Summary:
The aftermath of the Parkland School shooting has lead to scrutiny of many gun lobbyist groups, most notably the NRA. Protesters have called for the boycotting of the NRA, its programs and its membership, starting the online hashtag #BoycottTheNRA. Because of this social movement, as of Feb 28, 24 major companies, including United, Delta, and Hertz, have withdrawn support of the NRA and in effect joined the #BoycottTheNRA movement. The Washington Post analysis details how companies are effectively riding social movements to reap the publicity benefits, and to paint themselves as being "the good guys."
The aftermath of the Parkland School shooting has lead to scrutiny of many gun lobbyist groups, most notably the NRA. Protesters have called for the boycotting of the NRA, its programs and its membership, starting the online hashtag #BoycottTheNRA. Because of this social movement, as of Feb 28, 24 major companies, including United, Delta, and Hertz, have withdrawn support of the NRA and in effect joined the #BoycottTheNRA movement. The Washington Post analysis details how companies are effectively riding social movements to reap the publicity benefits, and to paint themselves as being "the good guys."
Opinion:
The support of social movements is without a doubt a smartly calculated cost benefit analysis that I argue is ultimately beneficial to corporation. I believe the 5 million membership of the NRA has exaggerated importance economics wise, and a company making the choice to support anti-NRA social movements likely acknowledges this too. Far more than the 5 million customers lost are gained simply by not being labeled one of the big, bad NRA supporting corporations. Even those who have never explicitly had a position on the NRA get "'free rider' publicity benefits" if a rival company continues to support the NRA.
Of course, there is a ceiling to how far a company should go to ride social trends. Consider Pepsi ad controversy of 2017, where Pepsi was accused of pandering to activism in an incredibly non-genuine way. I suspect advertisers brand leaders have learned from this over extension.
The support of social movements is without a doubt a smartly calculated cost benefit analysis that I argue is ultimately beneficial to corporation. I believe the 5 million membership of the NRA has exaggerated importance economics wise, and a company making the choice to support anti-NRA social movements likely acknowledges this too. Far more than the 5 million customers lost are gained simply by not being labeled one of the big, bad NRA supporting corporations. Even those who have never explicitly had a position on the NRA get "'free rider' publicity benefits" if a rival company continues to support the NRA.
Of course, there is a ceiling to how far a company should go to ride social trends. Consider Pepsi ad controversy of 2017, where Pepsi was accused of pandering to activism in an incredibly non-genuine way. I suspect advertisers brand leaders have learned from this over extension.
Questions:
1. Do corporations joining social movements ultimately help or hurt the movement as a whole? Are grassroot movements more genuine?
2. Are you personally more likely to support a product if they have come out as being for a policy you agree with? Would you accept an inferior good in order to support said company?
3. Consider the 5 million NRA members who have in effect been boycotted against... is unification with them possible?
1. Do corporations joining social movements ultimately help or hurt the movement as a whole? Are grassroot movements more genuine?
2. Are you personally more likely to support a product if they have come out as being for a policy you agree with? Would you accept an inferior good in order to support said company?
3. Consider the 5 million NRA members who have in effect been boycotted against... is unification with them possible?
3 comments:
I don't think that corporations joining social movements hurt the movement, but they have yet to contribute to the movement. I wonder how they can effectively boycott the NRA and make a change in gun policy, because as of now, it just seems like they are taking advantage of the label of "anti-NRA." Because of this reason, I do think that it is reasonable for someone to view this boycott as less genuine than grassroots movements, but in the end, more support is better than no support. I don't think a company's stance on an issue affects my support of their products. If CocaCola was pro-NRA, I probably wouldn't even be aware of it, so I would still purchase their products. I don't think unification between NRA members and anti-NRA boycotters is likely unless there can be some type of compromise on gun policy, which is also unlikely.
I think it is an interesting idea that companies are boycotting the NRA for positive publicity. It is a clever idea for companies to do so because it is impossible to know if they are doing it for attention or it they truly support the movement, but it does not matter because it seems like they may benefit regardless. I think joining the movement does not really do anything positive for the movement itself; it only has potential to boost good exposure for each company, and very well will hurt the NRA. However, depending on the companies' targeted consumers, the boycott could significantly decrease revenue. For this reason, I think they should be careful when adding themselves onto the list of companies boycotting.
Post a Comment