Camden Moeller
If you don't feel comfortable eating a murdered animal, Great! If you don't want to buy products made in sweatshops, Awesome! Don’t want to eat Ben & Jerry's because of their donation to liberal causes? Sweet! Don’t want to eat at In and Out because of their conservative positions? Fantastic. But when you look at the facts, movements to boycott a corporation almost always fail and sometimes have the opposite results.
Chick-fil-A is one example of a corporation that not only survived a boycott but flourished. In 2010, Chick-fil-A donated millions of dollars to groups considered ‘hostile’ to LGBT groups. A few years later the CEO of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, guest starred on a syndicated radio talk show. One of the radio hosts asked Dan Cathy about Chick-fil-A’s opposition to same-sex marriage. In response, he said, “We are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’”. This comment caused a flood of criticism and put Chick-fil-A’s donations under the spotlight. Immediate calls to boycott the company were evident. Republican politician, Mike Huckabee, called for conservatives to eat at Chick-fil-A on August 1st. Opponents of same-sex marriage flooded Chick-fil-A’s and it turned out to be a record-setting day in profit for Chick-fil-A. Chick-fil-A’s sales skyrocketed by 12% in 2012 despite the calls for the boycott the opposition rose up to defend what they believe in. To avoid further controversy, Chick-fil-A reduced their donations to ‘hostile’ groups and stepped out of the policy debate. The anger at the restaurant chain quickly faded, and while there are still old scars for progressives who won’t eat there, the boycott is pretty much dead.This opposition is coined as a ‘buycott’, often is the result of boycotts as seen with Chick Fil A. Are you participating in any boycotts/buycotts? Let me know in the comments below.
This article brings up that after Chick fil a was in the news for giving money to groups that some people did not think was right their sales skyrocketed. This makes a lot of sense because Chick fil a basically got free advertisement on all of the news and radio stations. People did boycott this restaurant but more people started going to Chick fil a making it the most popular fast food restaurant in many states.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting topic, I never realized how political chains can be through their actions and donations. I always just presumed that they would stay out of politics to not loose customers, but this is actually not the case. I would not personally "buycot" a company for their political position because to me, I am just one person and I won't do much by choosing not to purchase. Now of course in masses, this is effective, but like you said, it evens out when people against Chick-fil-a for example don't purchase because they don't believe in LGBT "hostile groups," however people that do support this will just buy more. This is prominently displayed when sales rose by 12% in 2012 to support the company. I just don't think for me personally I would want to miss out on delicious chicken or even Ben and Jerry's ice cream because of a political stance, because the fact of the matter is I am "missing out" too and one purchase won't sway their profits.
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense that a business could have increased revenue during a boycott. Opposing a boycott is an easy way to state your position without clearly displaying their political agenda.. So it makes sense that people would choose to take a simple measure such as going to a Chick-fil-a instead of taking measures that might cause them harm. Plus, there is increased advertising for these companies due to news articles - press, not matter if its bad or good, reaps benefits. Even though a company such as Chick-fil-a got a lot of negative press, it got a lot of free advertisement.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that controversies around big corporations only make them more money. After all, "All fame is good fame." At least that's how I remember how the saying goes, it might be slightly different. I think the only kind-of successful boycott against a corporation I remember was the one against EA. In one of their games, a Star Wars game they got the license to, there were plenty of micro transactions in the game, to the point where it was just a "pay to win" experience. Disney kind of got mad at them, and the game was banned in some places because it was considered to be gambling. Eventually, EA lowered all their prices, and removed some of the micro transactions. Now that I think about it again, I don't know if EA lost any money from that whole controversy, they were probably still making a profit from it.
ReplyDeleteControversies do get people talking and help to spread the word about businesses. They attract those who align with the issue, and thus increase the consumer base for the business. Yes, the negative media would essentially lower the demand for a business's products, like Chick-fil-a, but the positive media on the opposing side could also raise the demand. However, as Chick-fil-a is part of a perfectly competitive market, this means it runs the risk of being run out of business if a lack of demand allows its prices to decrease below the market level. It is wise that it has ceased trying to associate itself with anymore controversy and instead is hoping to continue business as usual.
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense that Chick-fil-a would not lose profits from a boycott. In any situation similar to theirs, if one group is threatening to boycott something, the group opposing them will usually only strengthen their support for whatever is being boycotted--it's only human nature. In a very competitive market, Chick-fil-a has been able to distinguish itself as a fan-favorite, so it would have to take a major scandal or controversy to reduce their sales. However even if the boycott will not cause harm to the company like many think, often these boycotts are done to make a statement and to draw attention to what they see as the issue (in Chick-fil-a's case, the anti-LGBT comments and support of "hostile" groups). So, in the end, even though sales went up, the boycotters did find success in a sense because Chick-fil-a reduced their support of these groups and removed themselves from debate over such issues. Overall, I found this topic to be very intriguing (especially the title haha).
ReplyDeleteIn a situation of a business and it’s basis being a controversial issue does lead to some interesting public outcomes. It allows for a business to have niche even if a population of people disagree with it. Understandably the issue was backed off so to not lose profits however in this case it seems that the saying of any publicity is good publicity including the bad kind is true. Boycotting however doesn’t have this effect and can do some significant harm to a business or the economy. They can even do so much as taking an oligopoly and turning it into a monopoly just because consumers do not agree with a brand. So while in Chick-fil-a’s case of the boycott being conducive to their sales and growth as a franchise it definitely doesn’t work all the time.
ReplyDeleteI find it incredibly interesting how a call to boycott a huge corporation like Chick-Fil-A could backfire so much as to cause their profits to actually increase. Clearly, social and political issues cause great emotions in people that can cause them to spend far more money on products that they stand behind. I think it would be fascinating to see how Chick-Fil-A’s connection to anti-LGBT groups has impacted their financial goals in the long run, because the boycott clearly didn’t work in the short term. I would be willing to bet that, as LGBT acceptance has spread across the country, their economic success hasn’t grown as much as it has in the past, especially after the government made same-sex marriage legal.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that boycotting businesses for political reasons is ineffective and actually counter productive. While it is an individual's prerogative to support the businesses of their choice and boycott any particular businesses for any reason, including conflicting political values, doing so only hurts that individual. Beyond individual cases, denying business to companies with values that contradict one's own threatens our country's social fabric, as it only feeds into the polarized political atmosphere that is seeping into various other aspects of American life (now, apparently, including fast food). As for Chick-fil-A, the saying that "any press is good press" is applicable, as it has only drawn attention to the business that has in turn drawn profits.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to see how the trouble these big corporations get in can impact them both positively and negatively. Not only did Chick-Fil-A not lose their profits, but they were actually able to gain profits because of the popularity of the issue. Lots of people obviously have their opinions on the issue, but when you are throwing around the name "Chick-fil-a," that's all the company needs to get back on the right track and keep gaining profit.
ReplyDeleteI think that although the boycotting was no successful in decreasing the profits of Chick Fil A, it was successful in its purpose. It may have drove those that opposed same-sex marriage to increase their consumption of Chick Fil A, it also provided an outburst of negative responses in the media. The media is a very powerful advertising tool and in a monopolistically competitive market it is imperative to have a good standing in the media. Because this is such a controversial topic, and this belief is only accompanied by the support of a certain group of individuals, this anti-same sex marriage campaign for Chick Fil A will be distastrous in the long-run. This is supported by the evidence that in order to protect long-run sales, they ceased their monetary support for groups affiliated with the opposition of same-sex marriage.
ReplyDeletePrior to reading your blog post, I did not know how Chick-fil-a became so well known. It is evident that this is a christian based, republican fast food chain as the owner is open to his views on political debates and the fact that they are closed on Sunday. I think what brings consumers back to eat more chicken is not just the food but the customer service. Customers are drawn to good customer service and therefor the demand is high for quick yet friendly fast food places. Everytime I drive past, there is a long line extending from the drive through. Currently, chick-fil-a has a lot of exposure to social media and it is well known which also increases the demand. Thefore, they are able to charge higher prices compared to McDonald's within reason.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and I think that boycotting increased the demand for Chick Fil A. It's so surprising that usually the negative media and negative publicity causes the restaurant to lose money and demand in their local neighborhood, but surprisingly it became a huge benefit for ChickFilA. I believe that this protest helped the same-sex people to visit and have chickfilA food rather than not having it. And I really liked your intro paragraph because it sounds more interesting and makes the readers wonder and makes them want to read more about it.
ReplyDeleteIn this specific situation it makes sense that a big cooperation like Chick-fil-a, would not lose profit during a boycott because of its popularity. Although the CEO’s comment started criticism over social media, and halted the donations. Later, a Republican politician, lead the movement to eat at Chick-fil-a once again which caused a boost in there profits and business. I found it very interesting how one person can hold so much power and authority that people follow no matter what.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of a somewhat similar situation happening when Nike released it's trailer starring Colin Kaepernick and a lot of angry protesters video taped themselves burning their Nike shoes. This was ultimately a waste as counter protesters flooded Nike stores and burning shoes that had already been paid for doesn't hurt Nike's bottom line at all. It would have been more damaging for the protesters to just return the shoes and get their money back. To echo my fellow commentors no press is bad press when selling a brand, especially when it comes to large corporations.
ReplyDeleteI am someone who would participate in a "buycott," as I feel as though if I so strongly disagreed with a corporation's actions on a subject matter, I wouldn't want to support their business. I can't say that I've spent much money at Chick-fil-a after learning their stances on same-sex marriage and towards working women. I realize that my saving money and not spending on their sandwiches isn't going to help them economically, but, it's more of a pride thing for me. That being said, their chicken is pretty good, so I did earn myself free Chick-fil-a as a bit of a loophole to my not spending money at their restaurants. However, I do have better self control when it comes to other stores, such as Hobby Lobby, after reading about the "violation of their beliefs in providing their employees with birth control"--and have not regretted it since. Obviously the occasional (maybe) $20 I would drop there has no impact on them, but, it's a decision made less to hurt them economically than to avoid supporting a company who's moral beliefs don't align with mine.
ReplyDeleteI think that it's a good idea that Chick-fil-a is so opening to people of the same sex marriage because not a lot of restaurants are welcoming like that. With Chick-fil-a being like this it will help them on the business side and also help people choose their restaurante over another one because of how welcoming that is. That will also help their supply and demand due to the fact that people will want to buy more sandwiches and other items from their. The demand is going to increase because people feel more wanted there so they are going to want to go their more. That will also cause the supply to increase too since more people will be buying from them they will need an increase in supply. Not to mention they will get more workers because of the fact that they are considerate of their workers and allow for them to have off on every sunday since they are close then. This is their opportunity cost because they are risking making money on sunday’s, but they do it to meet their needs of their workers.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to see that the media arguing against the restaurant turned out to drag in more demand. While now there seems to be a division line between consumers of Chick-fli-a, those for and against same-sex marriage. I think it’s odd that the CEO is putting his beliefs in front of his business when he could lose consumers in the process. I personally do not participate in any boycotting against businesses.
ReplyDeletePersonally some people may choose to "boycott" an establishment based on the personal beliefs they publicize, and that is just fine. However, I will continue to place my business wherever I decide despite of whatever political debate they are going through. Certain people may want to boycott a restaurant like chick fil a because the management may not all agree with gay marriage, but that doesn't affect the taste of their food.
ReplyDeleteI think that controversy often serves as a form of publicity. When something like the chick fil a boycott gains attention, the restaurant get more and more attention. Even if some of it's bad, the increased publicity of the restaurant drew more customers as more people began talking about the restaurant. It seems that some companies aren't worried about offending certain groups or individuals if it boots their profits.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I would not boycott based off the company's belief, but rather on how they would treat their workers or the animals they kill. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but do people really need to boycott based off the CEO's opinion? Shouldn't a company be based on what they sell?
ReplyDeleteI believe that a company should not be boycotted or be slandered by critics purely because of their views. A company should be judged by its values or views, politically or socially. I believe that the integrity of the products or services provided to the customers comes first. This example of Chick-Fil-A being boycotted because of their beliefs or their views is very similar to the boycotting and burning of Nike products due to the advertisement campaign with Colin Kaepernick. Boycotting a company because of its beliefs or views just creates inefficiency.
ReplyDeleteIn my personal opinion, I believe that Chick-fil-a’s moral compass is a bit off. I am always greeted with a smile and polite conversation, but I have heard horror stories about the way others are treated. My friend with down syndrome had change thrown in her face and when the manager was talked to, she was told she needed to leave because she didn’t belong there. Since they are religious, they are not very fond of the LGBT community. They are just a pretty controversial company if you ask me. However…. I would still eat there no matter what. I do still eat there. Because, you know, I’m hungry. Although there could be a large group of people who really want to boycott a company, there’s always going to be a bigger group that would still eat there no matter what. It’s like McDonalds. Everytime we go there it’s the same thing. “They forgot my drink! They forgot my pickles! They messed up my order! I hate McDonalds” but nothing ever changes. We all still choose to eat at McDonalds. Which is what we will do with CHick-fil-a time and time again.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to see how the trouble these big corporations get in can impact them both positively and negatively. Not only did Chick-Fil-A not lose their profits, but they were actually able to gain profits because of the popularity of the issue. Lots of people obviously have their opinions on the issue, but when you are throwing around the name "Chick-fil-a," that's all the company needs to get back on the right track and keep gaining profit.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not always look into political affiliations of the companies I frequent, because I am supporting the business not necessarily the causes they support. That being said, many have differing views on this topic. Therefore, it is incredibly interesting to see how political alignments can affect a corporation; in the end is it better for big businesses to stay silent or should they speak up about their views? In Chik-fil-a's case it seems like their choice paid off as they gained even more loyal customers compared to the ones they lost. However, they also face the problem of making some consumers feel unwelcome in their restaurants, even though that is the whole premise of Chik-fil-a; by isolating these patrons Chik-fil-a is missing a large market of people and chance for profits.
ReplyDeleteThis really speaks to the influence of consumer tastes upon demand. Those who opposed same-sex marriages felt more motivated to support Chik-Fil-A, while the opponents felt the need to diminish their support. The added publicity from the controversy did nothing but draw more customers to Chik-Fil-A. Personally, political affiliations have little to do with which companies and services I support. To others, though, this may be a key aspect in deciding whether or not to frequent a business. In this case, due to the polarity of this particular issue, the results were more beneficial to Chik-Fil-A. The variances in consumer tastes have proven to be leading aspect in the success of a business.
ReplyDeleteMany people, like the comments are saying on this post do not look into what the company is doing behind the scenes and what organizations that they support before buying a chicken sand-which, and a fast food restaurant. That being said, when a chain restaurant this large is getting some backlash there can be large effects. If you look at the stance that Chick-Fil-A is taking is not suppose to create controversy, I think that it is attempting to start a conversation. Talk about, why they are not open on Sunday, and get message that they believe in out. With blog posts like this, and new article just like this, they are reaching their goal.
ReplyDeleteThis goes to question whether or not a companies political stance should really matter. Would you not eat at a restaurant just because of the political beliefs it has? I feel that it should not be important, as everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions. Would you stop talking to a friend just because they had different beliefs as you? That being said, while the boycott did bring in good sales for the company, I don't believe a company should be known or praised for it's beliefs, but rather for it's food quality and customer service.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think people should boycott a fast food restaurant because of particular morals. In this case people boycotted Chick Fil A because they were con for same-sex marriage. Restaurant are not used to discuss morals. Restaurants should be used to eat food, talk with friends and family members, then leave. However is this case, many people don’t like to eat at Ben and Jerry’s because of their donations to liberal causes, or eat at In and Out because of their conservative positions. I you shouldn’t stop eating somewhere just because of their point of views, because they are just there to sell you food. I think it was smart for Chick Fil A to step aside from the policy debate because it would most likely cause less people to eat and buy food at their restaurant, which is not good for their business.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what you’re saying, I feel as though people eating at chick fil a and other companies aren't fully aware of that company's moral standpoints. Many of the people eating at these restaurants just want a chicken sandwich. They are not aware that Chick Fil A is supporting anti LGBTQ+ organisations. Then when people try to boycott it there are still people that are going to go buy that chicken sandwich. As it was said in your post, the companies can benefit from this attention brought to their organization as it can be seen as free advertising. I feel as a country we must first become educated on companies true motives and what is truly happening before making decisions. This is also a personal decision (on whether you want to eat there) and everyone from both sides must respect that others may not feel the same way.
I wonder if Dan Cathy did that on purpose to make the prices and the customers coming to Chick-fil-a sky rocker because if you think about it then it’s a really good marketing strategy. Also this is a very interesting topic because who knew that a fast food place would be criticized so badly for a single interview with the manager for boycotting, and also the questions at the beginning really made the scene for the rest of the blog post and I agree that most people don’t realize what goes behind the scenes of fast food restaurants.
ReplyDelete