Skip to main content



Jim Chester
African Americans for African America African American Pledge of Unity We stand, Together, after left alone in a land we never knew. We Bind ourselves, Together, with the blood and will of Those who have gone before. From the Bodies of our Ancestors thrown away, from the Pieces of Ourselves left to perish, We rise as One, a New Body in a New Land, a New People in a New Nation. Of Common Mind, Body, and Spirit, By Declaration of our Amalgamated Individual and Personal Authorities, We Are African America. © James Wesley Chester 2004; 2008 You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I agree with the above.  I would need to listen to the show in order to know which products are advertised, and we'd also need to send each advertiser a communication informing them of the boycott, along with a specific explanation of why (what was said on the show, etc.). Silently refraining from buying is not really a boycott.
Silently refraining from buying is not really a boycott.

Actually, it is.  If enough people do it.

It may not be the optimal way to do it (most people want to let the company know they are getting the shaft while it's being plunged into them!!  )  But ... the objective is to hit 'em in the bank account.  Not buying their product accomplishes that.  Silently or not ... when the conscious decision is made to stop supporting them with your money .. a boycott (even of one! ) is created.
This list might be a little dated but here is a link:

And, I might add that you consider to more things ... first, add go here: and here:

Actually, I'd say go to the Color of Cahnge site first because they provide a script that you can customize to add all the "colorful" words that will really reflect your level of disgust.
the objective is to hit 'em in the bank account. Not buying their product accomplishes that. Silently or not ... when the conscious decision is made to stop supporting them with your money .. a boycott (even of one! ) is created.

I kinda disagree ... well, not with the objective, but the point is to not buy and tell them WHY you're not buying ... to do otherwise allows them to disconnect the drop in sales from their sponsorship and place it onto "the fickle and changing tastes of the consumer."

I read that Allstate dropped the Beck show after a shareholder meeting where they had to explain the unexpected drop in revenue ... they attempted to write it off to consumer product preference ... until a shareholder started asking about the Color of Change Campaign and they were forced to acknowledge that the drop was directly attributable to the boycott ... Allstate dropped beck the next day.
You're not really "stopping the money" by silently refusing to buy.  The reason is that they are constantly tweaking their marketing strategies based on what their sales figures show.  If sales in black areas are trending down, they'd respond by increasing their marketing focus among those populations they're doing well among.  As a result, they might increase their ad buys on Limbaugh's show.  But if they know there's an organized boycott because of their choice to advertise on Limbaugh, if it hits them hard enough, maybe they pull their ads from Limbaugh.  In the first scenario, Limbaugh wins.  In the second, Limbaugh loses.  There are other scenarios, of course.  But if the point is about Limbaugh, then I would think the idea would be to proceed in a way that hurts Limbaugh.  XYZ Widget Company doesn't care about anything but money.  If they know it hurts them financially to advertise on Limbaugh, they'll pull their ads from Limbaugh.  But you have to let them know.
You're not really "stopping the money" by silently refusing to buy.

That's exactly what you're doing, Vox!!  If you are not 'buying a product', then you're "stopping the money" from getting into the seller's bank account.

You may not be "stopping the money ... along with the personal satisfaction of letting the seller know why you're doing it".  But, that's a different thing, with a different (and personal) objective!  But whether they know why or not ... hitting them in the pocketbook is hitting them in the pocketbook!! Which is the primary purpose of a boycott.  And secondary to that is to use the leverage to force that seller to do what you want!!!

As JWC has just said .... if (enough of) the money stops coming in, then THEY will find out why that is.   You can make a big production out of it from the beginning if you want to (and most people who stage boycotts do!) ... but, it's not really necessary.  The point of it will come out eventually.  They WILL look for the reasons for that lost income.  And, regardless, they will always try to find other ways to circumvent that loss.

I do understand what I believe is your point that there is 'strength in numbers' and also that it's probably most effective to let your 'enemy' know why they are on your hit list!!  And I agree with that, wholeheartedly!!  However ... I think people - and especially OUR people - miss the primary point of the effectiveness of using our dollars and spending power to effect change.

A company couldn't care less if or why you're mad at them!!  They DO care if you stop buying their product, though!!  They care very much about that!!  Unfortunately, we're plagued with this mindset of self-gratification and self-satisfaction FIRST ... with a sense of purpose running a distant second .. when it really should be the other way around.

When Don Imus did his racist thing with the girl's basketball team ... the threat of a boycott merely got him kicked off the air from THAT particular venue .... but he turned right around and found an even more lucrative deal with a radio station. So who really got 'hurt'??  Who won and who lost??    If the goal was to punish him, it didn't really work, did it??  Just 'making noise' about a boycott does not have the same affect as actually (vigorously) pursing it.  If we really wanted Don Imus off the air ... we should have continued to pursue our protest against him - via his advertisers - until the job was done.

When the protest against Shell Oil (and other oil companies) took place for their role in subsidizing the apartheid system in South Africa, it was ALL OVER the news ... everybody knew and many complied.  But, in the end, Shell didn't divest from South Africa ... they simply diversified and began making money in other ways.  And, ultimately, it wasn't the boycott against them that economically forced the country to change their ways ... it was the more quieter, less advertised economic hit from other businesses threatening and refusing to spend their invest dollars there.

The thing is .... everybody wants their intent acknowledged, especially when it comes to doing a company (or person) bad for what they have done ... and they want it known that they are the "punisher" for any successful punishment given (ex., taking a company to trial vs. settlement of the case so that it can be known what they did).  However, the payout and economic hit that a company takes is FAR more impressionable on that company as a punishment, than any mere perception of them as a "bad company/person". 

Through advertising (and a public attention span of about 5 seconds) they can find ways to recoup their image ... but recouping those lost dollars are far, far more important.
Clearly, it it your choice. Your reasons belong to you. It would be helpful to know, however. It always helps to know who supports your enemy

Yes, it is my choice. And you, like everyone else -has the choice to listen or not listen to people like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. I find both to be mindless bellicose idiots who make millions ranting and raving with half truths, gross distortions and incendiary cacophony to incite people. But free speech is the cornerstone of a democratic republic. Even though you and I may disagree with the likes of these two race arsonists, there are millions of people who cling to their words daily and follow them religiously. Wanting to boycott the sponsors means nothing. First of all, Negroes do not constitute enough clout for them to even notice. Secondly, even if they did, I’m not too excited about having people censored because I don’t like what they say. This is a two way street my friend. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of "unpopular speech". Again, if you don’t like it –don’t listen…..

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.