It seems that liberals and Democrats call every week for a boycott of a store or company that does not fit their politically-correct worldview.
Remember how they went after the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain after they found out that its owner had contributed to traditional-marriage causes?
It backfired. The boycott only made Chick-fil-A into a national sensation; the company is thriving. Conservative Mike Huckabee even organized a national “buycott” in favor of Chick-fil-A that was very successful.
Thus here is a rule that you can take to the bank – boycotts often fail and often they have the reverse effect of spurring more and more business and notoriety for the business that is boycotted. Boycotts are very tricky. That is why conservatives like Sean Hannity publicly oppose them.
The term ‘boycott’ comes from the name of a land agent Captain Charles Boycott who was targeted in 1880 for trying to evict Irish tenant farmers from their land. Farmers refused to work on land administered by Boycott, businessmen stopped trading with him and even the postman refused to deliver his mail.
Modern-day boycotts are hardly so effective. Fox News reports about a recent call for a boycott in California:
California state Democrats are distancing themselves from the state party’s chief after he called for the boycott of a beloved burger chain after it donated cash to the state’s Republican Party.
The political feud began last week when Eric Bauman, head of the California Democratic Party, called for the boycott of California-based In-N-Out over its $25,000 donation to the GOP.
Look at this angry tweet from Bauman:
Et tu In-N-Out? Tens of thousands of dollars donated to the California Republican Party… it’s time to #BoycottInNOut – let Trump and his cronies support these creeps… perhaps animal style!
This is pretty extreme and angry, particularly since it involved campaign contributions made strictly in the interest of business and was targeted at a beloved restaurant chain. If every business had its private contributions exposed and publicized there might be boycotts every day in every city.
Imagine if conservatives stopped patronizing all liberal-owned businesses and vice versa. The whole economy would collapse. Fox News continues:
Bauman’s call soon became a headache for the party as it captured national headlines and gave ammunition to the GOP as the Democratic leader threatened to alienate the loyal customers of a wildly popular restaurant chain.
But the state Democratic Party quickly backtracked, saying Bauman’s call for a boycott was merely his “personal view” and wasn’t being considered by the state Democratic Party as a policy.
… But despite the damage control, Republicans seized on the opportunity to have a political feast, posting images and declarations of support for the chain.
“Enjoying our favorite fast food restaurant, In-N-Out Burger, at the Capitol today. No boycott here!” Republican state Sen. Jim Nielsen wrote on Facebook, attaching a photo of himself surrounded by multiple orders of burgers and fries.
Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox posted on Twitter a photo of himself in front an In-N-Out as well, saying “There’s nothing more Californian than In-N-Out Burger.”
… In-N-Out then released a statement claiming that the chain has made “equal contributions to both Democratic and Republican” PACs in California this year.
So there you go. And don’t think that this failed boycott is fading away. It already has become a rallying cry for California Republicans in the November elections as an example of the Democrat extremism that is plaguing California. In-N-Out Burger also has garnered a massive amount of free advertising nationwide as this story goes viral (the company currently operates in 6 Western states).
This incident could help to elect Republican governor John Cox in a notoriously liberal state that already is shell-shocked from failed Democrat policies and may be ready for a big change. President Trump may even get involved to blow the issue sky-high.
Now consider what has happened in another situation showing that boycotts can indeed work… for conservatives that is.
Lexington, Virginia restaurant owner Stephanie Wilkinson asked Trump press secretary Sarah Sanders to leave her Red Hen restaurant last June since Wilkinson did not like Trump. It was legal for Wilkinson to do so. When the story was publicized nationally in a tweet by Sanders all hell broke loose.
The tourist city of Lexington, which is located in a scenic rural area in Western Virginia, faced a huge backlash of people saying they would never go there (a boycott). And this time the boycott worked.
One town tourism official said that two months later the area is still feeling effects from the controversy and that the tourism office received thousands of negative phone calls and emails in the immediate aftermath of the incident. “For a town our size, it was a significant impact,” she said.
Wilkinson was forced out of her post as head of a local business group and certainly she has lost many friends and is isolated in her town, but then again she started it with her irrational hatred of the president and her unseemly behavior. She even said that she would do the same thing over again, which compounds her problem.
This boycott has been successful first because it is not being directed by a party or individual for crass political gain; and second it is based on a specific action that is perceived as un-American.
Most Americans know that it would be a catastrophe for our political discourse, our economy and for our country if businesses ejected every customer with whom they disagreed politically. The Roanoke (Virginia) Times reported:
(The regional tourism board) approved a recovery plan to boost its marketing after The Red Hen restaurant controversy brought a slew of negative national media coverage this summer.
… The board had initially approved the recovery plan soon after news of The Red Hen controversy was spreading across the country.
… All three localities met and decided to pull together emergency funds to increase digital marketing and spread positive messages of the area, especially Lexington, which brings in the largest number of tourists.
Rockbridge Regional Tourism agreed to spend an additional $5,000 per month from the office’s emergency fund from July through September.
The tourism office receives 0.8 percent of the lodging and meals tax collected from each locality. About 20 percent of its annual budget, which is around $800,000, is put into a reserve for emergencies.
Typically the money is saved. But each locality agreed the region was in desperate need of positive coverage after The Red Hen incident.
OK, so look at these two boycotts – the In-N-Out boycott was proposed by a political official for political gain, while Lexington has faced a free-form boycott which happened organically and without any single leader (like the Tea Party movement itself). Sarah Sanders did not lead the boycott or urge it or return to Lexington to lead a protest march at the restaurant. She simply reported it.
In other words the Red Hen was a boycott of passion by individual people across the nation who felt that the owner had simply been wrong in our freedom-loving nation. Meanwhile we don’t even know who Wilkinson gives political contributions to, but we can sure guess.
And while the Red Hen reportedly has been seeing steady business from local liberals who agree with Wilkinson (a ‘buycott’ of the Red Hen) her action is harming a whole town. Thus Wilkinson is really losing this battle.
Unfortunately many restaurants with the name Red Hen across the country also suffered from a backlash. Thus this boycott worked well but with a negative side effect.
Nikitas3.com suggests that Wilkinson should offer to move her restaurant out of Lexington, or that the town of Lexington (population 7,000) – which is apparently very liberal, by the way – should ask Wilkinson to move her restaurant away in order to recover from this fiasco.
Imagine the headline – Red Hen Kicked out of Lexington!
Crowds would flock to Lexington in appreciation (a ‘buycott’).
There are other famous conservative boycotts like the disastrous box office receipts of the Peter Fonda film Boundaries after Fonda made disgusting comments about Barron Trump. Or the major disruption in the career of ‘comedian’ Kathy Griffin after showing a severed head of Trump.
So sometimes boycotts do indeed work… when conservatives mount them, that is and when they are more than just political vendettas.
Here’s one more – Nike has retained a new face for its ‘Just Do It’ advertising campaign. They hired the National Anthem kneeler Colin Kaepernick. Nike’s stock immediately plunged on the news and we already are seeing a leaderless nationwide boycott against Nike just like the boycott that is bringing down professional football over the Anthem kneelers. Bloomberg News reported:
The backlash started just hours after Colin Kaepernick, the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback who sparked controversy for kneeling during the national anthem, tweeted that he’s starring in Nike Inc.’s iconic “Just Do It” ad campaign.
Following the announcement, the hashtags #BoycottNike and #JustBurnIt started trending on Twitter and shares started falling. Some angry consumers even posted photos and videos of themselves burning their Nike shoes and other gear to protest the company using the divisive figure in its 30th anniversary ad campaign.
The Wrap reports:
The shoe-maker lost about $3.75 billion in market cap after announcing Kaepernick as its new spokesperson. Market capitalization is the market value of a publicly traded company’s outstanding shares. Some online protesters even took to Twitter to shred their Air Jordans and other Nike gear to voice their opposition to Nike’s decision.
Wow. That is a successful boycott. Who says boycotts don’t work?