How brands in the spotlight can navigate boycotts

Recently, large brands such as Bud Light and Target have been intensely scrutinized. They aimed to appeal to a broader customer base and be more inclusive, but instead triggered a backlash, primarily from conservative groups.

These groups took to social media to express their disapproval, leading to a widespread boycott of Bud Light products and forcing Target to adjust its product offerings. This backlash presented a multi-faceted and delicate challenge to the brands, testing their resilience and strategic response capabilities.

The significance of consumer sentiment in the current market landscape is unquestionable — it holds the potential either to catapult a brand to success or to plunge it into crisis. The fluid nature of public opinion, shaped by many social and digital platforms, can create a ripple effect that brands must navigate carefully.

Take Starbucks, for example. In 2018, it faced a potential boycott following a racially charged incident at one of its stores. The company, however, managed to mitigate this crisis by swiftly acknowledging the issue and demonstrating its commitment to change, even closing all stores for a day of racial-bias education.

Conversely, H&M, when hit with a boycott due to a racially insensitive advertisement that same year, faced severe backlash, primarily due to its delayed and inadequate response. This striking dichotomy underlines the influential role of consumer sentiment and the critical need for brands to remain attuned to public opinion. By doing so, they can steer through controversies, fortify their brand standing, and solidify consumer loyalty.

When boycotts occur, companies can find themselves in a difficult position. Cutting ties with a contentious entity may not be a viable solution if it holds a critical role in the company’s operations or brand identity. For example, Bud Light’s partnership with Mulvaney aimed to connect with a specific demographic but resulted in a sharp decline in sales and the departure of key marketing executives.

Our research on boycotts shows that maintaining the company’s legitimacy becomes paramount for brands in such turbulent times. Once this legitimacy is called into question, consumers may second-guess their purchasing decisions, significantly affecting the company’s profitability. Hence, companies must employ strategies to repair their tarnished legitimacy and foster a more robust and resilient brand perception. That is no easy feat, as one wrong turn can worsen the divide between a brand and its customers.

When a boycott occurs, companies have several ways to respond, from directly addressing the contentious issue head-on to diverting attention away from it. However, the success of a particular strategy depends on the extent of consumer awareness of the boycott and the frequency of their exposure to it.

In Bud Light’s case, where the consumer awareness of the boycott is high, it would be counterproductive to confront the issue directly. The brand would only risk intensifying the protest and amplifying the impact on the company’s sales. Rather than engage in this, the company should work toward showcasing its positive attributes. For instance, Bud Light could participate in community outreach activities or contribute to charitable causes that resonate with its broader customer base. This strategy diverts attention from the contentious issue while reinforcing Bud Light’s commitment to effecting positive social change.

As the initial shock of the boycott wanes, the controversy’s impact may begin to dwindle due to a phenomenon known as consumer desensitization. Repeated exposure to the same issue can numb consumers’ emotional responsiveness. At this point, brands should take a more proactive stance, directly addressing the boycott and persuading consumers not to participate. This could entail releasing statements across their social media platforms and other communication channels expressing an understanding of the consumers’ concerns, outlining the remedial steps taken, and reaffirming their commitment to their values.

Some might argue that transparency should take precedence, suggesting a direct approach. While openness is essential, the timing of this approach matters. Engaging the issue prematurely may only end up fueling the boycott. Critics might also point to the reactive nature of the strategies, advocating instead for proactive prevention. Yet the unpredictability of today’s market dynamic means that controversies can arise unexpectedly, even with the best preventive measures in place.

Finally, skeptics might perceive these strategies as attempts to sidestep responsibility or manipulative tactics. However, these strategies are not about evasion or manipulation. They’re about effective crisis management and the genuine resolution of the issues at the heart of the boycott.

In an era of hyper-connectivity, consumer sentiment can rapidly fluctuate, and boycotts can surface overnight. Companies like Bud Light and Target must monitor their efforts frequently. Constant vigilance allows them to gauge their current standing with consumers, foresee potential issues, and design suitable responses to maintain or restore brand reputation. This not only helps brave any storm that arises from boycotts but also presents an opportunity to bolster the brand and reinforce authentic consumer relationships.  

Ahmad Al Asady is an assistant professor of management, a Challey Institute faculty scholar, and a Center for Entrepreneurship and Family Business research fellow at North Dakota State University. Chris Groening is an associate professor of marketing and department chair of marketing and entrepreneurship at Kent State University’s Ambassador Crawford College of Business and Entrepreneurship.