. “This is about attention – like, how long can we sustain people’s attention to one grievance?” says King. “The public attention span is pretty limited. The people focus on one thing for a little bit, and they move on to the next thing … especially when there are so many targets out there.”
Plus, the pull of consumer affinity for these brands may simply be too strong to make people quit them entirely. Schweitzer points to Disney, which has been at the centre of many boycotts. With immense loyalty and few replacements, former boycotters have returned to its parks. Similarly, Starbucks, Nike, Coca-Cola – all these oft-boycotted brands also have devoted fanbases who aren’t willing to let go.
That said, even if most consumers do abandon this boycott, King notes there still may be longer-term effects. “Most of the impact of a boycott is the effect on company reputation, brand equity and also through the employee culture – people don’t want to work for companies that are constantly being targeted by boycotts,” says King.
He adds that stock prices tend to dip following consumer backlashes, effects that can stick around. “Investors care about boycotts, not only because they threaten their reputation, but also sometimes because they just reveal new information about the leadership of a company.”
For now, Bug Light and Target’s boycott problems endure. Yet Schewitzer expects these to eventually peter out, too. Practically everything, he says, “joins the dustbin of outrage”.