Business Horizons (2021) 64, 611e620

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
w w w. j o u r n a l s . e l s e v i e r. c o m / b u s i n e s s - h o r i z o n s

Why do boycotts sometimes increase

sales? Consumer activism in the age of
political polarization
Michael Neureiter*, C.B. Bhattacharya

Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, 3950 Roberto

Clemente Dr., Pittsburgh, PA 15260, U.S.A.

KEYWORDS Abstract In this article, we argue that the occurrence, trajectory, and impact of con-
Consumer activism; sumer activism are in large part driven by the political environment in which firms operate,
Consumer behavior; particularly by their country’s level of polarization and the political makeup of their core
Boycotts; customer base. In environments characterized by low levels of political polarization, com-
Buycotts; panies are embroiled in a relatively small number of political controversies, and as a result
Political polarization are rarely the target of consumer activism. Conversely, in highly polarized environments,
people’s political sensibilities are easily offended, which leads to a relatively large number
of political controversies. These controversies tend to arise along party lines, meaning they
elicit a consumer boycott exclusively from one side of the political spectrum. Such partisan
boycotts lead people on the other side of the political spectrum to rally around the company
at the center of the controversy and to purchase more of its products. Whether a company’s
sales end up decreasing or increasing depends on the nature of the issue at the heart of the
controversy as well as on the political beliefs of its core customer base. We conclude by
describing how companies can successfully navigate this complex interplay between politi-
cal polarization, consumer activism, and customers’ political preferences.
ª 2021 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights
reserved.

1. Consumer activism: Definition, two primary forms of consumer activism: boycotts

examples, and effects and buycotts (Neilson, 2010). The former are
defined as coordinated efforts by consumers to
1.1. Forms of consumer activism: Boycotts withdraw from commercial relations with com-
and buycotts panies as a punishment for undesirable behavior;
conversely, the latter are described as organized
Consumers increasingly use activist strategies to attempts by consumers to reward businesses for
influence firm behavior (Tomlin, 2019). There are favorable behavior via increased purchases
(Neilson, 2010). Surveys consistently show that
* Corresponding author large numbers of consumers engage in such activist
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Neureiter), cb@pitt.
edu (C.B. Bhattacharya)
strategies. For example, a recent survey

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.025
0007-6813/ª 2021 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
612 M. Neureiter, C.B. Bhattacharya

conducted in the United States suggests that on progressives to support the company by pur-
roughly one third of U.S. millennials and Gen Xers chasing more of its products. Nike’s customer base
participated in at least one boycott during 2018 has long skewed liberal, and as a result the com-
(Ruff, 2019). Similarly, two representative surveys pany’s liberal supporters found it much easier to
conducted in 2016 revealed that 22% of U.S. adults mobilize in large numbers than its conservative
participated in at least one buycott during the critics did. Consequently, the initial boycott was
previous year (Endres & Panagopoulos, 2017). outperformed by the ensuing buycott, and Nike
wound up benefitting from the controversy
1.2. Recent examples of consumer activism (Stillman, 2018).
In contrast to Nike, Dick’s Sporting Goods went
Recent examples of high-profile political contro- against the political leanings of the majority of its
versies include the public outcries over Nike customers when it picked up a progressive cause
featuring ex-NFL player and activist Colin Kae- and removed the AR15 and similar rifles from its
pernick in a 2018 ad campaign, and Dick’s Sporting Field & Stream stores, which cater to hunters.
Goods deciding to cease the sale of semiautomatic Conservative consumers, at the urging of the Na-
firearms in the aftermath of the 2018 Stoneman tional Rifle Association and right-wing political
Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida. commentators, started a large-scale boycott of
Both controversies were extensively covered by the the company. To show support for Dick’s decision,
media and led to widespread consumer boycotts, progressive consumers initiated a buycott with the
the goal of which was to inflict reputational and goal of offsetting the company’s losses from the
financial harm on the targeted firms. Interestingly, conservative boycott. But owing to the relatively
these two boycotts had vastly different outcomes. small size of Dick’s liberal customer segment, the
In the case of Nike, income increased by 10% and buycott was largely ineffective, and the company
stocks went up by 7% in the quarter following the ended up losing money (Cain & Feloni, 2019).
controversy surrounding the Kaepernick advertise-
ment (Carroll, 2018). One year after the ad 1.4. Summary of argument
campaign, Nike’s value had increased by more than
26 billion dollars (Robinson, 2019). In stark contrast, These examples are not isolated instances. During
Dick’s Sporting Goods’ CEO Ed Stack stated in 2019 our research for this article, which we will
that its overhauled gun policies cost the company a describe in more detail, we discovered many ex-
quarter of a billion dollars (Siegel, 2019). amples of political controversies that unfolded the
same way: In politically polarized environments,
1.3. Explaining differences in activism public reactions to corporate activities tend to
outcomes arise along party lines; firm behaviors that are
offensive to liberal sensibilities are viewed as un-
What explains this difference? Many conservatives problematic or even positively by conservatives,
have harbored negative feelings about Colin Kae- and vice versa.1 If the firm touches on a highly
pernick since the 2016 NFL preseason, when he salient issue (i.e., one that is culturally sensitive in
started kneeling during the national anthem to nature), the resulting controversy elicits a con-
protest racial injustice and police brutality, which sumer boycott exclusively from one side of the
they perceived as unpatriotic and disrespectful to political spectrum, which leads those on the other
veterans. When Nike released its new Just Do It ad side to rally around the company at the center of
campaign featuring Kaepernick in 2018, conserva- the controversy and to purchase more of its
tive consumers called for a boycott of the com- products. Whether the initial boycott or the
pany. Many conservatives took to social media to ensuing buycott gains more traction depends on
voice their discontent with Nike; within a few whether the stance taken by the company is
hours after the advertisement aired, the hashtags congruent with the political beliefs of the majority
#boycottnike and #burnyournikes were trending on of its customers. A visual summary of this
multiple social media platforms, including Twitter
and Instagram. Yet the boycott never gained much 1
Note that we do not claim that political polarization and
traction because conservatives make up a rela- customers’ political beliefs are the sole explanations for dif-
tively small segment of Nike’s customer base ferences in activism outcomes; other factors, such as prior
(Jordano, 2018; Marzilli, 2018). In addition, calls reputation or the nature of the controversy, may have played a
role as well. We only argue that variation in political environ-
by conservative activists, groups, and politicians to ments is one, albeit important, reason why the boycotts of Nike
boycott Nike were met with extensive counter- and Dick’s had opposite effects, and as such the phenomenon
mobilization efforts by liberal pundits, who called deserves further investigation.
Why do boycotts sometimes increase sales? 613

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

argument is provided in Figure 1. This article ex- women’s rights when it denied contraception
amines how companies can successfully navigate coverage to its female employees; this stand
these intricate political dynamics. We conclude by proved to be highly controversial and resulted in a
arguing that companies should not look to fuel large-scale consumer boycott as well as a pro-
political polarization for the sake of short-term tracted legal battle (O’Conner, 2014). Political
financial gains. controversies can also arise even when companies
do not intend to take a stand. For example, the
CEO of Goya Foods, Robert Unanue, likely did not
2. From firm critical event to political mean to engage in any kind of activism when he
controversy praised U.S. President Donald Trump in mid-2020,
yet his behavior drew widespread criticism and
As the previous section has shown, boycotts and resulted in a large-scale consumer boycott
buycotts often arise in response to a political con- (Brewster, 2020).
troversy. By political controversy, we mean publicly Interestingly, not all cases of CEO activism and
known firm behavior that violates the norms, potentially controversial firm behavior escalate into
values, or beliefs of a given society or a large media frenzies and large-scale consumer activism
segment thereof, such as engaging in child labor, (Vredenburg et al., 2020). For example, while
animal cruelty, or discriminatory hiring practices Robert Unanue of Goya Foods faced intense back-
(see Aouadi & Marsat, 2018, for a similar definition). lash from liberals for his public comments, other
Political controversies are distinct from negative CEOs who had recently expressed similar praise for
publicity more generally; while both involve Donald Trump, such as Alex Gorsky (Johnson &
changes in the public perception of a firm, negative Johnson), Ed Bastian (Delta Air Lines), and Ike
publicity lacks the normative and ethical dimension Perlmutter (Marvel Entertainment), drew much less
of political controversies. Poor product reviews are criticism (e.g., Serwer & Zahn, 2020). Research has
a prime example of negative publicity, as they can shown that political controversies are less likely to
harm a firm’s image without violating any normative escalate for firms that are smaller and less visible to
or ethical standard (e.g., Berger et al., 2010). the public eye (Aouadi & Marsat, 2018), are older
Political controversies are sparked by some and more established (Zhang et al., 2019), and have
form of critical event (Dorobantu et al., 2017). a more positive reputation to fall back on
Oftentimes, they are the result of CEO activism, (Dorobantu et al., 2017). In this study, we argue
which is defined as companies “taking public that there is another important factor that in-
stands on social and environmental issues that are fluences the occurrence, trajectory, and impact of
not directly related to their company’s core busi- political controversies and consumer activism that
ness” (Chatterji & Toffel, 2019, p. 159; see also has been overlooked by previous research: political
Hambrick & Wowak, 2019). An example is the U.S. polarization. In the following section, we explain
arts and crafts store Hobby Lobby, which in 2014 what political polarization is and how it affects the
took a public stand on religious freedom and United States and other countries.
614 M. Neureiter, C.B. Bhattacharya

3. Political polarization, controversies, Figure 2. Political polarization in the United States,

1994e2017
and issue salience

Over the past two decades, the term political

polarization has become near-ubiquitous in U.S.
and European media coverage, public discourse,
and social science research. But what exactly does
the term mean? In the political science literature,
political polarization is generally defined as both a
state and a process characterized by four di-
mensions (Fiorina & Abrams, 2008):

1. The dispersion of attitudes and values (i.e.,

when opinions and beliefs cluster around two
extreme positions, with relatively few moder-
ate views in between);

2. Politicization (i.e., when more issues become

political in nature);

3. The linkage of politics and identities (i.e.,

when political views are increasingly correlated
with demographic characteristics such as
ethnicity, education, and locality); and

4. Group-centric impulses (i.e., when in-group

identification and out-group hostility increase
along party lines).

Political polarization comes in levels, meaning that

some countries or regions are more polarized than
others. For example, our analysis of survey data in
19 European countries from 2002 to 2011 suggests
that countries like Cyprus, Greece, and Portugal representative surveys of the U.S. adult population
are characterized by a relatively low degree of using the same ten questions. These ten survey
polarization, while the Czech Republic and the items ask respondents whether they agree or
United Kingdom are among the most polarized disagree with statements about political values
countries in Europe.2 In addition, a single country such as racial justice, immigration, and environ-
or region can become more or less polarized over mental regulations. The results of these surveys
time. For instance, public-opinion data show that are summarized in Figure 2, provided by the Pew
the level of polarization in the United States was Research Center (2017); it shows that partisan
relatively low during the 1990s and early 2000s but differences in political values have grown sub-
has started to increase dramatically since the 2004 stantially since 2004, while differences along other
presidential election. Over the past 2.5 decades, fault lines, such as age, gender, and race, have
the Pew Research Center has regularly conducted remained relatively stable.
While political polarization entails the politici-
2
zation of various issues, not all of them are equally
To compare political polarization across European countries, controversial. In other words, even as an
we rely on the European Social Survey (ESS), which consists of
nationally representative surveys conducted across Europe increasing number of issues become politically
since 2002, using a common questionnaire. We follow recent contested, some of them are much more conten-
studies on political polarization in Europe (e.g., Down & Wilson, tious than others. In the United States, a term that
2010; Jaeger, 2009) and measure political polarization as the is often used in the context of political polariza-
variance in respondents’ support for government measures tion is culture wars, defined as a state in which
aimed at reducing income inequality within a country during a
given year. As this variance becomes greater, attitudes become
political disagreements are not the result of
more dispersed and the extent of division in public opinion mere differences in policy preferences but rather
within each country increases. arise from increasingly incompatible views on
Why do boycotts sometimes increase sales? 615

fundamental values (Jacoby, 2014). As a result, respondent has recently participated in a boycott
the issues that prove to be most salient in highly at different levels of political polarization, holding
polarized societies like the present-day United all other covariates constant at their mean. As
States are those associated with cultural conflict, polarization increases from its minimum value in
particularly diversity and minority rights, abortion our sample to its maximum value, an individual’s
and reproductive rights, religion and its place in likelihood of boycott participation increases from
society, patriotism and nationalism, and gun con- slightly more than 10% to almost 25%, a significant
trol (Melzer, 2009; Willick, 2018). Building on the difference.
culture wars literature, we argue that political As polarization increases, so generally do the
controversies arising from such cultural issues are number of political controversies and the level of
more likely to escalate and lead to more intense consumer activism. In highly polarized environ-
consumer activism than those stemming from ments, companies find themselves in a situation in
other kinds of issues, such as global warming, labor which consumers increasingly interpret and eval-
rights, and public health. In the following section, uate corporate communication and behavior
we elaborate how boycotts and buycotts unfold through a partisan lens. As a result, even seem-
differently depending on a society’s level of po- ingly uncontroversial statements and actions can
litical polarization, as well as on the salience of become politically contentious and lead to con-
the issue at the heart of the controversy. sumer boycotts; an example of these are the
recent controversies and boycotts resulting from
4. Boycotts and buycotts in polarized companies asking customers to wear face masks
because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic
environments (Garber, 2020). Whether or not they intend to,
companies are making a political statement simply
The degree to which a particular environment is
by following the advice of public health experts
polarized has important implications for the com-
and requiring in-store customers to cover their
panies operating in it. As stated above, one facet
faces. Given this development, it is not surprising
of political polarization is politicization, which is
that both political controversies and consumer
defined as the process of more subjects becoming
boycotts have become more frequent in recent
political in nature. If polarization is low, a rela-
years (Tomlin, 2019). Our sample data covering
tively small number of issues are, or become, po-
1,040 large, public U.S. companies show that be-
litical. In such environments, there is a broad
tween 2002 and 2006, there were an average of 41
societal consensus on most issues rather than them
political controversies per year; between 2007 and
being matters of contentious political opinion. As a
2011, this figure increased to an average of 89 per
result, firms are embroiled in a relatively small
year.4 In addition, as Figure 3 illustrates, the per-
number of controversies, as issues that are not
centage of sample companies embroiled in at least
viewed as political cannot offend consumers’ po-
one political controversy during a given year has
litical sensibilities. With few political contro-
increased from less than 10% in 2002 to almost 20%
versies occurring, the level of consumer activism is
in 2011.5
consequently also low. This argument is supported
Political polarization not only increases the
by our empirical analysis of public-opinion data in
level of consumer activism but also changes its
19 European countries between 2002 and 2011,
nature and trajectory by linking boycotts and
which shows that polarization significantly in-
creases individuals’ participation in boycotts even
4
when we control for a series of confounding vari- These data are provided by the Asset4 Environmental, So-
ables commonly mentioned in cross-national cial, and Governance (ESG) database from Thomson Reuters.
This data set includes information on whether a company has
studies on the causes of consumer activism (e.g.,
been under the spotlight of the media at some point during the
Yates, 2011; Zasuwa, 2019).3 Specifically, we year because of a controversy linked to: (1) activities in critical,
calculated the average probability that a survey undemocratic countries that do not respect fundamental human
rights, or to disrespecting the rights of indigenous people; (2)
3
The ESS includes a binary variable that measures whether a general human rights issues; (3) workforce diversity and op-
respondent has boycotted any products within the past twelve portunity; (4) its overall impact on the natural environment; (5)
months. We ran a logistic model in which we regressed this the environmental impact of its products or services; (6) the
binary measure of boycott participation on our measure of po- environmental impact of its operations on natural resources or
litical polarization (see Footnote 2 for details on this measure), local communities.
5
as well as a series of individual-level (age, sex, education, The spike in controversies during 2010 is likely related to the
employment status, political efficacy, social ties, urban vs. formation of the Tea Party movement in 2009, which made
rural living) and country-level (social trust, institutional trust, targeting companies an essential part of its strategy during its
cultural progressivism, economic mood) controls. early years (McMorris-Santoro, 2010).
616 M. Neureiter, C.B. Bhattacharya

Figure 3. Political controversies among U.S. com- United States, praising a politician was enough to
panies, 2002e2011 spark a consumer boycott as well as a subsequent
buycott. Even so, since the rhetoric of CEO Robert
Unanue did not directly touch on any issues asso-
ciated with cultural conflict, both the boycott and
the buycott fizzled out rather quickly once he
pushed back against the public criticism. As a
result, one month after the controversy, Goya
Foods’ financial performance had not changed
much in either direction because of the contro-
versy (Atkinson, 2020). Similarly, calls to boycott
Walmart in 2005 over its questionable labor prac-
tices, a noncultural issue, never translated into
sustained consumer activism, and as a result, the
company’s bottom line remained unchanged
(O’Connell, 2019). Conversely, the 2012 contro-
versy surrounding the fast-food chain Chick-fil-A
erupted from disagreements about foundational
valuesdreligious freedom and LGBT rightsdand
consequently, the boycott and the buycott of the
buycotts in a very specific way. As stated previ- company lasted several years (Graham, 2019).
ously, one dimension of political polarization is the
intensification of group-centric impulses; that is,
individuals become increasingly drawn to and 5. Political congruence: The importance
protective of those with similar political beliefs of consumers’ political preferences
while simultaneously becoming more hostile to-
ward those with different views. When a political While increasing polarization and variation in issue
controversy occurs and sparks a boycott by a salience explain the rising number and intensity of
particular political group, the boycott is likely to political controversies, boycotts, and buycotts, as
trigger a response in the form of a buycott among well as the longevity of consumer activism, they do
those on the other side of the political spectrum, not fully account for differences in consumer
for two reasons. First, because of the group- activism outcomes. As illustrated by the cases of
centric impulses inherent in political polariza- Nike and of Dick’s Sporting Goods, sometimes the
tion, a firm being boycotted by one political side initial boycott is more than made up for by the
will be perceived as a member of the in-group by ensuing buycott, while other times it is not. Both
those on the other side (Suhay, 2015), who will companies were at the center of a political con-
then come to support the firm and purchase more troversy in a highly polarized environment and
of its products. Second, political polarization and targeted by a conservative boycott, yet only one of
the out-group hostility it entails lead people to them was hurt financially by the controversy, while
reflexively oppose any action undertaken by those the other benefitted from it. The key to this dif-
on the other side of the political spectrum; in ference lies in what scholars have called political
other words, in polarized environments, political congruence; that is, the extent to which the po-
action is often motivated by an instinctive desire litical preferences of a company and its customers
to undermine and spite the out-group (Tappin & overlap (e.g., Croucher & Upchurch, 2012).
McKay, 2019). These group-centric impulses are Some companies and brands have a consumer
particularly relevant for highly salient issues, that base that is relatively balanced between conser-
is, those associated with cultural conflict. vatives and liberals, while others’ core customers
While political polarization makes controversies skew toward one side of the political spectrum.
more likely to occur and then to escalate into There are several reasons why a company or brand
large-scale boycotts and buycotts, low-salience may exhibit a politically skewed consumer base,
issues generally lack the motivating force to sus- one of them being that certain products are
tain consumer activism in the long term. For inherently more popular with particular political
example, the controversy surrounding Goya Foods groups. For example, since conservatives are more
would have been unlikely to occur in an environ- likely than liberals to buy hunting rifles, it follows
ment characterized by low polarization, but in a that a company that sells hunting rifles would
highly polarized country like the contemporary likely have a customer base that is mostly
Why do boycotts sometimes increase sales? 617

conservative. Similarly, companies can develop a of Target’s customers are liberal (Gronewold,
politically skewed customer base when the de- 2018; Matthews, 2016), the boycott was able to
mographics of their target audience are correlated reach into the store’s core customer base and
with certain political beliefs. For instance, Nike hurt Target’s sales. As a result, Target publicly
markets itself as a hip brand for a younger audi- apologized and completely overhauled its
ence; since younger individuals tend to be more approach to donations (Gura, 2010).
progressive, Nike’s customer base skews liberal In contrast, boycotts over political issues that
(Marzilli, 2018; Stillman, 2018). do not match the political beliefs of the core
Studies on consumer activism suggest that boy- customer base are unlikely to succeed; as such,
cotts only work if they can actually reach into a mismatched boycotts usually fail at mobilizing a
firm’s core customer base and cost sales. Because sufficiently large number of customers. Not only
of this, political congruence and consumer are mismatched boycotts ineffective, in polarized
activism are inextricably linked. When a com- environments they often end up benefitting the
pany’s customer base is largely made up of in- company at the center of the controversy. The
dividuals with particular political beliefs, then a reason is that in polarized environments, boycotts
boycott of that company can only be successful if are often met with larger buycotts by those on the
it appeals to those beliefs. Going back to our other side of the political aisle who make up the
introductory examples, Nike has a relatively lib- targeted company’s core customer base. This is
eral customer base and took a progressive stance what happened in the case of Nike in the after-
when it hired Colin Kaepernick and thereby math of the Kaepernick ad campaign. Another
signaled its commitment to racial justice, which example of a company that ended up making
led to the conservative boycott being thwarted by money from a failed boycott is Starbucks, which
the liberal buycott. In contrast, while Dick’s also has been the target of multiple unsuccessful con-
embraced a progressive cause in the form of gun servative boycotts since the late 2000s. One of the
control, it has a mainly conservative customer most prominent of these boycotts occurred in 2012
base, and as a result the conservative boycott and was led by the National Organization for Mar-
outperformed the liberal buycott. On the basis of riage, a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage.
these and other cases, we argue that in polarized This boycott led to a liberal buycott, resulting first
environments, the question how a political con- in the Starbuck’s Appreciation Day and, later, the
troversy will affect sales boils down to whether National Marriage Equality Day. There simply were
and to what extent the firm behavior that caused not enough conservative customers to make the
the controversy appeals to the political prefer- boycott hurt Starbucks, and the ensuing buycott by
ences of its core customers. liberals easily thwarted the initial boycott
(Palladino, 2012).
6. What this means for sales Likewise, there have been several failed liberal
boycotts in recent years that ended up benefitting the
When a company operating in a polarized envi- company. A prime example in this context is the fast-
ronment picks up a political cause that conflicts food chain Chick-fil-A. In 2012, Chick-fil-A’s CFO Dan
with the political beliefs of its core customer Cathy publicly stated his opposition to same-sex
base, the likely outcome is a relatively large marriage. The public scrutiny that followed this
boycott from the core customer base, followed statement revealed that the company had made
by a rather small buycott that ultimately de- numerous donations to anti-LGBT organizations and
creases the company’s sales. In the case of Dick’s potentially mistreated homosexual employees. When
Sporting Goods, its majority-conservative core LGBT rights activists and prominent liberal figures
customer base boycotted the company over its called for a boycott of the fast-food company, former
progressive stance on gun control. The liberal governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee and other con-
customer segment of Dick’s Sporting Goods was servative pundits declared August 1, 2012 as Chick-fil-
too small to mobilize in large enough numbers to A Appreciation Day. Through an intensive social
offset the losses from the conservative boycott. media campaign, awareness of Chick-fil-A Apprecia-
Another example of this dynamic playing out is tion Day spread quickly throughout the United States,
the retail giant Target. In 2010, the company was which led conservative consumers to flock to Chick-
the target of a boycott by liberals after it was fil-A in record numbers. Since the initial controversy,
discovered that it had donated money to anti- the restaurant chain has more than doubled its sales
LGBT groups and politicians. Since the majority (Chute, 2019).
618 M. Neureiter, C.B. Bhattacharya

7. Long-term vs. short-term education). Alternatively, a relatively small

considerations customer survey should suffice to shed light on this
question.
In this study, we have examined the relationships Given the success stories of companies such as
between political environments, consumer activism, Nike, Starbucks, and Chick-fil-A, business leaders
and sales by using both statistical analyses and may be tempted to take a stand that aligns with
illustrative examples. Table 1 provides an overview the political beliefs of their core customer base in
of the cases presented throughout the article. As the the hopes of creating a political controversy and
table illustrates, of the eight controversies we dis- sparking a buycott. In fact, it has become common
cussed, two (Goya Foods and Walmart) exhibited low wisdom in the marketing literature that under
levels of salience. Both controversies were charac- certain circumstances, getting involved in political
terized by an initially strong public reaction that issues is deemed good for a company’s reputation,
tapered off relatively quickly and had no significant customer loyalty, and bottom line (e.g., Chatterji
impact on sales. The six remaining controversies all & Toffel, 2019; Hambrick & Wowak, 2019). Some
stemmed from highly salient issues and, conse- pundits go so far as to suggest that polarization
quently, led to sustained partisan boycotts that were holds extraordinary economic opportunity for
met with buycotts by those on the other side of the businesses and that marketers should explicitly
political spectrum. When the stance taken by the appeal to consumers’ political beliefs to boost
company was congruent with the political prefer- sales (e.g., Jackson, 2019; Nakache, 2018;
ences of the company’s core customers, sales Steimer, 2019). But such a view neglects to
increased (Chick-fil-A, Hobby Lobby, Nike, Star- consider the societal consequences of firms
bucks); when it was not, sales decreased (Dick’s, engaging in partisan marketing and other political
Target). activities: While sparking a buycott may very well
Given the importance of political environments generate short-term profits, it likely also contrib-
for consumer activism and, ultimately, sales, firms utes to the increasing polarization of societies
need to carefully consider their country’s level of around the world (Pierson & Schickler, 2020).
political polarization as well as the political makeup Increased polarization has several negative con-
of their core customer base prior to taking a polit- sequences, including democratic decline, politi-
ical stance. This kind of information is relatively cally motivated violence, and long-term economic
easy to ascertain. As for the former, there are many loss (Avlon, 2019).
scholarly studies (e.g., Lindqvist & Östling, 2010) on In light of these severe repercussions, business
the state of political polarization in various coun- leaders should ponder the normative dimension of
tries. In addition, several publicly available surveys, their actions and think twice about whether and
such as the American National Election Studies how to take a stand on political issues. In addition
(ANES) and the European Social Survey (ESS), to its drawbacks for society, fueling polarization
include this kind of information. Certain surveys for the sake of short-term profits is likely also
even allow for a comparison of polarization levels detrimental to a firm’s long-term financial success,
within countries; for example, the Cooperative since the institutional instability resulting from
Congressional Election Studies (CCES) provide in- polarization is bad for business. As John Avlon
formation on polarization by congressional district. (2019), a senior political analyst at CNN, puts it:
As for the latter, firms may be able to infer the “Healing our divided nation is the defining chal-
political makeup of their customer base from their lenge of our time. Because nothing less than the
customer demographics (e.g., age, level of success of the American experiment is at stake.”

Table 1. Overview of cases

Firm Year Issue salience Boycott by Customer base Outcome
Chick-fil-A 2012 High Liberals Skews conservative Increase in sales
Dick’s Sporting Goods 2018 High Conservatives Skews conservative Decrease in sales
Goya Foods 2020 Low Liberals Unknown No significant change
Hobby Lobby 2014 High Liberals Skews conservative Increase in sales
Nike 2018 High Conservatives Skews liberal Increase in sales
Starbucks 2012 High Conservatives Skews liberal Increase in sales
Target 2010 High Liberals Skews liberal Decrease in sales
Walmart 2005 Low Liberals Skews conservative No significant change
Why do boycotts sometimes increase sales? 619

We do not suggest that businesses never get Cain, A., & Feloni, R. (2019, November 6). The CEO of Dick’s
involved in politics, since the environmental and weighs in on why ‘buycotts’ didn’t help out the sporting
goods retailer when it was getting slammed by the NRA.
social activities of companies have undoubtedly Business Insider. Available at https://www.businessinsider.
benefitted many. There are ways in which busi- in/politics/news/the-ceo-of-dicks-weighs-in-on-why-
nesses can take a stand on political issues while buycotts-didnt-help-out-the-sporting-goods-retailer-when-
minimizing the potentially polarizing effects of it-was-getting-slammed-by-the-nra/articleshow/71930859.
such actions. For example, building on Christophe cms
Carroll, C. (2018, December 22). Report: Nike sales rise despite
(2018), we suggest that companies should build Colin Kaepernick ad. Sports Illustrated. Available at
cohesive, long-term social strategies and embed https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/12/22/colin-kaepernick-
their political activities within those strategies nike-ad-campaign-sales
rather than haphazardly reacting to whichever Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2019). Assessing the impact of
political issue is currently dominating the news CEO activism. Organization and Environment, 32(2),
159e185.
cycle. One company that does this exceptionally Christophe, G. (2018, March 13). What can business do to
well is Patagonia (Blakely, 2018). Additional in- address social polarization? International Association of
sights can be gleaned from the literature on po- Business Communicators. Available at https://www.iabc.
litical communication (e.g., Patashnik, 2019), com/what-can-business-do-to-address-social-polarization/
which suggests that the prospect of backlash to a Chute, N. (2019, October 22). While critics have advocated for a
Chick-fil-A boycott, the fast-food chain has more than
political action can be minimized by gradually doubled its sales. Journal and Courier. Available at https://
building toward a certain cause over time instead www.jconline.com/story/news/2019/09/17/chickfila-
of abruptly jumping into the political fray. The starbucks-mcdonalds-boycott-lgbt-donations-fast-food-
broader point is that owing to its long-term nega- restaurant-purdue-university/2301619001/
tive effects on the economy and society in general, Croucher, R., & Upchurch, M. (2012). Political congruence: A
conceptual framework and historical case study. Labor His-
political polarization is not the business opportu- tory, 53(2), 205e223.
nity that some make it out to be. There is a lot that Dorobantu, S., Henisz, W. J., & Nartey, L. (2017). Not all sparks
companies candand shouldddo to ameliorate light a fire: Stakeholder and shareholder reactions to critical
polarization, such as taking a moderate position on events in contested markets. Administrative Science Quar-
certain political issues, trying to appeal to cus- terly, 62(3), 561e597.
Down, I., & Wilson, C. J. (2010). Opinion polarization and inter-
tomers with different political beliefs, and less- party competition in Europe. European Union Politics, 11(1),
ening economic inequality (Pierson & Schickler, 61e87.
2020). The future of democracy may very well Endres, K., & Panagopoulos, C. (2017). Boycotts, buycotts, and
depend on it. political consumerism in America. Research and Politics.
Available at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.
1177/2053168017738632
Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political polarization in the
References American public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11,
563e588.
Aouadi, A., & Marsat, S. (2018). Do ESG controversies matter for Garber, M. (2020, May 27). Refusing to wear a mask is an empty
firm value? Evidence from international data. Journal of act of defiance. The Atlantic. Available at https://www.
Business Ethics, 151, 1027e1047. theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/05/face-mask-
Atkinson, C. (2020, August 11). After Trump doubled down on videos-culture-wars-trump-logic/612139/
Goya, has it helped boost e or tank e sales of the Hispanic Graham, R. (2019, March 7). The uncanceling of Chick-fil-A. Slate.
brand? NBC News. Available at https://www.nbcnews.com/ Available at https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/03/
business/consumer/after-trump-doubled-down-goya-has-it- chick-fil-a-boycott-liberals-forgot-chicken-too-good.html
helped-boost-or-n1234743 Gronewold, A. (2018, January 25). Walmart vs. Target: A po-
Avlon, J. (2019, November 1). Polarization is poisoning America. litical divide among shoppers. Morning Consult. Available at
Here’s an antidote. CNN. Available at https://www.cnn. https://morningconsult.com/2018/01/25/walmart-vs-
com/2019/10/30/opinions/fractured-states-of-america- target-a-political-divide-among-shoppers/
polarization-is-killing-us-avlon/index.html Gura, D. (2010, August 4). Mad about corporate political do-
Berger, J., Sorensen, A. T., & Rasmussen, S. J. (2010). Positive nations, customers boycott Target, Best Buy. NPR. Available
effects of negative publicity: When negative reviews in- at https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/08/04/
crease sales. Marketing Science, 29(5), 815e827. 128974389/mad-about-corporate-political-donations-
Blakely, L. (2018). Patagonia’s unapologetically political strat- customers-boycott-target-best-buy
egy and the massive business it has built. Inc. Magazine. Hambrick, D. C., & Wowak, A. (2019). CEO sociopolitical
Available at https://www.inc.com/lindsay-blakely/ activism: A stakeholder alignment model. Academy of
patagonia-2018-company-of-the-year-nominee.html Management Review. Available at https://journals.aom.
Brewster, J. (2020, July 10). Calls to boycott explode after Goya org/doi/10.5465/amr.2018.0084
foods CEO praises Trump. Forbes. Available at https://www. Jackson, C. (2019, March 14). Why political views are an
forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/07/10/calls-to- essential marketing demographic. Ipsos. Available at
boycott-explode-after-goya-foods-ceo-praises-trump/ https://www.ipsos.com/en/why-political-views-are-
#59a980f02d22 essential-marketing-demographic
620 M. Neureiter, C.B. Bhattacharya

Jacoby, W. G. (2014). Is there a culture war? Conflicting value Pierson, P., & Schickler, E. (2020). Madison’s constitution under
structures in American public opinion. American Political stress: A developmental analysis of political polarization.
Science Review, 108(4), 754e771. Annual Review of Political Science, 23, 37e58.
Jaeger, M. M. (2009). United but divided: Welfare regimes and Robinson, C. (2019, November 21). Nike’s value is up $26.2B
the level of variance in public support for redistribution. since Colin Kaepernick endorsement. Now it’s close to
European Sociological Review, 25(6), 723e737. unveiling his shoe. Yahoo! Sports. Available at https://
Jordano, L. (2018, September 25). Social media analysis sports.yahoo.com/nikes-value-is-up-262-b-since-colin-kae-
shows Nike scored a major win with Kaepernick ad. pernick-endorsement-now-its-close-to-unveiling-his-shoe-
Entrepreneur. Available at https://www.entrepreneur. 150012824.html
com/article/320516 Ruff, C. (2019, February 1). A third of millennials joined a
Lindqvist, E., & Östling, R. (2010). Political polarization and the boycott last year. Retail Dive. Available at https://www.
size of government. American Political Science Review, retaildive.com/news/a-third-of-millennials-joined-a-
104(3), 543e565. boycott-last-year/547431/
Marzilli, T. (2018, September 5). Colin Kaepernick more popular Serwer, A., & Zahn, M. (2020, August 22). Here are the CEOs and
among Nike customers than with the general public. Today. companies that support Trump. and Biden. Yahoo! Life.
Available at https://today.yougov.com/topics/consumer/ Available at https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/the-ceos-
articles-reports/2018/09/05/colin-kaepernick-more- and-companies-that-support-trump-biden-115206109.html
popular-among-nike-customers Siegel, R. (2019, October 8). Dick’s Sporting Goods
Matthews, C. (2016, June 6). Here are the Fortune 500 com- CEO says company destroyed $5 million worth of guns
panies liberals and conservatives hate the most. Fortune. instead of returning them. Washington Post. Available at
Available at https://fortune.com/2016/06/06/fortune-500- https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/
conservatives-liberals-love-hate/ dicks-sporting-goods-ceo-says-overhauled-gun-policies-cost-
McMorris-Santoro, E. (2010, November 23). Tea Party group to company-quarter-billion-dollars/
corporations: Support Obama and we’ll take you down. Steimer, S. (2019, June 13). Sell to voters, not consumers.
Talking Points Memo. Available at https:// American Marketing Association. Available at https://www.
talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/tea-party-group-to- ama.org/marketing-news/sell-to-voters-not-consumers/
corporations-support-obama-and-we-ll-take-you-down Stillman, J. (2018, September 5). Here’s the data that proves
Melzer, S. (2009). Gun crusaders: The NRA’s culture war. New Nike’s Colin Kaepernick ad is seriously smart marketing. Inc.
York, NY: NYU Press. Magazine. Available at https://www.inc.com/jessica-
Nakache, P. (2018, November 7). Polarization is an opportunity stillman/heres-data-that-proves-nikes-colin-kaepernick-ad-
for mission-driven brands. Fast Company. Available at is-seriously-smart-marketing.html
https://www.fastcompany.com/90264170/polarization-is- Suhay, E. (2015). Explaining group influence: The role of iden-
an-opportunity-for-mission-driven-brands tity and emotion in political conformity and polarization.
Neilson, L. A. (2010). Boycott or buycott? Understanding polit- Political Behavior, 37(1), 221e251.
ical consumerism. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(3), Tappin, B. M., & McKay, R. T. (2019). Moral polarization and out-
214e227. party hostility in the US political context. Journal of Social
O’Connell, B. (2019, September 17). History of Walmart: and Political Psychology, 7(1), 213e245.
Timeline and facts. The Street. Available at https://www. Tomlin, K. M. (2019). Assessing the efficacy of consumer boy-
thestreet.com/markets/history-of-walmart-15092339 cotts of U.S. target firms: A shareholder wealth analysis.
O’Conner, C. (2014, July 3). Hobby Lobby fallout: Catholic soy Southern Economic Journal, 86(2), 503e529.
milk mogul won’t cover drugs that ‘prevent procreation.’ Vredenburg, J., Kapitan, S., Spry, A., & Kemper, J. A. (2020).
Forbes. Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/ Brands taking a stand: Authentic brand activism or woke
clareoconnor/2014/07/03/hobby-lobby-fallout-catholic- washing? Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 39(4),
soy-milk-mogul-wont-cover-drugs-that-prevent- 444e460.
procreation/#61843242143e Willick, J. (2018, May 25). The man who discovered “culture
Palladino, K. (2012, August 3). Drink for marriage equality on wars.” Wall Street Journal. Available at https://www.wsj.
national Starbucks appreciation day. HuffPost. Available at com/articles/the-man-who-discovered-culture-wars-
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/starbucks-appreciation- 1527286035
day_b_1731600 Yates, L. S. (2011). Critical consumption: Boycotting
Patashnik, E. M. (2019). Limiting policy backlash: Strategies for and buycotting in Europe. European Societies, 13(2),
taming countercoalitions in an era of polarization. The 191e217.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Zasuwa, G. (2019). The role of individual-level and contextual-
Science, 685(1), 47e63. level social capital in product boycotting: A multilevel
Pew Research Center. (2017, October 5). The partisan divide on analysis. Sustainability, 11. Article 949.
political values grows even wider. Available at https:// Zhang, C., Kashmiri, S., & Cinelli, M. (2019). How does brand
www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/10/05/the-partisan- age influence consumer attitudes toward a firm’s unethical
divide-on-political-values-grows-even-wider/ behavior? Journal of Business Ethics, 158, 699e711.