Listen to the article
Pepsi has recently launched its TV and billboard campaign in the Middle East with the slogan “Stay thirsty,” featuring some of the region’s top actors, singers and football players, including Amr Diab, Liverpool’s Mohamed Salah and Lebanese singer Nawal al-Zoghby. The Pepsi ad aired almost at the same time as Israel’s new massacre in Gaza’s southern city of Rafah. Boycotters quickly responded with a counter-campaign on social media, in which they used the symbol of the inverted red triangle, the watermelon and the slogan “Stay a loser, I’m not thirsty,” referring to the Pepsi ad. Some went after Salah, like Al Jazeera 360’s satirical news show “Alshabaka,” which targeted the footballer with a comedic skit, generating a divided response: some defended Salah while others praised the skit.
For Pepsi, the strategy is simple: focus on TV and billboard ads and let the boycotters do the rest of the campaigning on social media, this itself being free advertisement. The idea behind this strategy is that controversial content tends to grab people’s attention more effectively than content that is safe or conventional. It creates buzz, sparks debate, and generates curiosity, all of which can translate into increased viewership, readership or engagement. However, it’s important to note that this strategy can be risky. While controversy can attract attention, it can also alienate or offend certain segments of the audience, potentially damaging a brand’s reputation, like what happened with Bud Light in 2023.
However, Pepsi’s rival, Coca-Cola, seized the opportunity during a recent boycott movement to boldly promote their brand. In a moment that captured global attention, freed Hamas hostage Noa Argamani shared a heartfelt reunion with her father, sipping a Coca-Cola beverage in front of numerous cameras. The scene became viral, serving as both a free advertisement for Coca-Cola and a subtle declaration of “victory.” Whether viewed as a triumph or simply a touching family moment with a fizzy twist, in the realm of advertising, this is hailed as brilliant branded content. Media outlets worldwide jumped on the opportunity, describing the scene, the emotion and the iconic beverage, inadvertently promoting Coca-Cola free of charge. The Daily Mail wrote “Noa Argamani embraces and kisses her father after eight months of hell before enjoying a Coca-Cola and calls from Netanyahu.” Notice how they picked the word “enjoying”? Defending Coca-Cola now carries a political undertone, making this unexpected publicity a strategic win for the brand. In the end, what always matters in large corporations is their market capitalization. In Coca-Cola’s case, the company is currently valued at $274 billion, with its stock experiencing a marginal decrease of 0.05% this week.
So, is boycotting certain companies effective? Whether boycotting works or not can depend on various factors, including the nature of the boycott, the target company or entity, the strength and organization of the boycotters, and the broader social and economic context.
In some cases, boycotts have been successful in achieving their intended goals. Boycotts have been instrumental in bringing attention to human rights abuses, environmental concerns and unfair labor practices.
For example, in the 1990s, the sportswear giant Nike was plagued with damning reports that its global supply chain was being supported by child labor in places like Cambodia and Pakistan. Therefore, the company was forced to spend the next decade cleaning up its act in order to win back consumers.
Another example of an effective boycott in the past 50 years is the one against South African apartheid during the late 20th century. In response to the apartheid regime, the international community, including governments, organizations and activists, initiated a global boycott against South Africa. This boycott targeted various aspects of the country’s economy, including trade, investment and cultural exchange. Many multinational corporations faced pressure from consumers to divest from South Africa or cease doing business with the apartheid regime.
Moreover, boycotts have been instrumental in advancing civil rights and social justice causes. The Montgomery bus boycott, a mass protest against the bus system of Montgomery, Alabama, by civil rights activists and their supporters led to a 1956 United States Supreme Court decision declaring Montgomery’s segregation laws on buses unconstitutional.
In recent years, movements such as #BoycottNike and #BoycottUber have drawn attention to issues of racial inequality and workers’ rights.
However, the roots of boycotting can be traced back much further than contemporary movements. The term “boycott” itself originated in Ireland during the late 19th century, in response to a campaign of economic ostracism against a land agent named Charles Cunningham Boycott. As an agent for absentee landlords, the latter became the focal point of tenant grievances during the Irish Land War. In 1880, when he attempted to evict tenants who couldn’t pay their rent due to poor harvests, the local community responded by refusing to engage in any business or social interactions with him. This collective action, known as “boycotting,” effectively isolated Boycott and drew attention to the injustices faced by Irish tenants.
The concept of boycotts as a form of protest quickly gained traction beyond Ireland, resonating in various social and political movements around the world.
Throughout history, boycotts have been used as a means of expressing dissent and exerting pressure on governments, corporations and institutions.
In addition to their role in social and political activism, boycotts have also been employed as a tool of international diplomacy. In the digital age, boycott movements have gained unprecedented reach and influence, facilitated by social media platforms and online organizing tools.
As we navigate the complexities of modern society, boycotts are a consumer choice and they continue to serve as a powerful means of voicing dissent, promoting accountability and effecting change.
Boycotting is not inherently a Western tactic; it has been used by various cultures and societies throughout history. The Indian independence movement led by Mahatma Gandhi utilized boycotts as a central strategy to protest British colonial rule. Similarly, in South Africa, boycotts were pivotal in challenging the apartheid regime. Drawing parallels, some liken Israel’s policies to those of colonial states with apartheid systems.
The question remains: Will boycotting be effective in addressing these issues in the present day?
