People are SUPER sensitive about their beans, y’all. We have discovered this by way of a recent bean-related political dustup. (Have no fear — overall, this post isn’t going to be political in nature. But I can’t not mention the adobo scandal and everything that has arisen from it.) The deal is that Robert Unanue, CEO of Goya Foods, recently appeared in the Rose Garden with President Trump and piled… we’ll say effusive praise on said president.
Some on the left took umbrage at the unbridled accolades and declared they’d no longer purchase Goya food products. Some on the right took umbrage at their umbrage and declared they’d purchase even more Goya products. This led to such world-rocking statements as the following (and again, this is not me trying to get political):
and I can feel nothing but pity for anyone who rode in a car with him that day. But on the more serious side of things, there were claims that the non-bean-buying populace was trying to cancel Goya and cancel free speech.
That is… not a thing. Not because of any commentary one might have about cancel culture, but because what’s going on already has a name. It’s known as a boycott. And it is, in fact, part of a grand tradition of free speech via use of one’s wallet.
Because a brand isn’t a person. It’s an entity subject to the will of the people (and seems to be, over time, one of the few remaining things that are thusly subject), in the form of consumerism. I mentioned amid the Black Lives Matter protests (which remain ongoing) that increasingly, consumers are holding brands accountable for ethical behavior and meaningful action over sincere-sounding but ultimately empty statements. Others insist that businesses should be about business and not enter into the realm of things like social justice, but any kind of should notwithstanding, it’s happening.
Voting with your wallet
It’s important to remember that brands and companies, as noted above, aren’t people. They’re made up of people, and people rely on them for income, but Goya isn’t a person, and neither are BP, Coca-Cola, or Ben & Jerry’s. A boycott may arise from the actions of a person (say, a company executive doing objectionable things), but a boycott isn’t a personal attack or a threat to an individual — it’s the withdrawal of financial support that a consumer has every right to withdraw if they want to.
When a person purchases a product or service, they’re paying for a lot more than just materials and production costs — those products and services are marked up (sometimes ridiculously so) to cover company operations and, of course, big fat salaries for the people at the top. And consumers get to decide which operations and whose salaries they want their money to support. They get to decide which brands they want to sustain through the contribution of their dollars.
And then they get to tell their friends which brands they’re supporting, or not supporting, and why, and encourage their friends to similarly lend (or withdraw) support for those reasons. Other consumers get to see that and express their disagreement with their own purchasing power, and now you have free speech via consumer activity. (And, apparently, a bean breakfast that you know can have nothing but disastrous consequences.)
Boycott booms and backfires
If you want to talk about boycotts, the only place to start is Abercrombie & Fitch — a not-infrequent target of boycotts, owing in no small part to apparent efforts to court the douchiest corners of the fast-fashion market. In 2002, A&F had to discontinue their “Wong Brothers Laundry Service” t-shirt after protests by Asian-American students. That was also the year that they had to pull their line of child-sized thong underwear with text like “eye candy” and “wink wink” in the face of boycotts from several Christian groups. In 2005, they had to walk back their “Who needs brains when you have these” t-shirts in response to a “girlcott” by teen activists.
Note that Abercrombie & Fitch, for better or worse, still exists and even got the occasional financial bump by the publicity surrounding the controversy. Regardless, consumers said they didn’t want to hand their money to a company that sold “eye candy” butt floss for kiddies, A&F said, “Yeah, I see your point,” and the world is better off for it.
Other times, boycotts have the opposite of the intended effect, because people get to use their money however they want — including using it in opposition to other people’s strategic use of their money. In 2019, Gillette (no relation) released an ad addressing the concept of toxic masculinity during the #MeToo movement. I’ve talked in the past about the actual execution of the campaign, but it can be argued that for a brand proclaiming itself “the best a man can get,” encouraging men to be the best they can be fits in pretty nicely. Some consumers agreed. Others vehemently did not and pushed for a boycott of Gillette products. Ultimately, Gillette didn’t actually report any sales dip in light of the controversy.
You can also observe this phenomenon in responses to Nike’s campaign with Colin Kaepernick, which was hit with strong opposition, boycotting, and dramatic burning of shoes — but ultimately brought in $6 billion from opposition to the opposition. And despite boycotts in protest of its donations to anti-LGBTQ causes, Chick-fil-A has grown to become the third-largest restaurant chain in the U.S. But even when they weren’t able to achieve their intended purpose of influencing a brand’s behavior, consumers’ use of their wallets to back up their opinions often gained publicity and public support of their cause.
So no. Consumers expressing their priorities and making demands on the brands they support didn’t “cancel” anyone.
(I’ve intentionally stuck to commercial examples here so as not to sully some of the world-changing victories accomplished through boycott by speaking their name in the same sentence as a douchy Abercrombie shirt, but I encourage you to devote time to reading all about them.)
Conscious consumers
In an AdWeek article that you should definitely read beginning to end, Seth Matlins talks about cancellation in the context of the current advertising boycott of Facebook by, in fact, other brands. (Yes, brand-on-brand boycotts are a thing.) And he says this:
This isn’t about an intolerance for a difference of opinion. It’s about an impatience for a better world. I can accept that brand X has a different opinion and set of values than I do. But in a world torn asunder like ours is, why would I pay them heed, let alone dollars?
[…]And in this world populated as it is by increasingly conscious consumers, brands need to be more worthy and authentically prove that worthiness across a broader spectrum of actions than ever before. Why? Because people are paying attention like never before, and they will not pay for that and those who do not stand with them.
Seth Matlins, “When It Comes to Brands, ‘Cancel Culture’ Is the Right Approach”
Not taking a side is no longer an option.
Victories in baby steps
For literally decades, individuals and organizations have been pressuring Washington’s NFL team to get rid of their deeply racist team name and mascot. And for literally decades, team management has been shamefully resistant. And then, at the end of June, shareholders worth a total of $620 billion sent letters to Nike, FedEx, and PepsiCo asking them to cut ties with the Washington team until the organization agrees to change its name. Which it’s finally agreed to do, as announced on Monday morning. The people spoke and, at long last (very long last) the team listened.
It’s not perfect, instant redemption. That it took them this long, and that it took financial threats from super-rich investors and not everyday consumers or, y’know, actual native Americans to spur action is unconscionable. Management’s past statements of blatant resistance aren’t going to disappear now that they’ve changed their tune. Some former fans are going to hold back their support until they see if this thing is actually going to stick. Some are going to immediately throw support at the organization as a reward for this good behavior. Some are going to decide that it’s too little, too late, and that’s their right.
But the thing to note is that the Washington team is still there. It hasn’t been shut down. It hasn’t disappeared. FedExField hasn’t been burned to the ground by angry fans (although I’m sure a bunch of jerseys will be, since some fans of the team are… not fans of the change). Whenever football is able to get going again, the Washington TBDs will be there. And for once, fans will be able to be embarrassed about just their win-loss record and not their racist mascot, too.
Consumer action did that. It didn’t shut them down. It didn’t shut them up. Nothing got cancelled. People said, “This is something we care about, and you need to catch up,” and the Washington team did. It’s something brands should keep in mind, because It’s something we care about, and you need to catch up is a refrain that isn’t going anywhere. And it’s something that consumers should keep in mind, because when you don’t have a whole lot of power in the grand scheme of things, you shouldn’t be shamed out of using what power you have available to you to influence causes you believe are important.
But please don’t set your shoes on fire. It’s bad for the environment, and there are kids out there who would kill for a pair of barely worn Nikes.