Is boycotting really a good way to get people on your side?

[Mr Slugger]

Just kind of curious. I was watching the news last night and they were talking about boycotting Maine because they repealed gay marriage, because back in the 50's & 60's it supposedly worked against the segregated buses. So they're planning on trying to get people who support gay marriage to not spend money in Maine.

Now honestly I think that a boycott never works, unless it's against a small company. I mean for instance when they raised the taxes in Massachusetts people said they were going to go to New Hampshire to get their cigs and liquor. I heard it all the time. In reality I think 1% of our customers actually did that. And if anything we lost money because people still spend the same money, just more goes to the state. And yes 1% is 1%, but it's hardly earthshaking. However the amount of people even more pissed off at the state raised alot. I mean I would say about 50% of the people who said something before the tax increase will still say bad things about the state because of that tax increase. And when we attempt to repeal the tax increase in a year or so those people will remember and it will be a piece of cake to get those people to vote for repealing the tax.

So back to the boycott of Maine. While I think that if they decided to boycott Maine for not supporting gay marriage you would get some people that would actually boycott the state but it would be a small percentage. And chances are in reality it would be money that is already not there. For example if you're a gay couple you're already not going to Maine to get married so therefor there's no money to be lost. But for the people of Maine they will see gay people are boycotting Maine, and any down will be blamed on the boycott, and then when it comes back for a vote people will remember that boycott, and those that are against gay marriage can go "they took money out of your pockets for years, and they want you to support them"

I mean to me doing a boycott is kinda like pouting in the corner. And if you're interested in doing the whole "I'll take my money and spend it elsewhere" attitude I think it's better to help promote businesses that are gay friendly. Even if they're in another state. That way you're not looking like the bad guy, and the state is just missing out on the money.

I dunno your thoughts?

[HYHYBT]

Pardon me, this is going to be a bit rambling and self-contradictory, but here goes anyway:

Boycotting a business is one thing, and an entire state another. Now, I don't intend to go to Maine or to buy lobsters, but then I never do those things anyway so it doesn't matter. But "boycotting" Maine over this is particularly stupid: gay marriage has never done significantly better in a popular vote than it did there, and in most states it went much, much worse. I can't very well boycott Georgia because 77% were against when it was on our ballot (though I'm still kicking myself: I decided that I hadn't been paying enough attention to the candidates that year to make an informed decision and stayed home, forgetting the anti-marriage amendment was on the ballot as well.)

As for businesses, well, you need to organize a large enough group to affect their bottom line, with a clear objective so you all *end* the boycott at the same time. And it has to be a larger group than the other side would form if the company changed its ways. Of course, even most of the people on your side won't bother boycotting a place they regularly do business with (which is the only time it could be effective) so it has to be over something most everyone knows is wrong and the marriage issue doesn't come close.

[Rapscallion]

Boycotts against an entire nation with solid borders works, but it only affects the majority of the citizens - the people who don't have any real say in what happens.

A state of the US is effectively its own country, but there's no real borders anywhere within the US, so I doubt it would have any real effect. People are still going to trade with their neighbouring state, and besides the vote was close to 50/50, so a good half (at a reasonable estimate) of those outside the state are going to be more likely to trade with them.

Under these circumstances? Can't see it.

Rapscallion

[flybye023]

I think in situations like this, boycotting is pretty ridiculous. It's an emotional response and easy to say. I mean, I could say that I'm boycotting Maine but--I live in Oregon, I have no time off, no money to spend on a trip like that, don't usually buy the products that come from there, so what impact would it really have

[Fryk]

Threatening a state government with boycotting over an issue that was voted in will do nothing. You can't address an issue that requires a vote to change by targeting elected officials. You have to appeal directly to the voting public on things like this.

[Tanasi]

Has not the black folks continued their boycott of South Carolina for the last 10 or more years? If so has it really hurt?

[Rapscallion]

Not heard of that one, Tanasi - care to elaborate?

Rapscallion

[smileyeagle1021]

I have made a smaller scale boycott... On the day after the election I sent a strongly worded letter to the Methodist church that due to their involvement in Yes on 1 I would discontinue all donations to any Methodist organization, including their charitiable arm. My donations for time and money now go to secular groups. I also made it clear, stop supporting bigotry and I will support them again, until then, nothing will go to church coffers.
Something like that may be effective (boycott Christian groups until they cease bigotry within the church and give donations to secular charities instead)... a statewide boycott though (when the state has nothing to do with it, rather the churches spreading lies and hate) would be of little use.

[Mr Slugger]

Not heard of that one, Tanasi - care to elaborate?

Rapscallion

I believe the boycott Tanasi is talking about is the one because of the fact that the state still flies the confederate flag at the state house

[Rapscallion]

Hmm - hadn't heard of that one. Anyone know if it's been followed or forgotten? Was it just black people in this, or were there whites as well?

Rapscallion

[lordlundar]

boycotts are effective if they are relevant and directed to the point. Boycotting a local news station for reporting false news stories for example is effective and will garner support. Boycotting a store because they run a weekly ad on said station because they put a news story about a controversial group is just pissing people off.

[Mr Slugger]

boycotts are effective if they are relevant and directed to the point. Boycotting a local news station for reporting false news stories for example is effective and will garner support. Boycotting a store because they run a weekly ad on said station because they put a news story about a controversial group is just pissing people off.

But see I think in most cases a boycott is only effective in the sense that it brings bad press to whatever is being boycotted. And at some point bad press makes them bow to the pressure. But when it's a company/state/etc. that want to either stick to their guns or can't make a decision for the voters (because Maine did vote it this way), then it's almost pointless.

Like I said in those cases it's better to just keep trying to get people onto your side.

[lordlundar]

But see I think in most cases a boycott is only effective in the sense that it brings bad press to whatever is being boycotted. And at some point bad press makes them bow to the pressure. But when it's a company/state/etc. that want to either stick to their guns or can't make a decision for the voters (because Maine did vote it this way), then it's almost pointless.

As far as a company goes, you contradicted yourself. Any company will only stick to their guns in so far as there's money to be made. To that end, a boycott is a very effective war of attrition, as they want to avoid bad press. A private organization that sticks to it's guns despite hemorrhaging money is doomed to failure.

As for a government body goes, bad plans without the public approval result in lost votes in the next election (or it should, but in the case of the US government, that's a different story and a separate rant) and if it's voted on to support the decision, then yes, it's stupid an ineffective, because you need a VERY wide scale boycott to make it work. Government initiated embargoes and lobbying efforts are MUCH more effective in that situation.

[Mr Slugger]

As far as a company goes, you contradicted yourself.

Not really. What I mean by a company sticking to their guns is that alot of times a boycott against a company works because of the bad press first not the boycott. However if it they're ok with bad press, and it doesn't affect them much then it won't work.

I mean if you look online there's boycotts on kellogs, general mills, florida OJ, etc. For various reasons. Now these companies could bow to these people, but they don't because nobody cares, it doesn't make news and I'm sure these companies deem these boycotts as exceptable losses.

Then for instance there's boycotts on walmart for the treatment of their employees. I've seen them in the news, online, etc. Now walmart could go "okay okay I give up we'll treat our employees better". But they don't so the people boycotting them are exceptable losses to them.

[lordlundar]

Ah, but in those cases it's not a STRONG boycott. Heck, odds are the people "boycotting" them never dealt with them anyways, but now they're making a statement. Granted the statement is "we're morons", but a statement none the less.

I promise you, if a boycott was strong enough to make them lose money every quarter, they would change.