A question for the ages: to boycott or not to boycott
“We are the economy. Every dollar is a vote,” reads the website of the People’s Union USA, an advocacy organization and organizer of recent economic boycotts. Boycotting has long been a form of political revolution and protest, particularly in the U.S. Going all the way back to the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955 and 1956, the long-standing tradition of using boycotting as political resistance is apparent.
The most recent boycotts have been conducted in response to Donald Trump’s second presidency and the rollback of nationwide Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs. Major corporations like Target, Amazon, Meta, Walmart and McDonald’s have abolished or rolled back their DEI policies. In response, activist groups and in-the-loop progressives have boycotted some of these companies. Target, Amazon and Tesla (due to owner Elon Musk’s involvement in the Trump administration) have been the main targets. Numerous “economic blackouts” have been organized by various groups, the largest occurring Feb 28. According to the data analytics firm Similarweb, during this blackout, Target saw a drop of 9% in foot traffic and 14% in web traffic. Tesla has had the most considerable negative impact from the boycott, with a 13% drop in vehicle sales in the first quarter of 2025, according to Reuters. Alternatively, Forbes reported that Amazon has actually seen a 6% growth during the boycotts and economic blackouts. The varying data on the boycotts have led many to question their effectiveness.
Boycotts have become an increasingly popular form of activism, with several successful efforts surrounding the Israel-Hamas war. In November 2024, the brand Sabra Hummus was boycotted into removing itself from The Strauss Group, a corporation that provided funding for Israeli Defense Forces. The corporations AXA, Barclay, Pret, Baillie Gifford and Puma were also targeted by boycotts for their involvement in funding the war. These notable boycotts demonstrate that boycotts in the modern age can still have a significant impact.
Despite the varying data, the larger message boycotts send is a successful one. Boycotts help raise awareness and drive attention to the misdeeds of major corporations, especially in a time of extreme wealth concentration for the high elites.
The Montgomery Bus Boycott stands out as the most significant and successful example. Following Rosa Parks’s arrest for sitting in the “white section” of the bus, Black citizens in Montgomery, Alabama, refused to ride the city buses for a little over a year. This caused the Supreme Court to rule that segregation on buses was unconstitutional. The Montgomery Bus Boycott is a powerful example of a major boycott making significant changes to American culture and government, and shows that there is room for boycotts to be successful. Boycotts make headlines and draw conversation, which helps spread information about important issues. Boycotts also send a message to the corporations that the public is noticing and drawing attention to their issues and attempts to sweep them under the rug.
As the Trump administration makes policies influencing companies, boycotts will continue to be a vital part of hopeful resistance. Although some have had mixed results recently, there are many opportunities for boycotts to have massively positive effects.
As companies continue rolling back Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies after President Donald Trump’s executive order earlier this year, nationwide outrage against brands has become increasingly prevalent. While users on social media post about spending blackouts, economic resets and boycotting large corporations daily, the impact does not seem to translate to sales.
The primary goal of many current boycotts is to inflict economic damage toward corporations. Beyond theory, however, this is hard to accomplish. The unfortunate reality of many boycotts is that in most cases, only a small percentage of the population will truly participate. In turn, the financial loss faced by large companies is often not great enough to create a meaningful impact on the business.
Making an impact by boycotting brands is difficult because many large conglomerates have a wide variety of income sources. A small dent in financial gains from those protesting specific brands may go unnoticed under the large umbrella of products that a boycotting consumer may be unintentionally supporting through another source of a company’s income.
Boycotts can also have unintended consequences for the people and communities surrounding such companies. Oftentimes when a company is facing losses from a boycott, it will instead opt to lay off employees. Additionally, when corporations with multiple locations lose money, they more often than not begin by closing down stores in areas that need their resources the most.
Boycotts against retailers can also negatively impact businesses that have products on retailer’s shelves that shoppers participating in the current boycotts will want to support, including minority-owned businesses that will be affected by the decrease in sales. Several Black company founders have spoken out on social media about the boycott over Target’s DEI rollback, urging people to consider the consequences faced by Black-owned businesses.
The disconnect between actual purchasers of brands being boycotted and those who take to social media calling for change further contributes to the lack of significant losses these companies face. When boycotts and protests using purchasing power do not last for more than a day to a few weeks, the message sent is undermined through the lack of impact that the companies actually face. The Feb. 28 one-day blackout to protest company policies saw little to no change in sales at Amazon, whose sales were actually 3% higher than average.
The nature of social media has made it easier for boycotts to fall into the trap of performative activism–reducing the spread of informative content and meaningful change in favor of visibility on social media, which often does not translate to real change offline. Nuanced conversation is overlooked by an online algorithm that will amplify the outraged voices starting boycotts based on misinformation.
To promote real change offline and toward companies, support locations and organizations that align with your values. Diversifying shopping options will help reduce a public overreliance on the products of specific corporations and sustain local businesses for periods much longer than a day or week-long blackout will. Bring activism and conversation offline by giving money to the places where it does matter.
