There’s probably a reason to boycott just about any successful company, but you cannot realistically boycott everyone. The only boycott that really works is not buying something because you don’t like or need the product, but that doesn’t really count as “boycotting.”
If a company has a uniquely good or trendy product, boycotts aren’t going to catch on. Apple and Nike come to mind. Both use underpaid foreign labor which would never be allowed in the US or other western countries, but people love their products, and the foreign labor makes them more affordable than otherwise. No boycotts to be seen with those two.
Chick Fil A was a notable boycott over the founder’s opposition to gay marriage. But their food and service is just too dang good, and the boycott went nowhere.
Coca Cola had a marketing debacle when they put out New Coke, and it was summarily rejected by customers. Again, not because of any ethical reason, just people didn’t like the product. Economics 101. Funny side note— some people imagined that New Coke was all an ingenious marketing ploy to sell more original Coke, but I digress.
Yes, Dylan what’s her face is an obnoxious attention whore, and many people don’t want to buy cans with her face emblazoned on them, but Anhauser Busch is a big company, and they have other brands than just Budweiser, such as Dos Equis, which I happen to like. So, yeah, any boycotting there is merely symbolic and maybe cathartic. Bud will survive this. Will they change strategy as a result? Hard to say…
