Lily Huynh/The Cougar
Following one of President Trump’s early executive orders, Target, Amazon, Google and other corporations quickly dropped diversity, equality and inclusion initiatives. As other companies rejected proposals and defended their DEI pledges, consumers took note of those who laid down without a fight and canceled programs as quickly as possible.
Economic blackouts and boycotts have garnered attention as a potential solution. Ranging from a single day to forty, consumers are looking to reclaim their purchasing power. Though efforts are noble, they are short-lived; to successfully hold companies accountable, consumers must re-evaluate their consumption and spending habits.
The boycotts intersect with increased anti-consumption sentiments. From “underconsumption core” to “no spend January,” people are looking to own and spend less. Both efforts, however, struggle to translate offline.
In late February, numerous social media posts calling for an economic blackout day, reaching millions of viewers. The results, however, did not mirror the substantial digital turnout. Target, which has received the most backlash, only saw 11% fewer in-store customers. While lower than the average number of visits, it is nowhere near enough to meaningfully impact the powerhouse chain.
Boycotts are not equipped to shut down Fortune 500 companies. The damage they bring to revenue is minimal and rarely lasts beyond a few weeks.
Short lived boycotts, such as upcoming and past ones, are harmful. It is not enough to reject Target on Friday and purchase household items from them on Tuesday. Doing so prepares companies to wait out until consumers eventually give in and allows participants to remain half in and half out.
Just as companies are criticized for performative support, the same must be done for boycotts. Few are calling to permanently reject companies who have rolled back their DEI.
The root of performative boycotting and long-term change can be found in re-evaluating consumption patterns. Spending has steadily increased with each passing decade as it has never been easier to shop since the popularization of online buying.
Shoppers also use purchases and their accompanying experiences for emotional and spiritual fulfillment. The dopamine from a clothing purchase is seen as a supplement for therapy, and a quick trip inside a retail store is the highlight of someone’s day. These emotional attachments make boycotting much harder.
If people want to reclaim the power of their dollar, they must learn to question the necessity of their purchases. Boycotting is easy when one realizes they can live without another t-shirt or gadget that will be forgotten about months from now.
Long-term boycotting also requires a rejection of convenience. Finding second-hand items or paying a hefty price for ethically made goods is not a common practice. It is often rejected, despite being a favorable alternative to pouring into disappointing corporations. However, it must be understood that disruption cannot exist alongside comfortability.
Boycotts will not dismantle our economy, but that does not render them entirely ineffective. They put pressure on companies, but that pressure must be sustained.
To those looking to align their purchases with their morals, challenging personal spending behaviors is necessary. From there, one should find alternatives to loved and convenient companies.
Anaya Baxter is an integrated communications junior who can be reached at [email protected]
