There has been a lot of conversation, and even action, on the political front with companies or corporations getting involved in politics. On one side of the aisle are those who want to CANCEL companies and individuals based upon their positions. Cancelling involves trying to remove them from existence; eliminating the competition in whole. Attacks are aimed at doxing, blocking, obstructing, and destroying the opposition using whatever means necessary.
On the other side of the aisle are those who promote boycotting companies by taking their money elsewhere. Some contribute that boycotting is the same as canceling, but it is not.
When you purchase from a company, or buy a product you vote for that company or product with your dollar. When it comes to products that sit on shelves in a retail location, every dollar spent is a vote to keep it on the shelf. Shelf space in a retail location is like real estate. And the prime real estate is in the customer’s normal view – eye level. Products compete for this space. Large companies pay for this space. But a product that isn’t moving isn’t going to stay in this space. Your dollar determines whether it will or it won’t. In most cases, the dollar vote is based upon how much you like the product, whether it satisfies your need, whether is worth what you are paying, and whether you recognize it as an established and treasured brand.
However, in some cases, the dollar is tied to the reputation of the company. Making the decision to spend your money where and on what you feel fits in your value measurement, including your moral value measurement is not the same as trying to eliminate that product or company altogether. Boycotting a product or company still makes it available to others, while allowing the individual to put their money into a product more in line with their thinking. Yes, it can have the same effect, if the majority or a significant majority of its customers feel the same way, but it still has the ability to either continue to think and operate as they see fit, knowing they have lost a portion of their customer base, Or change directions and trying to find a way to appeal to all of its potential customers.
We’ve talked before about the impact of getting into political or moral positions as a company. It’s a risk. Companies are in business to sell their products to the widest audience they can attract. Taking a political position in a fifty-fifty political field, automatically causes them to at least have a potential of losing as much as half of their customer pool. Some companies understand the risk, and make that choice anyway. Others fail to recognize the impact it will have upon the company and its profits.
The risk is mitigated to a degree for companies who enter the market with known political or moral positions. Starbucks has been politically involved from their beginning, taking a social stance on various issues. Chick-fil-a and Hobby Lobby have been known for closing on Sunday and having religious social positions since inception. In these instances, the customer knows what they are getting when they support these businesses. In the case of Coca-Cola and Bud Light who have taken recent social positions, part of their customer base is not happy with these changes. These companies used to focus on business, and adding a social agenda to an existing business brings risks. The decision of their customers to move their voting dollars elsewhere isn’t necessarily an attempt to run them out of business, rather than a method of showing them how much of their business comes from the opposite side of their position.
Though boycotts do impact the company, and can result in loss of revenue even to the point of crippling the company, they don’t have the same destructive intent that the cancel culture seeks to impose. It is more about a choice of where the customer wants to spend their dollar, than a need to destroy the opposition.
