Maximizing Boycott Outcomes Through Analysis

By Eli Ibanga

Edited by Victoria Sosa

Boycotts are the best vehicle for change within the USA due to the reduced risk to participants. For these protests to realize their full potential, analysis should be done to identify the best targets, as well as increase collaboration between leftist, religious, and traditional liberal groups.

Rationale

The erosion of civil liberties in the United States has created a groundswell of activism. We’ve had several one-off days of protests, calls for organizations to divest from companies complicit with the Trump administration, plans for a National Day of Strike, complete and total boycott of all complicit companies, targeted boycotts, etc. While this is good, I suspect that the various overlapping protests and boycotts see net lower participation and impact than mobilizing all efforts to one decisive action. The planning of these events does not necessarily determine if the target is the most ideal, or if the protesting body is willing to participate. Consider the Target boycott from last year. This faith group-led boycott began because Target backed off from diversity initiatives around the time of the inauguration of the current Trump presidency. The boycott was somewhat effective, with the Target CEO declaring his resignation (only to become the Executive Chair of the Board). Perhaps the outcome could have been more favorable if business analysis was used in its planning and execution. This is by no means a knock against those who have been on the front lines. Instead, I’d like to consider the current state of affairs and what steps we can take as a nation to move the needle towards a free and fair society.

Objective - Stop ICE

 Currently, ICE has been on a warpath for several months, violating civil and human rights of undocumented persons and US citizens on several occasions. As of writing this, they have murdered Alex Pretti in Minnesota. While community leaders across the nation have demanded that ICE be reined in, Trump and the DOJ have no such desire. Congress lacks the cohesion to do so, and in some cases are also not inclined to. But as many a business executive will tell you, change often begins in the private sector before it happens in government. This isn’t because US companies are altruistic, but rather they are beholden to the shareholder. Therefore, they prefer outcomes that maximize profit over morality. As consumers, it is our values coupled with how we spend our money that influences how these companies behave. We can stop ICE overreach through targeted leveraging of our collective spending power.

Methodology

The first step to an effective boycott, the goal of which in this case would be to rein in ICE, is to identify influenceable controllers of the target. While the executive branch is uninfluenceable when it comes to the power of the average American, the same is not true of Congress. There are many politicians who are vocal supporters of Trump’s DOJ, and ICE in particular. There is also an election on the horizon, and the majority of our politicians rely on corporate dollars to run for office. Through a bit of research, we can create a shortlist of congresspersons that support ICE, and congresspersons that are up for reelection. Let’s specifically consider the Senate. I did a bit of analysis, reading various statements from the following republican senators regarding the border, immigration, and ICE’s recent activities.

Now that we have our list of potential targets (Fig 1), we can determine which are the most malleable on the issue, and which seats are most vulnerable. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Sen. Susan Collins appears to be the best target. This was determined by assessing her seat’s vulnerability (or in this case, using analysis from Cook Political Report - Fig 2) with the added context of her statements on ICE and its activities.

‍Fig. 2 data from https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/senate-race-rating.

Fig. 3 data from Open Secrets, https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/susan-collins/summary?cid=N00000491

In looking at her key donors (Fig. 3), the ideal targets for boycott are Senior Star, an assisted living company, and Southwest Airlines. Naturally, Southwest is the reasonable selection for boycott as there are multiple alternatives for consumers, as opposed to asking people to divest from Senior Star or relocate. The boycott and its aim would be rather straightforward. Encourage all liberals, leftists, and faith groups to boycott Southwest Airlines until they cease all political donations going to Sen. Collins due to her support of ICE. Conveniently, we can also easily find that Southwest also donated large sums to Ted Cruz, Sam Graves, and most of all to Donald Trump. The boycott rhetoric could shift in response – Liberals/Leftists/Faith Groups are to boycott Southwest Airlines until they cease donations to politicians who support ICE’s activities.

Recommendations

Of course, having one Senator cease their support of ICE isn’t enough to change the status quo. Research and targeted boycotts would need to continue until enough politicians have flipped, forcing congressional oversight of ICE. To make this method of protest more effective, key policies need to be set in place.

(1)   Boycotts should not be made against more than one company in a particular industry at a time. This is to limit disinterest in the protest from potential participants, as well as to promote ease of access. It also permits the protest to last longer, as consumers have alternatives for their needs to be met.

(2)   Boycotts must not negatively impact the least fortunate in our society. This strategy is effective because it maximizes our financial power as a whole. Without effective consideration of those with less options or financial power, we lose their financial backing to boycott. For example, a shopping boycott of Walmart would be ineffective, as Walmart serves as the key distributor of necessary goods to many marginalized communities, with little to no alternatives available.

Such protests cannot be done effectively without the participation of thousands of Americans, which requires community leaders to mobilize. The boycotts must be a joint effort, otherwise the financial impact will be limited as it has been in the past. The formation of a council or coalition is a necessity. Bringing together a group of individuals with intersecting needs and concerns, and in turn creating a diverse and powerful boycotting group. My inclination would be rather than creating this from scratch, having organizations that already exist unite and work together to make this a reality.

Final Thoughts

In the future I will continue this line of thought by delving more acutely into the financial power of certain communities that can be leveraged for activism. For the moment, I would simply encourage community organizers to consider my thoughts on the matter, and the ways in which they can maximize their impact by working together. The groundwork is already there. A bit of analysis and collaboration can maximize impact, allowing for more favorable outcomes.