According to Merriam-Webster, to boycott is to “engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with (a person, a store, an organization, etc.) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions.” This form of peaceful protest originates from the Ireland Land War of the 1880s, when Irish tenant farmers protested against English landlord Charles Stewart Parnell’s unfair treatment and high rent prices. Over time, however, it has evolved to become one of the most powerful protest strategies for local, national and global issues. Especially in a digital age in which protests are widely advertised, students need to be more aware of the potential impacts of boycotting and avoid performative or ineffective protests.

Differences between company and consumer values have made boycotts against consumer goods companies prevalent today. This manner of protest is successful because it leverages both economic and social influence against an organization. By inflicting reductions in revenue, boycotts force businesses to reconsider company policies to mitigate further financial damage. However, not all of these boycotts impact a company’s sales revenue, since people may publicly denounce an institution but still purchase its products out of habit. Take the recent boycott efforts with Amazon, for instance. The company has been accused of tax avoidance, poor working conditions and unethical labor practices, and as a result of the “vote with your dollar” philosophy, many people have encouraged boycotting Amazon goods. But due to the near-monopoly Amazon has on the online marketplace and society’s dependence on their unparalleled fast delivery, reliability and variety, its stocks and overall market value faced little impact from this movement.

On the other hand, companies with many competitors are most impacted by boycotts, since customers can buy substitute goods more easily. Take beer brand Bud Light: According to the Associated Press, following the April 2023 controversy regarding transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, its year-over-year sales declined 25% to 30% for several months.

Boycotts may also be ineffective if the participants aren’t the company’s target consumer. For example, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ boycotting fast-food chain KFC has had little to no financial impact to the chain since PETA is not the main consumer demographic that restaurants like KFC cater to.

Nevertheless, boycotts can wield significant damage through negative media attention and reputational damages. In the digital age, social media figures with large platforms have the power to persuade millions of people. According to LendingTree, an online marketplace nonprofit, a poll that was sent out to company consumers in 2022 reported that friends and family influence 47% of boycott decisions, politicians impact 20%, and celebrities or influencers impact 19%. 34% of Generation Z boycotters said celebrities or influencers impacted their decision to participate in a boycott. One example of this media-driven phenomenon is the boycott on Starbucks: In the early stages of the Israel-Hamas war, Starbucks Workers United, unaffiliated with the official Starbucks corporation, posted the message, “Solidarity with Palestine” on their Twitter account. Unwilling to be associated with the workers union’s stance, Starbucks released a clarifying statement and filed a lawsuit against the workers for trademark infringement of the Starbucks logo. Even though Starbucks has stated that it doesn’t directly fund the State of Israel, many people believe this boycott is a way for people to align themselves with Palestine, support an anti-violence ideology and uphold a union’s ability to express themselves politically. According to The Economic Times, Starbucks has seen a loss of $11 billion due to the recent boycotts.

Generally, successful boycotts are those that generate the most social media attention because it spurs larger collective action and allows for activists to garner more support globally. In recent years, for example, collective criticism surrounding the unethical labor practices and negative environmental impacts of Shein — a large fast-fashion clothing company — has led many to stop purchasing from the vendor. Eventually, Shein even released a statement of investigation into unsafe work conditions in some of their supplier facilities. According to data analysis company Statista, Shein saw a sales growth decrease of 2.8% in the second quarter of 2023 compared to a 341.9% increase in the first quarter of 2021. According to media analytics company Commetric, 25% of boycotts receiving national media attention won concessions from the target company.

Even though boycotts through media advocacy can be effective, they should not be relied upon as the sole tool for advocacy. As polarization increases and media becomes more saturated with campaigns, the boycotts’ effect can become diluted and less effective. Instead, this method should be used in moderation and in conjunction with other forms of protest. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, for example, went beyond boycotts to economically pressure institutions that practiced segregation: mass demonstrations such as the Selma to Montgomery march, legal struggles like Brown v. Board of Education, grassroot organizations that mobilized local leaders and individuals, media campaigns, and coalition-building with groups from diverse backgrounds to garner support. It is not any of these events in singularity that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the power and conviction of millions of people who persisted in their beliefs.

Ultimately, a boycott alone, however effective, will not define a social movement or result in substantial, legislative change — even if it achieves considerable media attraction. It is important to remember, especially in a world that increasingly prioritizes speed and efficiency, that affecting true change is difficult: It requires tremendous effort, time, patience and faith in one’s beliefs despite setbacks, and most importantly, a willingness to fight.

President Biden’s decision was neither unexpected nor unprecedented: former President Jimmy Carter withdrew both American athletes and diplomats from attending the 1980 Moscow Olympics, and the Obama administration opted to only send lower-profile officials to the 2014 Sochi games due to political differences. The United States’ boycott of the Beijing Olympics will be a blend of these past approaches: while athletes will still be allowed to participate, no American political officials will be in attendance.

Although the decision received bipartisan support, some, such as Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, have called for a boycott on a larger scale. “The President has once again opted for a half measure when bold leadership was required,” Cotton said. “The U.S. should fully boycott the ‘genocide games’ in Beijing.”

On the other hand, Social Studies Instructional Lead Jeffrey Patrick holds concerns regarding the unintended consequences of a full boycott. “Given the nature of some sports, you only have one opportunity to participate in the Olympics,” he said. “I understand why politicians might be making this point, but I sympathize with the athletes.”

Meanwhile, U.S. allies such as Australia, Canada and the U.K. have also announced diplomatic boycotts. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach reiterated the organization’s system of political neutrality. “By not commenting on political issues, you’re not taking a side,” he said in a press conference. “This is the mission of the IOC. Otherwise, we could not manage to accomplish the mission of the Games: to bring and unite the world.”

Amid continuing disputes, social studies teacher Laurel Howard noted the difficulty of predicting the effect of a Beijing 2022 boycott. “We don’t have a lot of data points on Olympic boycotts and their effectiveness, so it’s hard to tell what’s going to happen,” she said.

However, historical examples—the 1980 Olympics, for instance—can provide insight into the effect of boycotts. “In the 1980 Olympics, the boycotting countries were protesting an invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union,” Howard said. “The Soviet Union did eventually crumble, but there were a lot of other factors. The fall only happened seven years later.”

According to U.S. Foreign Policy teacher Tara Firenzi, New Zealand’s rugby team toured South Africa before the 1976 Olympics despite the United Nations’ calls for a sporting embargo due to South Africa’s apartheid abuses. While countries pressured the IOC to ban New Zealand from the 1976 Montreal Olympics, it refused to do so. That year, 29 predominantly African nations did not attend the games. “On the issue of apartheid, it was good that the abuses in South Africa were taken seriously,” Firenzi said. “It forced the country into an isolated position in terms of its stance on its discrimination and deeply oppressive policies. There could have been more done beyond the boycott, but the Olympics were a strong message to send in the case of extreme wrongs.”

While previous boycotts have each carried unique political contexts, one trend that most agree upon is that Olympic protests carry more symbolism than impact. “If the goal is to draw more attention to this issue, I think it’s absolutely doing that,” Howard said. “If the intended effect is stopping China from carrying out a genocide, I’m not sure how far a symbol can go.”

Senior Neha Muthiah, the Editor-in-Chief of The Chariot—Gunn’s social and political magazine—pointed to more meaningful actions that the United States could take. “The U.S. cannot influence China’s opinion, but our leaders can learn how to cooperate in matters requiring the cooperation of the world’s giants,” she said. “Messages like the boycott erode the possibility of cooperation without any projected improvement in China’s human rights abuses.”

Patrick even questions the morals behind the U.S. justifying their Olympic boycott. “The U.S. prison population as a percentage of its entire population is larger than that of any other country, including China’s,” Patrick said. “When you also look at the disproportionate racial makeup of our prison population, it’s hard to make the argument that it is color-blind. I think it’s disingenuous to protest other countries’ practices instead of reforming our own policies to serve as a model.”

Ultimately, one must place this Olympic boycott within its historical context to truly understand intent and ramifications. “Rather than addressing China’s human rights violations, the U.S. is more interested in trying to demonstrate to the world that we are stronger and more powerful than China,” Firenzi said. “The optics are extremely important at a moment where China is a genuine threat to the hegemony that the United States has enjoyed for the last few decades.”

Muthiah looks to what the Olympic boycott reveals about global relations. “Western countries conduct massive violations of human rights given that they directly or indirectly participate in wars,” she said. “There’s scrutiny in the analysis of China’s human rights positions not afforded to the western world. While China certainly has committed violations, we selectively ignore the wrongdoings of our allies.”

The Beijing Olympics will officially commence on Feb. 4, 2022.