In light of the success of the anti-Trump #GrabYourWallet campaign, the Washington Post has published a new piece that explores “political consumerism” and the circumstances needed for it to actually shape corporate and political policy.
As the article explains, for a “buycott” to be successful, it should both encourage “pro-social” behavior and implement peer monitoring – the first of which can help to activate those who feel their dollars alone will make little difference, and the second to weed out people who don’t actually partake in the action, but claim to for vanity reasons, like social media cred.
The buycott-ed company’s business model, the nature of its products, and its competitors are also big factors. For example, it’s easier to damage a brand that supplies directly to consumers given their direct access to its bottomline. However, if there’s a lack of similarly priced substitutions from other brands, a buycott will most likely be unwinnable.
As for effecting actual political change, generally, the loss of business from a buycott is too small to impact any national industry or economy. So, protestors must persuade companies to lobby the government on their behalf. In the case of Ivanka Trump, who’s apparel and accessory lines have been dropped from a handful of national retailers, the damage may be done to her personal brand, but until she’s compelled to take on her father, or Trump’s own wealth and livelihood is threatened, it’s doubtful consumers will be able to force him to compromise.
You can read more about it at The Washington Post.
