The renowned ice cream manufacturer, Ben & Jerry’s, acknowledged for its active societal engagement, is receiving increasingly negative attention online. This is due to its post on America’s birthday urging for the territories purportedly appropriated from indigenous tribes during the formation of the nation to be restored.
A number of conservative social media platforms with an audience in the hundreds of thousands have guided their followers to refuse to further patronize the brand from Vermont. This came after the company initiated the Independence Day celebration with an article championing the ‘Land Back Movement’.
The ‘Land Back Movement’ advocates for several initiatives, including the transferring of the governance over landmarks such as Mount Rushmore and the rest of the Black Hills situated in South Dakota to Native American communities.
This request stirred up emotions within the conservative demographic. Adversitely, some consumers are beginning to question whether their favorite brands should focus on social causes, as opposed to concentrating solely on their primary business, which is providing exceptional customer service.
Receive a FREE Gift for Subscribing to the Newsletter!
This sentiment is reminiscent of the ‘Bud Light scenario’, which highlighted the expanding trend of boycotting brands that prioritize political and social statements over consumer experience.
In such incidents, these brands leverage their commercial resources to further their commitments to societal causes—however, this doesn’t always sit well with all segments of their customer base.
The call to boycott is not merely rhetoric, as demonstrated by the Bud Light experience. Once dubbed ‘America’s #1 Beer’, Bud Light experienced a significant dip in national beer rankings. An even more staggering impact was seen in its financial performance, as the company saw billions in sales evaporate—a situation industry observers feel may never be fully recuperated.
Parallel instances of boycotts have emerged against corporations like Target, Kohl’s, and the LA Dodgers. These occurred in the backdrop of Pride Month, revealing profound disapproval from certain parts of society. T
he disdain was made evident through notable demonstrations and substantial financial setbacks due to decreased patronage.
The ripple effects of such boycotts stemming from conservative disapproval is undeniable. The umbrage taken against organizations that align themselves to support ‘progressive’ causes has shown to have a non-trivial impact on a company’s bottom line. At the heart of the matter is the silent resistance of this often-underestimated demographic.
The vigorous opposition against organizations viewed as ‘woke’ by the conservative demographic has drawn attention from various political figures. Amongst them was the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Trump not only noted these boycotts but publicly applauded them, giving them an unexpectedly significant platform.
These events are not just confined to consumer choices or political stances. They also reveal an interesting narrative as Republican presidential aspirants vie for recognition and support within an increasingly competitive political landscape.
This dynamic is poised to become even more complicated as we approach the forthcoming primary to challenge incumbent President Joe Biden.
These public boycotts have served as an unusual source of celebration for some Republican contenders. This unlikely source of joy has everything to do with the perceived alignment of these boycotts with conservative values. The sense of victory is derived from the observation that their conservative base is taking a stand against what they perceive to be over-politicization by corporations.
The actions undertaken by these ‘woke’ corporations underscore an interesting paradox. On one hand, they believe in leveraging their commercial resources to fuel positive societal change as per their interpretation.
On the other, they face pushback from consumers who feel that companies should primarily focus on their product or service offering.
This corporate activism trend can trigger significant unintended consequences, as witnessed in the case of the beer powerhouse Bud Light.
Their strong plunge from the top spot signals a profound disapproval from certain sectors of society. The great shock comes from the realization that these financial blows may be, in fact, irreversible.
Retail giants Target and Kohl’s, along with the LA Dodgers, have not been immune from this wave of disapproval. During Pride Month, their support for the cause was met with strong resistance in the form of boycotts and other forms of protests. The lasting impact was easily identifiable in the form of considerable revenue loss.
The effectiveness of the conservative pushback against such companies has surfaced as a powerful tool in the conservative arsenal. The active avoidance of ‘woke’ companies helps to solidify the conservative principles of some, while influencing the purchasing decisions of others. These economic protests present an understated, yet potent form of silent opposition.
It has been interesting to observe the inherently political nature of these boycotts. For example, the celebration of such mass actions by former President Trump reveals how economic disobedience can serve as a rallying call amongst conservatives.
These collective actions provide low-effort, high-impact tools in politically charged environments.
Above all, these boycotts illustrate the significant headwinds that may lie ahead as we approach the heavily contested presidential primary. Especially for those who intend to position themselves against President Joe Biden. Wherever one may stand on these issues, it’s clear that conservative backlash against ‘woke’ companies is an undeniably powerful force to be reckoned with.
Receive a FREE Gift for Subscribing to the Newsletter!