Sometimes consumers use “boycotts” against brands. It is open to question whether boycotts, which are a practical way of giving lessons to brands by saying “You will pay for it!“, actually bring brands into line with others. Brands that are disturbed by boycotts due to problems arising from their products or brand promises may “pull themselves up” and carry on. This is a common situation especially for brands which have got into the habit of turning a deaf ear to consumer complaints.
These boycotts take on a different meaning and profundity when politics is involved. We were taught that “brands had nothing to do with politics”. However, as a result of the presidential elections in the USA, we see that brands can take sides in politics. Moreover, they can turn that into a matter of “existence – disappearance”.
These discussions started due to the travel ban imposed specifically on the citizens of some Islamic countries by Trump, who will be a current issue for a long time. The discussions are not limited to this ban, of course. Building a wall on the Mexican border is another matter. The companies which seem to be based in the USA although their headquarters are located in various countries starting from Ireland due to tax advantages are also in trouble with Trump.
Politics did not call the shots in the world of brands where the consumer was “king”. So far we have witnessed that boycotts of some countries’ products and services / brands called for due to their disapproved political decisions have flared up, and life went back to normal after a while.
#DeleteUber
The current developments in the USA is another version of this situation. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, who is already in trouble with taxi drivers in almost every country, did something probably by taking courage from being a member of Trump’s advisory board. During the anti-Trump protest at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, New York Taxi Workers Alliance (NYTWA) announced that they would not pick up any passengers from the airport for an hour in order to support the protest. However, on the very same day, Uber announced via Twitter that they would keep providing service at the airport without changing their prices. After the announcement, thousands of Uber users shared the news that they deleted Uber’s application from their mobile phones on social media.
Some NBA teams are among those who oppose Trump’s political approach. NBA teams Milwaukee Bucks, Dallas Mavericks and Memphis Grizzlies decided to boycott Trump’s hotels.
These developments have also affected the business of Ivanka Trump, Trump’s daughter. American retailers keep deciding to stop selling Ivanka Trump’s products one by one due to consumers’ call for boycott. Leading retail chains such as Macy’s, Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, TJ Maxx, Marshalls, Mayfair and Bellacor stopped selling Ivanka Trump’s products since almost “none” of her products were sold. Someone working in a TJ Maxx store said that s/he saw Trump’s daughter’s products being thrown away in an article in The New York Times. There is great pressure from consumers and non-governmental organisations representing them behind these stores’ decisions, of course.
The things happening on Trump’s front are not only about an attitude assumed against the new president of the USA. Trump is not idling away, either. He urged consumers to boycott Apple, which has been avoiding cooperating with FBI. However, it has been found out that he himself uses an iPhone!
A Brief Tour of the World of Boycotts
We witnessed that consumers punished some brands by boycotting them during Gezi Park protests held in Turkey’s recent past.
We know that the Uzbek economy suffered badly from the threats of global boycott in 2012. Some non-governmental organisations stood up against making young kids work long hours in cotton fields, one of the significant economic inputs of the country, under poor conditions, and they applied to the world’s leading retail chains. They stated that they would boycott these retail stores if they sell products made of cotton coming from Uzbekistan. Stores including important brands such as Walmart, Tesco and Zara supported this call and took those kinds of products off their shelves.
All hell broke loose when Nestlé demanded $ 6 million that the Ethiopian government owed to them at the beginning of 2000s. Consumers held demonstrations in front of Nestlé headquarters in Switzerland. Calls for boycott followed one another. In fact, Nestlé asked for the money that was legally owed to them. However, Ethiopia was a country struggling with famine where thousands of kids had to go to sleep without eating anything. Nestlé cancelled the debt in the end.
In short, it is hard to estimate the results when politics gets involved in a situation. It is not easy to predict how many people can come together an hour after a call for boycott and how a brand’s financial situation can be affected by this boycott especially in our period full of social media phenomena.
Americus Reed, who wrote an article about this subject in The New York Times, states that there is a slim chance that boycotts will affect sales, but they are good at revealing companies’ impassivity towards social sensitivity and at damaging their reputation.
Judith Samuelson, who expressed her opinions about the same subject in The New York Times, says that the #DeleteUber boycott may not have affected Uber’s profits much although that was its main goal. She emphasises that it proved consumers’ sensitivity to the brand and Uber CEO Travis Kalanick had to resign from his membership in Trump’s advisory board, which shows that the initiative was a success.
Will Hungary give up on 2024 Budapest Olympics?
Another campaign says that Budapest should not be a candidate for the Olympics. An organisation called MoMo started a campaign whose slogan is “NOlimpia” in Hungary. This movement, which wants Hungarians who will be competing with Los Angeles and Paris for 2024 summer games to hold a referendum on the subject, is one of the examples that can be considered as a “boycott“. In the weekly newspaper HVG, Norbert Fekete, a publisher who supports the campaign, says that the country is in the gutter of corruption, aimless and poor and therefore, it cannot host the Olympic Games.
In his article, Fekete says: “A handful of elites tell that their dreams, which will cost at least € 7 billion to the citizens of one of the most underdeveloped countries of the EU in terms of economy, have finally come true. It is expected that some sportspeople’s interest should represent the nation’s interest, and the government is trying to block the citizens’ right to speak with all its might. The opponents, who need to collect 138 thousand signatures for a referendum, have collected 90 thousand signatures in 12 days.
Follow Boycotts for Any Changes in Global Values
Today’s spirit of activism should be considered as a reflection of global sensitivities and values. Boycotts are only a means to it. In fact, it is aimed to challenge brands, put them on the stage and make them play the lead if necessary in order to draw attention to the change in values.
Boycotts within the scope of anti-Trump demonstrations in the USA may target some companies and brands, but they also draw attention to the global values about immigrants and refugees if you can read between the lines. When Nike was boycotted due to negative conditions in their South Asian suppliers in 1990, the actual current issue was human rights. The campaign against oil search in Siberia may seem to put Shell on the stage, but it draws attention to climate change. Women, kids, people with disabilities, AIDS, famine, arms manufacturers, animals, natural carnage, and corruption and pragmatism in the world of finance may seem like they target some companies and brands, which is also true, but their main goal is to focus public attention on a specific subject.
Every brand can be a “boycott” victim one day. As a result of this, they may stumble but they won’t fall! That’s good news. They will pull themselves together and carry on. However, there is also bad news. Other defects that they may have can come to light since they will be on the public agenda due to a boycott. Any of these defects can damage a brand more seriously than the subject forming a basis for boycott. It will take time to recover. The brand’s financial situation will be affected even more and it may cost too much to remove the question marks over its reputation.
One of the basic rules of marketing says that brands should not get involved in politics. However, we see that it is no more valid today. No matter how much a brand wants to position itself on the borders of politics, it may be forced to “take sides” due to a consumer riot any time. It seems like the boycott of Turkish products and services urged in Russia after a Russian plane was shot down has been solved in time. However, the damage done to the Turkish economy when Russian people acted according to this call is obvious. The tourism industry has not been able to recover from the damage yet! Agricultural product and food brands working with Russia have not been able to pick up the pieces yet. This is how the situation seems from our point of view. Haven’t the brands marketing Turkish tourism and food in the Russian economic system been damaged? I guess it is better to ask this question in a different way: Did any Russian brands have the chance to say “I’m a brand. I don’t understand politics. I do my job.” when they were urged to boycott Turkish brands by the Russian president Putin?
We see that a new page where a different political culture managed by politicians like Trump will rule has been opened. The door to a new world where global values and sensitivities will be discussed based on brands is being opened. It seems that an easy method like settling accounts based on brands have been adopted.
(*) Please also refer the article “Should Brands Speak Up About Political Issues? ” which was published at topics insights.
by Ralf Quellmalz Topic Insights’ Co-Founder & Leader
Leave a Reply