- Email: [email protected]
Ten tips for boycott targets
Ten Tips for Boycott Targets D, Kirk Davidson
C
onsumer boycotts, managers now understand all too well, come in 3 bewildering array of shapes and sizes, types and formats. They can emerge with little and sometimes no warning. No company seems to be immune. At the time of this writing, scores of large and mid-sized corporations are being boycotted, as are certain nonprofit organizations, cities, states, and even entire countries. The issues precipi~ting boycotts can be extraordinarily diverse. The Irish National MUCUS urges its members and supporters to refrain from buying Ford or Timex products because of those companies’ involvement with groups in Northern h-eland that allegedly discriminate against the Catholic minority. Animal rights groups boycotted Timberland shoes because the company sponsored the Iditarod dog sled race in Alaska, in which some of the sled dogs died and others were allegedly mistreated. Environmentalists are boycotting ~~On~Tj~onderoga pencils because that company allegedly is cutting down an endangered tree species in Indonesia. The list goes on and on. As confusing and diverse as consumer boycotts-and the organizations that instigate themhave become, three conclusions can be drawn with some certainty from the history of boycotts over the past decade. First, the root causes are increasingly social or political rather than the traditional economic issues of high prices or even labor union representation. Second, more and more often the apparent target of a boycott is not the “real” target-that is, not the organization the boycotters are really trying to affect or influence, but only a surrogate. The nominal target serves as a convenient tool with which to focus public attention on, and heighten awareness of, the particular issue at stake. Finally, as advocacy groups with limited membership and little in the way of financial support recognize the public relations potential and low cost of instigating a consumer boycott, more and more of them will include boycotts in their handbag of tactical tools.
For academicians, boycotts are important from at least two perspectives. First, they help in the understanding and development of stakeholder theory. What role do boycotters play as stakehol~~efl?What power do they wield? How should their claims on the company be ranked relative to more traditional stakeholder groups, such as shareholders, customers, and employees? Second, because boycotters either are customers or are trying to influence the firm’s customers, the understanding of boycotts is important to marketing scholars. What changes, if any, should be made in product mix, pricing, or promotional strategies? What communication strategies are most appropriate for the firm before, during, or after a boycott? Beyond the academic interest, however, boycotts are of obvious importance to managers. How can or should managers respond to them? Surprisingly little has been written in answer to this question. The author conducted a recent survey of major consumer goods manufacturers and retailers-the types of corporations most likely to be the subject of boycott*+-to discover what managers actually do in response to a boycott, real or threatened. The survey results confirmed that in fact there are no common patterns of response, no universally acceptable strategies. Every manager responded that each boycott must be dealt with individually, given the diversity of today’s boycott issues and organizers. The circumstances of each situation-the nature and strength of the boycotting organization, competitive threats, social and political pressures, ramifications for the targeted firm’s own business strategy-require a custom-tailored set of reactions. 77
This makes good sense. Yet there are certain principles of managerial preparation and response that transcend all boycotts regardless of their diverse origins and natures. The following ten tips can serve :IS 3 generic prescription or checklist for any manager facing an imminent boycott. 1. DO develop an early warning system and a minimal policy for response. There is no substitute for being prepared. The possibility of boycotts should he 3 part of every company’s environmental scanning or issues management procedures. Talk to managers in companies that have suffered through ;I boycott. Read the newspaper and periodical reports of recent boycotts to become familiar with the way they evolve and with whatever mistakes were made. Though no two boycotts will ever IX alike and the strategy of dealing with each one will have to he at the very least conunique, panics should appoint in advance an executive whose responsibility it will IX to develop and implement an appropriate strategy when the need arises. Dealing with boycotts should be part of ;I company’s crisis management function. 2. DON’T ignore any boycott threat. No matter how small the group, no matter ho\\ seemingly insignificant the issue. don’t assume your company is immune from harm. It is true that many boycott organizations disappear from sight rather quickly, and the short-lived threat thy posed becomes ;I had dream. It is also true. however, that boycotts can take on the aspects of ;t cancerous growdl in the I~dy. They can IX snuffed out tempor;iril~and go into remission, only to reappear perhaps in another part of the country or affecting another market. Procter & Gamlde has hen hounded foi years hy small religious groups that claim they can find evidence of Satan worship in the company‘s long-used iiioon-:iiid-st;lrs corporate logo. Calls for I~oycotting Crest. I?inipers. Joy, or P&G’s other I,rancls inevitably accompany the claims. Each time such a group surfaces and finds ;I tclcvision station or nec\5paper that kvill cnrg the story. the company l>attles back with ;i bnrI-age of pcildicity rele~+es and even lawsuits. some of which have been successful. The claims. stories, and rumors die ou-but only tcmporarily. P&G says it has not been affected hy these rcpeatecl claims and boycott threats. but the conpany has altered its f:imili;ir logo. hoping to remove the offensive elements, and no longer uses it on consumer product packaging or on conp;iny business cards.
boycott should be a part of every company’s en vironmen ta/ scanning or issues management procedures. ”
3. DO listen to what your boycotters are saying, even if it is not what you want to hear. Remember that in most cases the boycotters are former or would-be customers; listening to their complaints may not be pleasant, hut it cdn IX instructive. A I,oycott, after all, is simply an organized method of communicating complaints to the company. Even when the real target of the boycotters is a third party-the federal government, for example--and there is little the conipany can actually cl0 to remedy the situation, comiiiuni~ation with customers always carries the potential for ;i positive outcome. Coca-Cola and Levi Strauss have established sophisticated (and expcnsi\,c) global networks, complete with toll-free HO0 numbers. for monitoring customer attitudes on everything from product satisfaction to the courtesy of their truck drivers. Icleally. such a net\vork can serve as part of the company‘s early warning system and resolve cListoiiier-rel~itt~l issues before they become so serious 21s to threaten a boycott. 4. DON’T close the door; don’t wall yourself off: don‘t turn :I deaf cir, even to your harshest critics. Keep the lines of communication open and remain willing to listen, discuss. and negotiate. This is more difficult than it sounds. Most managers do not take kindly to criticism; they see things from their own perspective and believe in what they are doing. Whatever the issue-aninid rights, genetically engineerccl foods, endangered species-they often see no merit at 311 in their critics’ arguments and so refuse to listen. This can bc ;I mistake for at least t\yo reasons. First, it can gi1.e the critics ;I phlic relations advantage. “Manag:enient Lvon‘t even sit clown and talk with IIS” is an angle boycott organizers love to exploit. Also, if managers refuse to meet mith their critics to discuss and negotiate the issues, it is almost a certainty that the dispute will be ratcheted up to a higher level of contro\‘ersy. If managers are still talking. there is less chance of the boycott getting under way. Farah Manufacturing p;iid ;I stiff price for its “intransigence” in refusing to bargin with the Am:dgamatecl Clothing Workers of America. organizers of the Farah I,oycott of 1071-7.5. 5. DO look for an opportunity to be creative, to turn ;I lemon into lemonade. This is usually difficult, but not impossilde. When clolphin IO\VI-s organized ;I boycott against tuna processors I~c:icise dolphins were being caught and killed dong with the tuna, Heinz‘s Star-Kist cli\% sion announced it would buy tuna only from I,oats practicing safe (for dolphins) fishing practices. Star-Kist followed up 13): putting ;I dolphinsafe logo on each can of tuna, establishing at last :i temporary :d\~:intage over its comprtition. Animal rights activists for years ha\.e urged the m:in~ifi~c.turers of pcrson:il arc products to
stop testing their lotions, creams, and cosmetics on live animals-tests that involve inhumane treatment of the animals, according to the activists. Avon, Bennetton, Chanel, and L’Orkal have all forsworn animal testing, but Gillette and Procter & Gamble have been unable, or unwilling, to do so. The result: Animal rights activists are still pressing for a boycott of Gillette and P&G products, while their competitors can claim the moral and environmental high ground. Other firms have taken the initiative in naming women and minority members to their boards of directors, using minority suppliers and banks, or developing minority franchisees. Through this process, they have not only avoided or reduced the likelihood of boycotts, they have scored important public relations victories.
6. DON’T panic and swallow unnecessary economic consequences. Don’t assume that any price is worth paying to avoid a boycott. It is essential for managers to assess the situation with a clear-eyed, rational, economic approach. How likely is a boycott? How strong and well organized are the boycott organizers? How effective is a boycott likely to be? How vulnerable is the company regarding its customers and other product lines, its trade relations, and its competition? It is extremely difficult to make quantitative judgments on these questions, but it is necessary nonetheless. A boycott seldom helps a company, but how much harm will it do? Most firms that have been the target of boycotters report publicly that their sales and profits were not adversely affected, but some executives will admit off the record that the boycott was in fact harmful. Levi Strauss is currently being boycotted by a group calling itself Fuerza Unida. The issue centers around Levi’s having closed some domestic plants and moved production to other countries, thus costing a number of Latin0 employees their jobs. These laid-off workers claim that Levi has not adequately compensated them. Levi has continued its willingness to talk with Fuerza Unida but has not backed away from a decision it reached for what it feels are sound business reasons. And the company continues to maintain that its severance package is appropriate. 7. DO sieze the opportunity to build a
stronger relationship with your customers. Perhaps the most frequently heard buzzwords in marketing today are relationship marketing. Too often this refers to one large business courting another large business; seldom does it apply to consumer goods manufacturers and their individual customers. A threatened boycott, though never welcome, may provide an opportunity for a manufacturer to establish a unique relationship with its individual customers beyond simply offering a good product at the right price. If the firm acts Ten Tips for Boycott
Targets
early enough in the evolution of the threatened boycott, it not only will avoid whatever economic penalties the boycott may have brought but will reap the public relations benefits as well. Relationship marketing will have come to the consumer goods field. A group of customers will feel they have played a role in shaping the decisions of the company. And the manufacturer will have captured the dominant “mind L share” of this group that no traditional marketing strategy focused on the usual Four Ps (product, price, promotion, and place) could have accomplished. Timing is critical here, and the company must be perceived by its customers as being proactive rather than reactive. If the boycott target waits too long and its customers feel that it has had to be pushed or dragged into its accommodative position, then the identical outcome may be seen in a negative rather than a positive light. 8. DON’T neglect the social or political dimension of the issue. Tip 6 argued that a company must not neglect economic realities. Here it is emphasized that managers must consider the social and political dimensions of the issue in addition to, not instead of, those economic factors. The “rightness” of the boycotters’ cause must be assessed as well as the potential threat to profits. H. J. Heinz recognized that environmentalists had a valid concern regarding the dolphins; there was a certain “rightness” to their cause. Coca-Cola, in dealing with Jesse Jackson and the PUSH organization regarding minority suppliers, banks, and bottlers, understood the social implications of the dispute as well as the economic threat. In spite of Coke’s fine record on these matters compared to the rest of the soft drink industry, the company agreed that more could and would be done. 9. DO stick to your principles. There may be more involved here than simply maximizing profits. Levi Strauss is also experiencing a boycott of its products by certain anti-gay groups around the country. The company, through the Levi Strauss Foundation, has stopped giving money to the Boy Scouts because the Scouts openly discriminate against gay men and boys. In all likelihood, Levi could have avoided at least much of the controversy by quietly continuing its modest
“A threatened boycott, though never welcome, may provide an opportunity to establish a unique relationship with individual customers beyond simply offering a good product at the right price. fl I
donations to the Scouts. Instead, it chose to live by its principles and not contribute to any group that practices discrimination in any way. True, the adverse economic consequences of this boycott have been marginal for Levi Strauss, so it has not been much of a sacrifice for the company. The point remains, however, that there can be situations in which ethical behavior, or living according to one’s principles, requires some economic sacrifice. 10. DON’T be afraid to admit to making a mistake. Sometimes a boycott will be threatened or called because of actions taken by a company, and the firm realizes subsequently that those actions were in fact a mistake. Then the company is in a bind: Should it stick to its chosen course and appear resolute, or should it switch to ;I more carefully considered direction and risk appcaring weak and uncertain? The best answer for the long run: Switch to the “right” course as early as possible. Dayton Hudson. under some pressure from pro-life groups and seeking to avoid any social and political controversy. stopped its charitable donations to Planned Parenthood. The company soon realized its mistake when pro-choice activists and Dayton’s predominantly female work force rose to the defense of Planned Parenthood. Caught between two important advocacy groups, with valued customers on both sides of the argument, the company quickly reversed its course, resumed funding Planned Parenthood. and, athough it took some immediate criticism for being wishy-washy, now believes the consensus is that it did the right thing.
and situations surrounding each threat are so diverse-the issues in question, the relative strength of the organizing groups, the societal perception of the company targeted, economic conditions, serendipitous timing of other events, the involvement of celebrity endorsers-that no set of guidelines can be expected to apply universally. Finally, it is important for managers to remember that dealing with a boycott is nothing more nor less than one facet of communicating with customers and other stakeholder groups. Like an appointment with a dentist, a boycott is never fun. It is too easy to view boycotters as dversaries, write them off as “kooks,” ignore them, or hunker down in the hopes they will eventually go away. Managers readily spend millions or even billions of dollars in developing and implementing the most sophisticated conimunication strategies. It is certainly wise, therefore, to spend 3 modest amount of time, thought, and money in developing and practicing the skills of guiding an organization through the turbulence of 2 consumer boycott. 0 References M. Friedman, “<:onsumer 13oycotrs in the IJnited States, 1970-1980: Contemporary Events in Historical Perspective,” 727e~/ozfrmd ofConslir?ler4~uir.s, 19, 1 ( 1085): 96-117.
Frederick I). Sturdivant and James E. Stacey, 7%~ Cmporute So&d Challmge: Cu.se.s ard Ci~rnmeWwies (tIo~~~ewoocl, IL: Irwin. 1990).
V
irtually every writer on the subject of boycotts, whether academician or practicing manager, agrees that the use of boycotts by various aggrieved parties or advocacy groups will increase in future years. So managers must hone their skills in dealing with boycotts and especially with the individuals and groups that organize them. These “ten tips” provide a useful checklist for managers both before and during a threatened boycott. They do not provide a panacea that will be effective against all boycotts. The conditions
D. Kirk Davidson is an assistant professor of marketing in the Department of Business and Economics, Mount Saint Mary’s College, Emmitsburg, Maryland.
Business
Horizons
i March-April
1995
C
onsumer boycotts, managers now understand all too well, come in 3 bewildering array of shapes and sizes, types and formats. They can emerge with little and sometimes no warning. No company seems to be immune. At the time of this writing, scores of large and mid-sized corporations are being boycotted, as are certain nonprofit organizations, cities, states, and even entire countries. The issues precipi~ting boycotts can be extraordinarily diverse. The Irish National MUCUS urges its members and supporters to refrain from buying Ford or Timex products because of those companies’ involvement with groups in Northern h-eland that allegedly discriminate against the Catholic minority. Animal rights groups boycotted Timberland shoes because the company sponsored the Iditarod dog sled race in Alaska, in which some of the sled dogs died and others were allegedly mistreated. Environmentalists are boycotting ~~On~Tj~onderoga pencils because that company allegedly is cutting down an endangered tree species in Indonesia. The list goes on and on. As confusing and diverse as consumer boycotts-and the organizations that instigate themhave become, three conclusions can be drawn with some certainty from the history of boycotts over the past decade. First, the root causes are increasingly social or political rather than the traditional economic issues of high prices or even labor union representation. Second, more and more often the apparent target of a boycott is not the “real” target-that is, not the organization the boycotters are really trying to affect or influence, but only a surrogate. The nominal target serves as a convenient tool with which to focus public attention on, and heighten awareness of, the particular issue at stake. Finally, as advocacy groups with limited membership and little in the way of financial support recognize the public relations potential and low cost of instigating a consumer boycott, more and more of them will include boycotts in their handbag of tactical tools.
For academicians, boycotts are important from at least two perspectives. First, they help in the understanding and development of stakeholder theory. What role do boycotters play as stakehol~~efl?What power do they wield? How should their claims on the company be ranked relative to more traditional stakeholder groups, such as shareholders, customers, and employees? Second, because boycotters either are customers or are trying to influence the firm’s customers, the understanding of boycotts is important to marketing scholars. What changes, if any, should be made in product mix, pricing, or promotional strategies? What communication strategies are most appropriate for the firm before, during, or after a boycott? Beyond the academic interest, however, boycotts are of obvious importance to managers. How can or should managers respond to them? Surprisingly little has been written in answer to this question. The author conducted a recent survey of major consumer goods manufacturers and retailers-the types of corporations most likely to be the subject of boycott*+-to discover what managers actually do in response to a boycott, real or threatened. The survey results confirmed that in fact there are no common patterns of response, no universally acceptable strategies. Every manager responded that each boycott must be dealt with individually, given the diversity of today’s boycott issues and organizers. The circumstances of each situation-the nature and strength of the boycotting organization, competitive threats, social and political pressures, ramifications for the targeted firm’s own business strategy-require a custom-tailored set of reactions. 77
This makes good sense. Yet there are certain principles of managerial preparation and response that transcend all boycotts regardless of their diverse origins and natures. The following ten tips can serve :IS 3 generic prescription or checklist for any manager facing an imminent boycott. 1. DO develop an early warning system and a minimal policy for response. There is no substitute for being prepared. The possibility of boycotts should he 3 part of every company’s environmental scanning or issues management procedures. Talk to managers in companies that have suffered through ;I boycott. Read the newspaper and periodical reports of recent boycotts to become familiar with the way they evolve and with whatever mistakes were made. Though no two boycotts will ever IX alike and the strategy of dealing with each one will have to he at the very least conunique, panics should appoint in advance an executive whose responsibility it will IX to develop and implement an appropriate strategy when the need arises. Dealing with boycotts should be part of ;I company’s crisis management function. 2. DON’T ignore any boycott threat. No matter how small the group, no matter ho\\ seemingly insignificant the issue. don’t assume your company is immune from harm. It is true that many boycott organizations disappear from sight rather quickly, and the short-lived threat thy posed becomes ;I had dream. It is also true. however, that boycotts can take on the aspects of ;t cancerous growdl in the I~dy. They can IX snuffed out tempor;iril~and go into remission, only to reappear perhaps in another part of the country or affecting another market. Procter & Gamlde has hen hounded foi years hy small religious groups that claim they can find evidence of Satan worship in the company‘s long-used iiioon-:iiid-st;lrs corporate logo. Calls for I~oycotting Crest. I?inipers. Joy, or P&G’s other I,rancls inevitably accompany the claims. Each time such a group surfaces and finds ;I tclcvision station or nec\5paper that kvill cnrg the story. the company l>attles back with ;i bnrI-age of pcildicity rele~+es and even lawsuits. some of which have been successful. The claims. stories, and rumors die ou-but only tcmporarily. P&G says it has not been affected hy these rcpeatecl claims and boycott threats. but the conpany has altered its f:imili;ir logo. hoping to remove the offensive elements, and no longer uses it on consumer product packaging or on conp;iny business cards.
boycott should be a part of every company’s en vironmen ta/ scanning or issues management procedures. ”
3. DO listen to what your boycotters are saying, even if it is not what you want to hear. Remember that in most cases the boycotters are former or would-be customers; listening to their complaints may not be pleasant, hut it cdn IX instructive. A I,oycott, after all, is simply an organized method of communicating complaints to the company. Even when the real target of the boycotters is a third party-the federal government, for example--and there is little the conipany can actually cl0 to remedy the situation, comiiiuni~ation with customers always carries the potential for ;i positive outcome. Coca-Cola and Levi Strauss have established sophisticated (and expcnsi\,c) global networks, complete with toll-free HO0 numbers. for monitoring customer attitudes on everything from product satisfaction to the courtesy of their truck drivers. Icleally. such a net\vork can serve as part of the company‘s early warning system and resolve cListoiiier-rel~itt~l issues before they become so serious 21s to threaten a boycott. 4. DON’T close the door; don’t wall yourself off: don‘t turn :I deaf cir, even to your harshest critics. Keep the lines of communication open and remain willing to listen, discuss. and negotiate. This is more difficult than it sounds. Most managers do not take kindly to criticism; they see things from their own perspective and believe in what they are doing. Whatever the issue-aninid rights, genetically engineerccl foods, endangered species-they often see no merit at 311 in their critics’ arguments and so refuse to listen. This can bc ;I mistake for at least t\yo reasons. First, it can gi1.e the critics ;I phlic relations advantage. “Manag:enient Lvon‘t even sit clown and talk with IIS” is an angle boycott organizers love to exploit. Also, if managers refuse to meet mith their critics to discuss and negotiate the issues, it is almost a certainty that the dispute will be ratcheted up to a higher level of contro\‘ersy. If managers are still talking. there is less chance of the boycott getting under way. Farah Manufacturing p;iid ;I stiff price for its “intransigence” in refusing to bargin with the Am:dgamatecl Clothing Workers of America. organizers of the Farah I,oycott of 1071-7.5. 5. DO look for an opportunity to be creative, to turn ;I lemon into lemonade. This is usually difficult, but not impossilde. When clolphin IO\VI-s organized ;I boycott against tuna processors I~c:icise dolphins were being caught and killed dong with the tuna, Heinz‘s Star-Kist cli\% sion announced it would buy tuna only from I,oats practicing safe (for dolphins) fishing practices. Star-Kist followed up 13): putting ;I dolphinsafe logo on each can of tuna, establishing at last :i temporary :d\~:intage over its comprtition. Animal rights activists for years ha\.e urged the m:in~ifi~c.turers of pcrson:il arc products to
stop testing their lotions, creams, and cosmetics on live animals-tests that involve inhumane treatment of the animals, according to the activists. Avon, Bennetton, Chanel, and L’Orkal have all forsworn animal testing, but Gillette and Procter & Gamble have been unable, or unwilling, to do so. The result: Animal rights activists are still pressing for a boycott of Gillette and P&G products, while their competitors can claim the moral and environmental high ground. Other firms have taken the initiative in naming women and minority members to their boards of directors, using minority suppliers and banks, or developing minority franchisees. Through this process, they have not only avoided or reduced the likelihood of boycotts, they have scored important public relations victories.
6. DON’T panic and swallow unnecessary economic consequences. Don’t assume that any price is worth paying to avoid a boycott. It is essential for managers to assess the situation with a clear-eyed, rational, economic approach. How likely is a boycott? How strong and well organized are the boycott organizers? How effective is a boycott likely to be? How vulnerable is the company regarding its customers and other product lines, its trade relations, and its competition? It is extremely difficult to make quantitative judgments on these questions, but it is necessary nonetheless. A boycott seldom helps a company, but how much harm will it do? Most firms that have been the target of boycotters report publicly that their sales and profits were not adversely affected, but some executives will admit off the record that the boycott was in fact harmful. Levi Strauss is currently being boycotted by a group calling itself Fuerza Unida. The issue centers around Levi’s having closed some domestic plants and moved production to other countries, thus costing a number of Latin0 employees their jobs. These laid-off workers claim that Levi has not adequately compensated them. Levi has continued its willingness to talk with Fuerza Unida but has not backed away from a decision it reached for what it feels are sound business reasons. And the company continues to maintain that its severance package is appropriate. 7. DO sieze the opportunity to build a
stronger relationship with your customers. Perhaps the most frequently heard buzzwords in marketing today are relationship marketing. Too often this refers to one large business courting another large business; seldom does it apply to consumer goods manufacturers and their individual customers. A threatened boycott, though never welcome, may provide an opportunity for a manufacturer to establish a unique relationship with its individual customers beyond simply offering a good product at the right price. If the firm acts Ten Tips for Boycott
Targets
early enough in the evolution of the threatened boycott, it not only will avoid whatever economic penalties the boycott may have brought but will reap the public relations benefits as well. Relationship marketing will have come to the consumer goods field. A group of customers will feel they have played a role in shaping the decisions of the company. And the manufacturer will have captured the dominant “mind L share” of this group that no traditional marketing strategy focused on the usual Four Ps (product, price, promotion, and place) could have accomplished. Timing is critical here, and the company must be perceived by its customers as being proactive rather than reactive. If the boycott target waits too long and its customers feel that it has had to be pushed or dragged into its accommodative position, then the identical outcome may be seen in a negative rather than a positive light. 8. DON’T neglect the social or political dimension of the issue. Tip 6 argued that a company must not neglect economic realities. Here it is emphasized that managers must consider the social and political dimensions of the issue in addition to, not instead of, those economic factors. The “rightness” of the boycotters’ cause must be assessed as well as the potential threat to profits. H. J. Heinz recognized that environmentalists had a valid concern regarding the dolphins; there was a certain “rightness” to their cause. Coca-Cola, in dealing with Jesse Jackson and the PUSH organization regarding minority suppliers, banks, and bottlers, understood the social implications of the dispute as well as the economic threat. In spite of Coke’s fine record on these matters compared to the rest of the soft drink industry, the company agreed that more could and would be done. 9. DO stick to your principles. There may be more involved here than simply maximizing profits. Levi Strauss is also experiencing a boycott of its products by certain anti-gay groups around the country. The company, through the Levi Strauss Foundation, has stopped giving money to the Boy Scouts because the Scouts openly discriminate against gay men and boys. In all likelihood, Levi could have avoided at least much of the controversy by quietly continuing its modest
“A threatened boycott, though never welcome, may provide an opportunity to establish a unique relationship with individual customers beyond simply offering a good product at the right price. fl I
donations to the Scouts. Instead, it chose to live by its principles and not contribute to any group that practices discrimination in any way. True, the adverse economic consequences of this boycott have been marginal for Levi Strauss, so it has not been much of a sacrifice for the company. The point remains, however, that there can be situations in which ethical behavior, or living according to one’s principles, requires some economic sacrifice. 10. DON’T be afraid to admit to making a mistake. Sometimes a boycott will be threatened or called because of actions taken by a company, and the firm realizes subsequently that those actions were in fact a mistake. Then the company is in a bind: Should it stick to its chosen course and appear resolute, or should it switch to ;I more carefully considered direction and risk appcaring weak and uncertain? The best answer for the long run: Switch to the “right” course as early as possible. Dayton Hudson. under some pressure from pro-life groups and seeking to avoid any social and political controversy. stopped its charitable donations to Planned Parenthood. The company soon realized its mistake when pro-choice activists and Dayton’s predominantly female work force rose to the defense of Planned Parenthood. Caught between two important advocacy groups, with valued customers on both sides of the argument, the company quickly reversed its course, resumed funding Planned Parenthood. and, athough it took some immediate criticism for being wishy-washy, now believes the consensus is that it did the right thing.
and situations surrounding each threat are so diverse-the issues in question, the relative strength of the organizing groups, the societal perception of the company targeted, economic conditions, serendipitous timing of other events, the involvement of celebrity endorsers-that no set of guidelines can be expected to apply universally. Finally, it is important for managers to remember that dealing with a boycott is nothing more nor less than one facet of communicating with customers and other stakeholder groups. Like an appointment with a dentist, a boycott is never fun. It is too easy to view boycotters as dversaries, write them off as “kooks,” ignore them, or hunker down in the hopes they will eventually go away. Managers readily spend millions or even billions of dollars in developing and implementing the most sophisticated conimunication strategies. It is certainly wise, therefore, to spend 3 modest amount of time, thought, and money in developing and practicing the skills of guiding an organization through the turbulence of 2 consumer boycott. 0 References M. Friedman, “<:onsumer 13oycotrs in the IJnited States, 1970-1980: Contemporary Events in Historical Perspective,” 727e~/ozfrmd ofConslir?ler4~uir.s, 19, 1 ( 1085): 96-117.
Frederick I). Sturdivant and James E. Stacey, 7%~ Cmporute So&d Challmge: Cu.se.s ard Ci~rnmeWwies (tIo~~~ewoocl, IL: Irwin. 1990).
V
irtually every writer on the subject of boycotts, whether academician or practicing manager, agrees that the use of boycotts by various aggrieved parties or advocacy groups will increase in future years. So managers must hone their skills in dealing with boycotts and especially with the individuals and groups that organize them. These “ten tips” provide a useful checklist for managers both before and during a threatened boycott. They do not provide a panacea that will be effective against all boycotts. The conditions
D. Kirk Davidson is an assistant professor of marketing in the Department of Business and Economics, Mount Saint Mary’s College, Emmitsburg, Maryland.
Business
Horizons
i March-April
1995