Wednesday, August 7, 2013

BOYCOTTING- HOW IT WORKS-WHY IT FAILS[1] © 2013 by Wayne Dan Lewis, Sr


Theme: What determines success or failure of a boycott?

Why this Topic?

Let’s be clear.  The recent trial of George Zimmerman[2] has called for boycotting the entire state of Florida as a result of the not guilty verdict of George Zimmerman in his shooting of Travon Martin[3].  The call for the boycott surrounds the Stand Your Ground Law[4], and how Zimmerman initially used this defense as a means to defend his shooting of the unarmed 17 year-old.  I will not spend the time debating the pros and cons of the case.  There are enough of us who are contesting the outcome, with what I believe is good reason.  Contesting and boycotting are not necessarily the same, so I want to be clear, that I am focused on the issue of boycotting, how it works, and why, even in the case of George Zimmerman and the State of Florida, why it could fail[5]. Not saying that I hope it fails, but why it could fail.

Additionally, the term boycott gets thrown out very quickly in a response to a community’s dissatisfaction.  Many people appear to be on board when the term is initially thrown out, but what does it mean to “boycott”?  We may all have a basic understanding of the term.  We may understand that it means, not to buy someone’s products, or not to do business at a particular location, or with a particular company.  But what does it mean in terms of who does it really affect, and to what extent are we who choose to participate in a boycott, willing to go to bring about the desire results?

If we would refer to one of the many definitions of boycotting, we would learn that it means to abstain from, or cease from engaging in activity that could result in an economic loss as a result of refusing to do business with an individual, group or agency.  More specifically:

boy·cott[6]
/ˈbɔɪkɒt/ Show Spelled [boi-kot] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.  to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion: to boycott a store.
2. to abstain from buying or using: to boycott foreign products.

As we look at the definition(s) above, I thought I would look at five historical boycotts that have taken place throughout world history.  What am I looking for? I am looking for whether they failed of succeeded?   I am looking for that point at which boycotting made a difference.  I am looking to see where the intended target gave in fully, partially, if at all, and what made the difference that the intended target of a boycott decided to give in.  I am looking for why people choose to boycott, while others don’t believe that it will make a difference.  Will I find these answers?  Not necessarily during this posting, but I am looking beyond this posting, and hope that you will too, because there has to be something that you want to stand up for/against.  Those five boycotts are
v     Occupy Wall Street 2011;
v     The Tea Party of 2009;
v     The Boston Tea Party of 1773;
v     The Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955, and
v     Tianaman Square Uprising of 1989 (The lone protester)
Let’s take a brief look at these five historical instances and see if you agree whether they failed or succeeded.

Occupy Wall Street (Did it fail or succeed?)  Failed!
Said to have begun in September of 2011, this group was formed to draw attention to what was said to be corporate influence on government by the 1% of influential Americans over the 99% of the working poor of Americans.  To this day, this group continues to have events protesting how corporations affect the outcome of laws where the rich are said to be exempt from the very laws that the poor are most likely to be arrested and prosecuted for.  Or perhaps worst yet, is that the rich are oblivious to the impact of their money-making decisions that in many ways contribute to the poor getting poorer, and the rich getting richer.
“Occupy Wall Street is a leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.” www.occupywallst.org   [7]

The Tea Party 2009[8](Did it Fail or Succeed?) Succeeded!
Reportedly, before President Obama had taken office in January of 2009, Rick Santelli, of  CNBC News,[9] was among those ranting about how government was taking tax payer dollars to bail out private companies.  The contention was that the government was rewarding bad behavior by corporate America, particularly banks, investment companies and insurances companies who had reportedly caused an economic collapse.  Santelli began the uproar, but within less than 3 months, the tea party was (re)-born, suggesting that the President Obama’s stimulus programs was taxation without representation (again).

The Boston Tea Party 1773 [10]  (Did it Fail or Succeed?) Succeeded!
Between 1767 and 1773, Colonists were imposed upon a tax by the British Parliament to pay for British soldiers stationed in and around the American establish colonies to protect the settlers from the Canadians and their Native American Allies gained through the French and Indian war (1754-1763).  The Colonists protested the taxation given that they believed that the soldiers that could be used could from their colonies rather than from Britain.  In response to the excessive taxation (The Stamp Act 1765-repealed 1766 after protests) and the Townshend Duties or Revenues Act, 1767-repealed 1770, after protests), which were imposed on just about anything that the settlers sold or used, including tea.  One of the means by which the colonists decided to protest the unfair taxation by the British government was to disguise themselves as Native Americas and board ships belonging to the East India Company and dump 20 chests of tea, 600,000 pounds into the Boston Harbor.  For their actions, the British Government imposed additional taxes on the American Colonies to pay for the loss of revenues by the dumping.  This and other actions between the colonies and Great Britain, would eventually lead to the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) [11]

The Montgomery Boycott of 1955 [12] (Did it Fail or Succeed?) Succeeded!
It could be argued, according to the website entitled, that the “The Montgomery Bus Boycott” (http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/civilrights-55-65/montbus.html),
began not on December 1, 1955, but as far back as 1943, when a black woman, named Rosa Parks was left at a bus stop after paying her fair, told to get off and board at the back door, only to have the bus pull off. Or maybe the bus boycott had its origin when in the early 1950’s a black minister tried to get other black bus patrons to get off the bus because he had to give up his seat to a white man, when unfortunately, he was told: “he should have known better.
The story of the Montgomery Bus boycott is well documented, with Ms. Rosa Parks as the matriarch of this historical piece of American History.  Her refusal to give up her seat to a white man, December 1, 1955 was perhaps either a culmination of frustration, or the lynchpin that brought a nation to awareness of the reports of acts and laws that were passed and enforced against People of Color, merely because of the color of their skin.  Ms. Parks’ arrest and the subsequent boycott would lead to an economic impact that affect all of downtown Montgomery.  But not only that, it would lead to also, violence against a people whose only outcry was to be treated like human beings, but instead, their homes would be firebombed, they would be arrested on trumped up charges, their businesses would be targeted maliciously, all because they wanted to be treated with dignity, as per the Constitution of the United States.

Historically, it could be said that the protest for equality for People of Color began in the case of Brown vs the Board of Education, [13] or in the case of Plessy vs Ferguson 1896 [14] where a black man sat in the “wrong” or legally sanctioned location on a train (by race) in the State of Louisiana, where separate but equal was the law of the land.  Perhaps the protest of People of Color, can be said to have begun in the case of Dread Scott (1975) ,[15] where the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2, that People of Color, whether free or slaves, were not citizens of the United States, and could not sue in Federal Courts, particularly in this case, for his freedom.

Protesting for the right to be treated fairly by People of Color in the United States, seems to have been, and continues to be, to this day, an on-going fight for justice.   For example, as recently as the position of Chief Justice, the Louisiana Supreme Court attempted to deny Chief Justice Bernadette Johnson the position of Chief Justice, citing that she has not fulfilled the right to the position, despite having been appointed by the United States Supreme Court with all rights and privileges befitting any judge holding her position and having met the standards so established by the State of Louisiana. [16]

Tianaman Square- The Lone Protestor [17](Did he Fail or Succeed?) Succeeded!
I remember seeing the news that day.  I don’t recall where I was specifically, but I know that it didn’t matter where I was because the picture/video would be shown around the world, for days to come.  It was an apparent young Asian, possibly a student.  He was captured on film, standing down a armored tank.  He was captured on film obstructing the passage of a tank, that perhaps had played a role in rolling over hundreds of student protesters, who had opposed recent actions of by the Chinese Government.  In a response to the uprising by the students, the government dispatched the PLA, or the People’s Liberation Army, said to be the Military Arm of the Communist Party of China. 
The film showed a sort of latter-day David and Goliath semblance, where despite the inevitability of his impending doom, the young man, armed only with his jacket and a shopping bag, stood in front of a tank and caused it to stop.  When the tank attempted to go around the young man, the young man side-stepped in front of the tank to keep it from going past him, but to also dare the operator to run over him.  Subsequently, the young man was taken by force by the military from the sidelines of the street to a place, to this day, we may never know.

In that brief moment, we saw a lone protester, who may have been involved in the larger protest.  What we saw perhaps was the equivalent of the many protests that rise up from individuals, groups, or political forces, that stand against perceived unfairness, unlawfulness, unethical, or even the lawfully sanctioned.  The risk, or cost to protest, may cost one’s life, or livelihood, but one who protests, has to be prepared to pay that price, even in at a moment’s notice, as indicated in the video .

Boycotting-How it Works, Why it Fails?
When I first proposed this topic, I wanted to focus on emotions vs. strategy.  I could find nothing to suggest that emotions were the guiding force behind whether boycotting succeeded or failed, although emotion seemed to have been a very important component when we look at the examples given above.  But the reason(s) why boycotts succeeded or fail has to on strategy.  At least, that’s what I got out of Professor Brayden Kings blog,  Kellog Insight, at the Northwestern University entitled, Why Boycotts Succeed-and Fail [18] (As you can see, my title isn’t original).  Here is a summary of Professor King’s initial observation from a research he conducted:

First of all Dr. King hypothesized 3 things about the strategy of boycotting.  He hypothesized that boycotts were going to be successful based on:
  1. media attention & sales decline, or
  2. media attention and reputation decline, or
  3. media attention will result in high targets conceding

 His study looked at 53 of 144 companies/firms that conceded to protests between 1990 and 2005.  From his study, he determined the following:
v     Sales declination was less an indicator of boycotting than corporate reputation.  He indicated that if reputation was affected, that companies were more likely to concede
v     Corporate entities with strong reputations were less likely to concede to boycotts if their reputations remained strong, even if sales declined;
v     Companies with a poor reputation were less vulnerable to boycotts, because they had less to loose.

Lessons learned
If any lessons were learned from Dr. King alone, based on his background, it would seem that we should know, going forward, the following:
  1. Choose your company or group carefully, noting their reputation in the community, and determine their sales success;
  2. The best companies to boycott are companies whose good reputations are on the decline;
  3. Have a plan to involve the media, from the very beginning

Obviously these lessons relate to companies, but what about the political arena?  It would appear that if it can be determined that if a company supports a political party or candidate whose position is in conflict with the community’s then, that company, or set of companies who have a reputation that is vulnerable, would be the most likely candidate to target for boycotting in order to get the attention of a political entity.

How Protests Matters- Quote:
Organizing people around disciplined, consistent non-violent resistance in which you neither meekly submit to injustice, nor angrily lash out against it, but instead move in a calm and determined way to challenge it is extraordinarily difficult.  But it works.  Getting people to come out every once and a while, hold a “protest” is, by contrast, pretty easy.  And, in the right frame of mind, its even fun.  I’ve had fun doing it.  But it doesn’t really change anything.                                      Matthew Yglesis [19]

Be prepared
If you are going to participate or initiate a protest, be prepared to stand your ground (no pun intended).  Be prepared to stand for something that you believe in.  Be prepared to stand your ground in the pursuit of fairness, justice and equality, even if you have to stand alone.   Make it known that you are protesting, but be prepared for the backlash, or the pushback, possibly to the detriment of your reputation, your finances, your family, because protesting in many cases means that you are affecting someone else’s family, livelihood and finances.  Even if they are being unfair to you, they are not being unfair to their cause if it puts food on their family’s table.

Be prepared to stay the fight.  Be prepared for the success of the protest, because no battle won means that it is all over.  Many people don’t take being protested against lightly, and they will come back, possibly, with a vengeance.
Be prepared to be called a trouble-maker, or someone who is just trying to make a name for themselves.  Be prepared with a set of demands, that spells out exactly what you/your group wants, how you want it, and by what time.  Spell out benefits, not perks; spell out needs, not wants.  Be prepared to state how the actions or inactions of the targeted group affects or damages your well-being, as a group, not individually.  No one cares about you as an individual.   Be prepared to stand for a cause that is bigger than you are, and stand strong.

Conclusion
Boycotting, How does it work, why does it fail?  That was the focus of this post.  With all due respect to boycotts of the past, boycotting going forward will work best when the strategy includes targeting businesses that have a reputation that is vulnerable, especially when the media is involved.  What causes boycotts to fail is when the targeted business or entity has a strong reputation in the community, a reputation of doing things for those most in need in the community, i.e. children’s charities, pets groups or the elderly. 
Boycotting works when the targeted entity’s sales are reduced because their source of business is impacted, and their reputation is vulnerable.

What we saw throughout the examples was organization, emotions, and a willingness to stand up for a cause bigger than anyone individual.  Personally, I believe that a key element of any boycotting, is that those who are participating are committed to the cause on the table, and not a cause that is unrelated.  If the media is involved, they will want to know that everyone is fighting for the same cause, otherwise, the overall intent will be lost before it gets started.  Whatever it is the boycott involves, be prepared with a strategy that includes leadership, a list of demands, why, and when they can be expected to be met.  And then, be prepared for the long road ahead.  As protesters, you have to prove that you are serious about your demands.  You have to prove that you are committed to not doing business with the targeted entity,  and that as a committed group, you are willing to do what it takes to make a difference.  Knowing this alone in preparation, or in consideration of conducting a boycott, may determine whether the boycott succeeds or fails.

Disclaimer:  This post should not be considered as an incentive to protest any given issue or towards any given  entity without legal advice.  No legal advice should be implied from this posting.  If you or your group are considering protesting an issue of importance to your job, community, or wherever you believe your rights have been violated, it is suggest that  you review the historical information provided here as well as consider looking up Professor Brayden King of Northwestern University, before pursuing an opportunity to protest.





[5] Not intended to be legal advice, all information is the opinion of the blogger only.  Your feedback is encouraged
[7] Occupy Wall Street- http://occupywallst.org/
[9] Rick Santelli, CNBC News- http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837966
[14] Plessy vs Ferguson- http://plessyvsferguson.com/
[16] Chief Justice Bernadette Johnson, Louisiana State Supreme Court- http://www.wtsp.com/news/national/article/278544/81/After-dispute-La-getting-first-black-top-judge
[17] Cole, Charlie, BBC News Tianaman Square- 1989- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4313282.stm
[18] King, Brayden, 2009, How Boycotts Succeed-and Fail http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/why_boycotts_succeed_and_fail
[19] Yglesias, Matthew, 2009,  What Are Today’s Protests Missing? http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2009/04/03/192396/what_are_todays_protests_missing/

No comments:

Post a Comment