349
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
349 points (92.7% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26749 readers
572 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Putting aside that boycotting doesn’t work and actually has the opposite effect.
Coca-cola
Do you have sources for this claim?
Giving a company money -> they reinvest that money -> company grows
Not giving a company money -> ??? -> company grows
Everybody knows that, duh!
We both know that you actually don't think it's that simple. You just wanted to be contrarian.
I'm actually so correct in what I said that getting targeted with hate campaigns is something companies try to do. As I told another one of you NPCs before, Nike did that exact thing. They intentionally did something that upset a target demographic, those people burned nike products and tried to "boycott" them and it ended up making their sales go up because everyone was talking about them now.
This is such a well known thing that I'm surprised you people got mad at me for saying it. Redditors will get mad at everything for no reason I guess.
I bet if you were specific, it was something about supporting a progressive cause that most people support and rightwingers got mad and "protested" by buying Nike products to destroy...
Just because rightwing extremists are the minority and don't understand how boycotts work, doesn't mean boycotts don't work.
This is a lot of text for being completely wrong. Good for you.
That was a very efficient way of saying nothing.
Most redditors have been running from life for so long all they know is anger and pain, with the anger being the only anti-pain strategy they have.
Name a single boycott that ever managed to take down an international corporation that didn't end up making them more famous then they where before that. Being "boycotted" is even a marketing tool companies like nike have used before.
Did you think this through or did you just want to be contrarian for no actual reason?
I think what you're getting at is that the publicity generated by flashy boycott activism only generates free advertising for the companies. Which it certainly can! But that's also dependent on what is being boycotted and the social and political beliefs behind it. If one group boycotts a product because the company is homophobic, another group buys more of that product because they agree with the company. That sort of thing.
But it isn't as two dimensional as "boycotting has the opposite effect". Here are some examples of effective boycotting. Though you did get me interested in how effective boycotting really is, but I couldn't find any efficacy studies that weren't behind a paywall...
If you need papers, try sci hub
Wow, thank you for the actually measured response. I'll have a look at the link you posted!
The goal isn't "taking down" a company. It's to influence their behavior/policies.
ChikFilA stopped donating to anti-gay charities when they were boycotted.
I feel like now they're going to say because rightwingers attempted to boycott after that change, that boycotts don't work...
Because they don't understand rightwing extremists are bad at boycotting and statistically insignificant to a nationwide chain.