STRATEGIC GUIDELINES FOR RESPONDING

TO CONSUMER BOYCOTTS

Dennis E. Garrett
College of Business Administration

University of Oklahoma
Norman, Oklahoma

Introduction

Although consumer boycotts have been used as a protest vehicle for cen-
turies [18], the past decade has proven to be an era of exceptional boycott
activity. The frequency of boycott usage has increased in recent years [11],
and boycotts are now being used by protest groups from both ends of the
political spectrum [13]. For example, liberals have recently used boycotts to
protest the inclusion of meat products on restaurants' menus, the purchasing
of coffee beans from allegedly repressive foreign governments, the marketing
of war toys, and the manufacture of nuclear weapons components. To ad-
vance their causes,. conservatives have employed boycotts recently to protest
the allegedly pro-abortion content of magazines, the sexual and violent pro..,
gramming on television, the staging of a play satirizing Catholicism, and the
sale of adult magazines in convenience stores.

What many business managers fail to realize is that almost any business
can be the target of a boycott. The following well-known companies have
all been the targets of boycotts during the 1980's: American Broadcasting
Company, Anheuser-Busch, Burger King, Chicago Sun-Times Newspaper,
Coca-Cola, Coors Brewing, Dow Chemical, Folger's Coffee, General Electric,
General Foods, Hasbro Industries, Macmillan Publishing, Marriott Hotels,
McDonalds, Mellon Bank, National BrQadcasting Company, Nestle, Scott
Paper, SmithKline Beckman Pharmaceuticals, Southland Corporation, and
Union Carbide. In addition, consumer boycotts have also been directed at
many smaller businesses that operate on a local or regional basis.

Literature Review

Consumer boycotts have received attention in a variety of academic dis-
ciplines, including sociology ([4], [14], [17], [23], [24]), consumer affairs ([8],
[10], [20]), psychology [19], and economics ([5]' [26]). The bulk ofthis research
has focused on explaining why consumers choose to support a boycott. These
scholars have hypothesized that a consumer's decision to support a boycott
is dependent on factors such as the consumer's general attitude toward social

Journal of Busineu Strategies, Volume 4, Number 2 (Fall 1987)

48



protest actions, the consumer's attitude toward the specific issue involved in
the boycott, the cost to the consumer to participate in the boycott, the so-
cial pressure placed upon the consumer to participate, and the consumer's
perception of the credibility of the boycott's leaders.

More recently, some research has considered the strategic actions employed
by boycotting groups to maximize the effectiveness of their boycotts [12].
Also, some attention has been directed at the recent Nestles boycott in which
a coalition of groups protested the company's marketing of infant formula in
Third World countries [25].

One critical area that previous research has generally neglected is the
strategic actions that the targets of boycotts should utilize to protect their
interests. The previous research, with its emphasis on the boycotting groups'
perspective, has failed to evaluate the position of the targets of boycotts.
The only exception is a recent article in which a Nestle official described his
company's handling of the baby formula dispute [21]. No prior research has
sought to interview a broad range of corporate managers who have experienced
the effects of boycotts directed at their organizations. As a result, little is
known about how corporate managers have attempted to respond when their
organizations have been the targets of boycotts.

This paucity of research is unfortunate because much has been written
lately about the need for corporate executives to manage effectively their
relevant environments ([16], [30]). A consumer boycott is clearly an environ-
mental force that deserves attention. Corporate managers who fail to respond
in an appropriate manner to consumer boycotts may jeopardize the viability
of their organization's disputed business practices and thereby adversely affect
organizational productivity.

Purpose

Because boycotts are being increasingly used for a variety of liberal and
conservative causes against a broad range of national and local businesses,
business managers must be prepared to respond if they are suddenly con-
fronted with a consumer boycott. The purpose of this article is to suggest
strategic guidelines that business managers could utilize to respond effectively
and efficiently when their organization becomes the target of a consumer boy-
cott.

Conceptual Framework

Although the specific subject of managerial strategies for responding to
consumer boycotts has not been extensively studied, the broad subject of how
business managers should respond to environmental trauma has been studied
from three related perspectives-the consumerism perspective, the consumer
information processing perspective, and the crisis management perspective.

The consumerism perspective has considered what stance managers should
adopt when consumers, whether acting individually or as organized pressure

49



groups, complain about or seek to influence the operations of a business.
Recent research in the consumerism area has suggested that conflict is often
exacerbated by the differing perceptions held by managers and consumers ([9L
[27]), effective communications is crucial to the resolution of consumer com-
plaining [28], and managers may adopt either a proactive or reactive posture
in response to consumerism pressure [2].

The consumer information processing perspective has attempted to utilize
information processing theory [1] to evaluate the optimal strategies to modify
con~umer beliefs about an organization. For example, Tybout, Calder, and
Sternthal [29] recently demonstrated in a laboratory experiment that false
rumors regarding a business' marketing policies can be mitigated using infor-
mation retrieval and storage strategies.

Finally, the crisis management perspective has concentrated on the im-
portance of organizational planning and managerial responsiveness to crises
or disasters. Particular emphasis has been placed recently on the need for all
organizations to develop strategic response plans for a variety of disaster sce-
narios [7] and the importance of managing "aftershocks" that occur following
the initial crisis [22].

In summary, these three perspectives suggest that businesses' ability to
manage environmental trauma is influenced by factors such as perceptions
of the adversaries, communications between the adversaries, information pro-
cessing by consumers, and managerial preparedness for crises. These three
perspectives offer a framework for studying boycotts that is particularly help-
ful for the development of questions used in the data collection interviews in
this study.

Methodology

To identify consumer boycotts to include in this study, sixteen newspaper
and periodical indices were reviewed for their entries under "Boycotts." A
boycott was selected if it met all of the following criteria:

1. The boycott was active during the period of January 1, 1981 to Decem-
ber 31, 1984. Boycotts prior to 1981 were not included because pretest
interviews indicated that respondents encountered recall problems due
to the elapsed time.

2. The boycott focused on consumer issues regarding product quality, pric-
ing, promotion policies, distribution arrangements, etc. Boycotts asso-
ciated with labor strikes were not included because of the problems
involved with separating the effects of the boycott and the strike.

3. The boycott was based primarily in the United States or Canada. Lan-
guage problems and data collection costs prevented consideration of
boycotts based in other countries.

50



This review yielded 38 reported consumer boycotts which met these se-
lection criteria. Of this set, five boycotts were removed because efforts to
identify the current location of the boycotting group were unsuccessful. Also,
three more boycotts w.ere dropped because the target managers and boycott
leaders indicated that the news media had incorrectly reported the occurrence
of a boycott. Thus, 30 identifiable and confirmed boycotts were included in
the final set.

Using the factors suggested by the consumerism, consumer information
processing, and crisis management perspectives in the conceptual framework,
a series of open-ended questions was constructed. These questions were
pretested on a set of three labor relations boycotts to ensure content va-
lidity. The following questions were included in the final interviewing guide
for boycott targets:

1. What were the protesting group's complaints against your organization?

2. What was your attitude toward these complaints?

3. Did you make any of the changes sought by the protesting group?

4. Did the boycott create any problems for your organization?

5. What did the protesting group do to promote the boycott?

6. How did your organization respond to the boycott?

7. What advice would you give to other organizations that become the
targets of boycotts?

Probing questions were used to encourage respondents to provide greater
detail in their answers to the seven basic questions listed above. The wording
of the questions was modified accordingly for the interviews with the boycott
leaders.

Efforts were made to conduct telephone interviews with respondents from
both the targets of the boycotts and the organizations promoting the boycotts.
This is the first research study in the boycott area to obtain information from
both parties involved in boycotts. In all interviews, preliminary questions were
asked to identify and locate the person in each organization most qualified to
answer questions regarding the boycott. The telephone interviews lasted on
average approximately 25 minutes. To encourage respondent cooperation and
candor, the respondents were guaranteed anonymity.

The interview completion rate was 77% for boycott targets (23 of 30)
and 80% for boycott leaders (24 of 30). The most common reason given for
noncooperation was the lack of time to complete the interview. Given the
highly sensitive nature of most boycott situations, this completion rate was
encouragmg.

51



Analysis

The recent methodological literature regarding business research suggests
that qualitative analysis should be employed in the early stages of conceptual
development ([3]' [6]' [15]). Because this is the first broad-based study to
consider the strategies that companies should employ as targets of boycotts,
a qualitative analysis was considered the most appropriate approach. The
strategic guidelines outlined in Figure 1 and discussed in the remainder of this
paper evolve from the qualitative analysis and are illustrated with supporting
comments from the interview respondents.

Figure 1
Strategic Guidelines

1. Corporate managers must realize that any organization could
be the target of a consumer boycott.

2. Corporate managers should listen attentively to dissatisfied
groups in their environment.

3. Corporate managers should adopt a responsive, non-defensive
posture for legitimate complaints raised by dissatisfied groups.

4. Corporate managers should be prepared to utilize the news
media as a strategic weapon.

5. Corporate managers should be prepared to rally support
among their constituents.

Strategic Guidelines

As summarized in Figure 1, five prominent themes emerged in the in-
terviews that are of direct strategic importance to corporate managers who
might be confronted with a consumer boycott:

1. Corporate managers must realize that any organization could
be the target of a consumer boycott. Many target respondents in this
study remarked on the need for all businesses to be aWare that they could
face a crisis situation if they become the target of a boycott. They advocated
that all organizations should adopt contingency response plans even though a
consumer boycott may not appear to be imminent. Based on their often harsh
experiences, they realized that it is much more difficult to react effectively to
a boycott if prior strategic planning has not been prepared:

Any business should not be surprised if this happens to them. First
you ask, 'Why us?' And sometimes it defies logic to understand.
But you have to be prepared for something like this.

We now have a crisis communications plan in place. We hired a
consulting firm.... We now know better how to respond to the

52



media in a crisis. Before it was just by the seat of oUI pants....
Every organization should be prepared with crisis planning (for
boycotts).

If you are hit by a boycott and you have to turn to someone
else for advice, you are in bad shape. You should monitor the
environment and be prepared for this .... We were not surprised.
We had contingency plans already prepared.

2. Corporate managers should listen attentively to dissatisfied
groups in their environment. Every business will at some time insti-
tute policies that offend certain groups. If a group of concerned citizens finds
that a business practice is offensive to them, they will usually first try to
contact the business and express their dissatisfaction. The boycott leaders
interviewed for this study often indicated that the only reason they resorted
to using a boycott was because the managers of the target companies refused
to listen and respond in a timely manner to their complaints:

(A boycott) was oUI only option. We had tried everything else.
We had written to (the companY)l but they wouldn't listen....
We decided enough is enough.

It is not our policy to boycott. We would rather deal with them
from a different way. We would rather negotiate and reach a rea-
sonable solution.... There was some trouble with communication.
They were not listening as well as they should have (to our com-
plaints).

This pivotal role of communication was also recognized by many boycott
target managers. They stressed the importance of listening to complaints
registered by groups in the environment. Also, beyond this recognition of
dissatisfaction, the managers suggested that companies should be willing to
explain their positions on these controversial issues so that the disagreement
with the concerned group can be resolved or at least minimized:

You have to find out, 'What is their beef?' Then you have to try to
deal with it and clean up any miscommunication. See what their
problem is before you act. You can defuse a problem by getting
information out.

Be sure there is an understanding of views and positions. . .. Com-
munication is good as long as there is a sincerity of interest ....
There is some risk in communication, but (OUI company) has main-
tained an open disclosure policy.

3. Corporate managers should adopt a responsive, non-defensive
posture for legitimate complaints raised by dissatisfied groups. Both

53



business managers and boycott leaders stated that boycotts can become bat-
tles of egos if corporate leaders respond defensively to complaints. For exam-
ple, one boycott leader described the intense feelings of corporate management
in her dispute:

The chairman (of the company) said, when I was testifying at a
hearing (regarding the dispute), 'That is one of the most (expletive
deleted) economic statements I ever heard!' He was ready to attack
me physically. He had his finger at my nose.

The emotional stress created by boycotts was also acknowledged by some
corporate managers:

Don't take (the boycott) personally. Boycotts create a great deal
of stress but you cannot afford to take it personally.

When the complaints raised by the concerned group are legitimate, cor-
porate managers should clearly explain how and when they plan to modify
these improper practices. The stubborn refusal to alter obviously incorrect
corporate policies only invites the imposition of a consumer boycott which
may cost the company dearly in the long lUn, as these managers explained:

Be realistic .... Realize what it may ultimately cost you and then
ask yourself if you are willing to pay this price (to defend your
policies).

Make sure the company is committed to the business practice that
is under attack. If this is a questionable business practice, it is
harder to defend against these attacks.

You should never ignore the wishes of your customers. Meet with
them to hear their views and to explain your position. If you are
wrong, you should beat a hasty retreat.

4. Corporate managers should be prepared to utilize the news me-
dia as a strategic weapon. In many situations the company will conclude
that the protesting group's complaints are not legitimate and no reasonable
compromise is attainable. In these cases the company must pursue defensive
strategies that allow the maintenance of these disputed practices while the
costs to the company of the consumer boycott are minimized.

When these situations arise, corporate managers who are experienced boy-
cott veterans stressed the importance of conveying the company's position in
the media. They stressed that, if the company's views are not transmitted in
the media, the boycott organizers will dominate the information the public
receIves III the dispute and thereby encourage more consumers to join the
boycott:

54



In the beginning we were quite passive. But after the (boycott)
group issued blatant misrepresentations, we became more aggres-
sive in our response. Now, more newspaper editors and consumers
are more acceptant of our position.

We had a contingency plan. We knew what our response would
be. . .. We knew which reporters in New York and Washington
would cover this dispute.... After (the boycott leaders') news
conference announcing the boycott, we called up those reporters
and offered our views.

Try to be more evident about what you are doing to help the
problem (that is the subject of the boycott). We never before
bragged about or issued press releases about what we did in these
areas. But now we do.

5. Corporate managers should be prepared to rally support among
their constituents. Consumer boycotts can generate broad repercussions for
the target company. The corporate managers emphasized the importance of
sharing information and coordinating boycott strategy with associated busi-
ness units, such as distributors, retailers, franchisees, suppliers, and adver-
tisers. If the boycott target refuses to share information with its business
partners, rumors and misinformation will flourish and compound the target's
problems:

Lobby quietly among your members to try to maintain unity ....
Quickly respond in a positive way before the psychological pressure
of the boycott has a domino effect.

The best thing you can do is to avoid the impulse to not share in-
formation with your constituency. Some people here felt we should
be selective in disseminating information to our constituency. But
I argued that we should present our view.

You need to mobilize your facts to deal with the inaccuracies put
out by the other side.... You need to pass along these facts to
your local people.

Discussion

The strategic suggestions offered by the experienced managers were in
many respects highly similar to factors suggested by scholars writing in the
consumerism, information processing, and crisis management literatures. For
example, the managers in this study highlighted the critical importance of
organizational preparedness (crisis management perspective), the pivotal role
played by effective communication (information processing perspective), and
the impact of differing perceptions of reality (consumerism perspective).

However, these managers also brought out other variables that generally
have been overlooked in the existing literature. For instance, they placed

55



special emphasis on the role of communication with and through the news
media, instead of communication just with the immediate group of protesters.
Also, they stressed the need to coordinate strategy with constituents, such as
channel members, advertisers, and banking institutions.

Because the managerial perspective on boycotts has received little atten-
tion, additional research is still required. Based on the results of this study,
potential future research topics could include:

1. How do constituents respond when they discover that an organization
is the target of a boycott? How can a target organization maximize
constituent support and minimize constituent costs during the boycott?

2. What are the most effective tactics for dealing with the news media and
maximizing favorable press coverage?

3. Instead of merely listening to complaints raised by dissatisfied groups
in the environment, what can organizations do to review and modify
business practices before they instigate dissatisfaction? Is the use of
consumer advisory panels a sufficient solution?

Conclusion

Consumer boycotts are environmental forces that cannot be ignored by
prudent corporate managers. As stated by the respondents in this study, the
failure to develop strategic guidelines for responding to consumer boycotts
may cause corporate managers to utilize ineffective and inefficient actions that
only exacerbate their problems when they actually face a boycott. However,
if a well-conceived strategic response plan is implemented, a potential boycott
target may be able to minimize dissatisfaction from consumer groups and, in
turn, maximize corporate productivity.

References

1. Bettman, James R. An Information Processing Theory of Consumer
Choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979.

2. Bloom, Paul N. and Greyser, Stephen A. "The Maturing of Consumer-
ism." Harvard Business Review, November-December 1981, pp. 130-
139.

3. Bonoma, Thomas V. "Case Research in Marketing: Opportunities,
Problems, and a Process." Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 22, May
1985, pp. 199-208.

4. Clark, Kenneth B. Dark Ghetto: Dilemmas of Social Power. New York,
NY: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1965.

56



5. DeCrespigny, A.R.C. and McKinnell, R.T. "The Nature and Significance
of Economic Boycott." The South African Journal of Economics, vol.
28, no. 4, December 1960, pp. 319-336.

6. Deshpande, Rohit. "Paradigms Lost: On Theory and Method in Re-
search in Marketing." Journal of Marketing, vol. 47, Fall 1983, pp.
101-110.

7. Dilenscheider, R.L. and Hyde, Richard C. "Crisis in Communic,ations:
Planning for the Unplanned." Business Horizons, January-February
1985, pp. 35-38.

8. Forbes, James D. "Organizational and Political Dimensions of Consumer
Pressure Groups." Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 8, June 1985, pp.
105-131.

9. Fornell , Claes and Westbrook, Robert A. "The Vicious Circle of Con-
sumer Complaints." Journal of Marketing, vol. 48, Summer 1984, pp.
68-78.

10. Friedman, Monroe. "The 1966 Consumer Protest as Seen by Its Lead-
ers." The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Summer 1971, pp. 1-23.

11. "Consumer Boycotts." Proceedings of the American
Council on Consumer Interests, 1982, pp. 96-97.

12. . "Consumer Boycotts in the United States, 1970-1980:
Contemporary Events in Historical Perspective." The Journal of Con-
sumer Affairs, vol. 19, Summer 1985, pp. 96-117.

13. Garrett, Dennis E. "Consumer Boycotts: Are Targets Always the Bad
Guys?" Business and Society Review, vol. 58, Summer 1986, pp. 17-21.

14. Hines, Ralph H. and Pierce, James E. "Negro Leadership After the
Social Crisis: An Analysis of Leadership Changes in Montgomery, Al-
abama." Phylon, vol. 24, no. 2, Summer 1965, pp. 162-172.

15. Hirschman, Elizabeth C. "Humanistic Inquiry in Marketing Research:
Philosophy, Method, and Criteria." Journal of Marketing Research, vol.
23, August 1986, pp. 237-249.

16. Hutt, Michael D., Michael P. Mokwa, and Stanley J. Shapiro. "The
Politics of Marketing: Analyzing the Parallel Political Marketplace."
Journal of Marketing, vol. 50, January 1986, pp. 40-51.

17. Jackson, J acquelyne J. "Two Black Boycotts: A Contrast of Success and
Failure." Afro-American Studies, vol. 2, September 1971, pp. 87-94.

18. Laidler, Harry W. Boycotts and the Labor Struggle. New York, NY:
Russell & Russell, 1913.

57



19. Mahoney, John. "The Relation of Anticipated Effectiveness, Alienation,
and Value Structure to Planned Participation in a National Meat Boy-
cott." Psychology, vol. 13, May 1976, pp. 39-47.

20. Miller, Kenneth E. and Sturdivant, Frederick D. "Consumer Responses
to Socially Questionable Corporate Behavior: An Empirical Test."
Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 4, June 1977, pp. 1-7.

21. Pagan, Rafael D., Jr. "The Nestle Boycott: Implications for Strategic
Business Planning." The Journal of Business Strategy, Spring 1986, pp.
12-18.

22. Phelps, Norman L. "Setting Up a Crisis Recovery Plan." The Journal
of Business Strategy, Spring 1986, pp. 5-10.

23. Petrof, John V. "The Effect of Student Boycotts Upon the Purchasing
Habits of Negro Families in Atlanta, Georgia." Phylon, vol. 24, no. 3,
Fall 1963, pp. 266-270.

24. Phillips, W.M., Jr. "The Boycott: A Negro Community in Conflict."
Phylon, vol. 22, no. 1, Spring 1961, pp. 24-30.

25. Post, James E. "Assessing the Nestle Boycott: Corporate Accountability
and Human Rights." California Management Review, vol. 27, Winter
1985, pp. 113-131.

26. Rea, Samuel A., Jr. "The Economics of a Consumer Boycott." Journal
of Economics and Business, vol. 27, no. 1, Fall 1974, pp. 89-92.

27. Resnik, Alan J. and Harmon, Robert R. "Consumer Complaints and
Managerial Response: A Holistic Response." Journal of Marketing, vol.
47, Winter 1983, pp. 86-97.

28. Richins, Marsha L. "Negative Word-of-Mouth by Dissatisfied Consu-
mers: A Pilot Study." Journal of Marketing, vol. 47, Winter 1983, pp.
68-78.

29. Tybout, Alice M., Bobby J. Calder, and Brian Sternthal. "Using Infor-
mation Processing Theory to Design Marketing Strategies." Journal of
Marketing Research, vol. 18, February 1981, pp. 73-79.

30. Zeithaml, Carl P. and Zeithaml, Valarie A. "Environmental Manage-
ment: Revising the Marketing Perspective." Journal of Marketing, vol.
48, Spring 1984, pp. 46-53.

58


	Strategic Guidelines for Responding to Consumer Boycotts