If the old adage “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” really is true, then why would anyone call for a boycott against any organization in an effort to prove a point? If the desired effect in the latest outcry against Chick-fil-A was record profits, then it could be called an unqualified success.
But it is not just in the latest case with Chick-fil-A, there have been boycotts against shock jocks, Fox News, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and even Starbucks just to name a few, and in each case the targets don't appear to be any worse off as a result. Many thought they had managed to silence conservative talk show host Glenn Beck, but according to CNN Entertainment, he too still appears to be doing just fine. Boycotts of advertisers are often the first line of attack, but more often than not people tune in to find out what all the fuss was about -- and that defeats the whole objective.
So this begs the question, are boycotts even worth the effort? With the country split almost right down the middle on politics and policy, a political boycott stands as good a chance of backfiring as it does of working.
So do you think calling for a boycott to prove a point is worth the effort? Or is it just as likely to draw attention to a person, organization or product as it is to cause any damage?