THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF CONSUMER ACTIVISMBATTLE OF THE WALLETS: Battle of the Wallets: The Changing Landscape of Consumer Activism 2INTRODUCTIONTarget, Burberry, Starbucks, New Balance, Marks & Spencer. These are just a few of the companies that have recently been embroiled in consumer activist events as the target of boycotts or the beneficiaries of “BUYcotts” (where consumers intentionally purchase a companys products or services in a show of support). Many such events trigger dual reaction.While boycotts are not new, they appear to be gaining frequency, intensity and visibility. According to Fortune, between 1990 and 2007, only 213 boycotts were mentioned in the six largest U.S. newspapers. By contrast, in the 200-plus days of its existence, the anti-Trump #GrabYourWallet campaign alone has launched boycotts against over 50 companies.1Similarly, the UK-based Ethical Consumer Magazine listed 52 consumer boycotts as of January 2018 and offers ethical ratings on over 10,000 companies to its subscribers.2With the ubiquity of social media and the rise in polarisation, consumer activism is growing fast and furiously.We have also seen that consumers are increasingly buying from companies they support. According to Weber Shandwicks research, The Company behind the Brand: In Goodness We Trust, 46% of global consumers are increasingly buying from companies or brands that make them feel happy and good, and 30% are increasingly buying from companies that have a social purpose or strive to make a positive contribution to the world or market they operate in.3It is within this context that Weber Shandwick explored consumer activism, to understand what differentiates consumers who vote with their wallets one way or the other. Weber Shandwick has examined the many aspects of corporate and brand activism in recent years. Our latest research investigates the motivations behind boycotters vs. BUYcotters, those who actively support companies and brands, as well as their perceptions about the impact of their actions and expectations for future purchase decision-making. Our findings point not only to factors driving the growing intensity of consumer actions, but trends that may indicate a shift in the direction of future activism. The implications of our findings offer important guidelines for how companies and brands can navigate “wallet activism.” 1 “The Boycott That Sunk OReilly Has A Dangerous Downside,” Fortune, May 2, 2017. 2 “List of Consumer Boycotts,” EthicalConsumer, January 2018.3The Company behind the Brand: In Goodness We Trust, Weber Shandwick & KRC Research, 2017.We are at an inflection point in consumer activism today. Companies operate on an increasingly public stage, with mainstream media and social platforms accelerating consumer movements like never before. In some cases, boycotts and counter BUYcotts emerge almost simultaneously, with emotions running high on both sides. But we may be seeing a reaction to this divisiveness, with BUYcotts gaining in stature as consumers increasingly seek constructive ways to make their voices heard.Paul Massey, President, Powell Tate & Global Lead, Social Impact, Weber Shandwick“Battle of the Wallets: The Changing Landscape of Consumer Activism 3WHAT WE DIDWeber Shandwick, in partnership with KRC Research, conducted an online survey of 2,000 consumer activists in the US (1,000) and the UK (1,000) to find out why, and the extent to which, they boycott or support products or brands. Respondents were adults 18 years and older and demographically matched to represent their respective national populations. Interviews were conducted in August 2017. To qualify for the survey, respondents were initially screened for consumer activism. In total, 4,268 respondents were asked whether they had ever taken at least one of nine actions in response to a company or brands actions. A sizeable 60% of US and UK consumers reported some form of activism, with speaking about a company or brand topping the list of their actions (34%). We then presented this 60% respondent group with definitions (see right) of boycotting and BUYcotting, and identified 2,000 activists to complete the survey. 60% YES 40% NO34% Spoke about a company/brand to friends, family or colleagues30% Stopped buying or bought more from a company/brand17% Shared a social media post about a company/brand16% Skipped a company/brands TV ads; 16% Posted about a brand on social media; 16% Signed a petition against a company/brand7% Actively participated in a Facebook group focused on a company/brands actions6% Stopped watching shows that a company/brand advertised on3% Participated in demonstrations or protests against or in support of a company/brand% CONSUMERS WHO HAVE EVER TAKEN SOME FORM OF POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE ACTION IN RESPONSE TO A COMPANY OR BRANDS ACTIONS90%HAVE BOYCOTTED65%HAVE BUYCOTTEDBoycotters and BUYcotters are not mutually exclusive groups. Over half (55%) of respondents reported having taken both boycott and supportive actions. For purposes of the survey, those who have taken both actions were randomly assigned to either the boycott or BUYcott group.Boycott: An act of voluntarily refraining from using, buying or dealing with a product, brand or company as an expression of protestBUYcott: The opposite of a boycott an act of showing support for a companys actions by intentionally buying its brands, products or servicesBattle of the Wallets: The Changing Landscape of Consumer Activism 4FINDINGSASCENDANCY OF THE BUYCOTT The research uncovered a striking trend: BUYcotts are on the rise and appear to be gaining momentum to overtake the prevalence of boycotts. This finding adds to a growing body of research suggesting that boycotts have questionable success rates. There is little evidence to suggest that boycotts impact revenues of targetted firms.4And the jury is still out on market valuation ramifications, although some evidence exists that prolonged media attention can negatively impact stock prices.5While Weber Shandwicks study finds BUYcotters are currently fewer in number than boycotters, a few data points suggest this group will grow more rapidly than boycotters: CONSUMER ACTIVIST ATTITUDES(Strongly/Somewhat Agree with each statement)1.Support trumps protests. Most remarkable, 83% of consumer activists agree that it is more important than ever to show support for companies by buying from them vs. participating in boycotts (59%). Even boycotters place greater importance on BUYcotts, suggesting a shift toward supportive consumer actions.2.BUYcotters skew younger (median age of 43 vs. 46 for boycotters). Four in 10 (41%) BUYcotters we surveyed belong to the Millennial and oldest Gen Z generations (born 1981 to 1999), vs. 33% of boycotters, while Boomers+ (born 1964 and earlier) make up a larger share of the boycotter segment (40% vs. 30% of BUYcotters). If this generational pattern continues, the BUYcotters will surpass boycotters.It is more important now than ever to show support for companies that “do the right thing” by buying from themIt is more important now than ever to participate in boycottsTotal Consumer Activists Boycotters BUYcotters83%79%87%Significant difference between boycotters and BUYcotters59%62%56%4 “Do Boycotts Work?” Freakonomics, January 21, 2016.5 “Social Movements as Extra-Institutional Entrepreneurs: The Effect of Protests on Stock Price Returns,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 9/2007 and “The Tactical Disruptiveness of Social Movements: Sources of Market and Mediated Disruption in Corporate Boycotts,” Social Problems, 11/2011. Battle of the Wallets: The Changing Landscape of Consumer Activism 53.BUYcotters are more active in their consumer activism and plan to take even more actions in the near future. BUYcotters have taken an average of 5.7 supportive actions over the last two years, significantly more than the 4.5 average number of boycotts undertaken in the same period. In the future, BUYcotts should grow at a faster pace than boycotts, since a larger share of BUYcotters plan to take more supportive actions in the near future; 37% say they plan to be more active in the next two years, vs. only 28% of boycotters.AVERAGE NUMBER OF ACTIONS DURING PAST TWO YEARS4.5BOYCOTTERS5.7BUYCOTTERSANTICIPATED CHANGE IN NUMBER OF ACTIONS OVER NEXT TWO YEARS4.There is diminishing confidence in boycotts according to the attitudinal measures we asked about. A majority (72%) of respondents believe spreading information about the actions of a company is just as effective as a boycott. In fact, boycotts seem to have somewhat of a bad reputation among consumer activists: 36% believe that boycotters spread false rumours, 24% dont think they can change anything by boycotting (including 26% of boycotters!) and 19% believe that boycotts only serve to hurt a companys employees.BOYCOTTERSBUYCOTTERS14%Not sure10%Fewer48%About the same28%More9%Not sure7%Fewer47%About the same37%MoreSignificant difference vs. boycottersCONSUMER ACTIVIST ATTITUDES(Strongly/Somewhat Agree with each statement)Total Consumer Activists Boycotters BUYcotters Significant difference between boycotters and BUYcottersI think spreading information about the actions of a company is just as effective as a boycottBoycotters often spread false rumours about brands or company productsI dont think I can personally change anything by boycottingBoycotts only serve to hurt the companys employees 72%69%74%36%30%41%24%26%21%19%14%23%Battle of the Wallets: The Changing Landscape of Consumer Activism 6SOME DEMOGRAPHICS DISTINGUISH BUYCOTTERS FROM BOYCOTTERSThere are some demographic skews worth noting. We find statistically significant differences on gender, generation, parental status and employment status: BUYcotters are more likely than boycotters to be women (56% vs. 47%, respectively). This finding is consistent with a 2010 analysis of European Social Survey data, showing that 55% of European BUYcotters are women compared to 44% of boycotters.6 BUYcotters are younger. As referenced earlier, four in 10 (41%) BUYcotters we surveyed belong to the Millennial or Gen Z generations (born 1981 to 1999), vs. 33% of boycotters, while Boomers+ (born 1964 and earlier) make up a larger share of the boycotter segment (40% vs. 30% of BUYcotters). BUYcotters are more likely than boycotters to be parents of kids under 18 (36% vs. 32%, respectively). BUYcotters are more likely than boycotters to be employed (58% vs. 42%, respectively).When it comes to the UK, there is a difference by household income where BUYcotters are significantly more likely to have higher household incomes than boycotters (54% had an annual 2016 household income level of £26,000 or higher vs. 46% of boycotters).6 “Boycott or Buycott? Understanding Political Consumerism,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, MayJune 2010.Battle of the Wallets: The Changing Landscape of Consumer Activism 7REPUTATION PLAYS KEY ROLE IN CONSUMER ACTIVISMThe top outcome BUYcotters hoped to achieve through their most recent supportive action, by far, was helping the company or brands reputation (48%). Helping reputation includes wanting to positively impact reputation, attracting positive media attention, attracting positive online attention, helping the companys online ratings and reviews, and helping the company avoid or get out of a public relations scandal.Affecting reputation is also important to boycotters. In their last boycott, they were primarily motivated by wanting to change the way the company or brand does business (36%), but were nearly just as likely to want to harm the reputation (35%). The desire to impact sales falls further down the list of boycotters motivations (18%).7 “How Consumers Hold Business Accountable,” Marketplace, 2017.BUYCOTTERS These findings resonate with research from Brayden King, a professor at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. According to an article from Marketplace, which spoke with King, boycotts hurt a businesss future reputation and do not actually have a great impact on company earnings. Instead, “most actions from businesses are prompted by the fear that they will continue to be associated with negative publicity.”7Businesses fears of boycotts align with the motivations of boycotters in our study.Help the company or brands reputation 48% Help the company or brands sales 27% Change the way the company or brand does business 36%Harm the company or brands reputation 35%Get my complaint noticed 20%Harm the company or brands sales 18%Change the way the company or brand does business 19% Force the company or brand to apologise 15%Improve employee morale 13% Get my support noticed 12% Hurt a competitors business 7% Discourage job applicants 6%; Help a competitor 6% Force a competitor to apologise 6% Replace the company or brands leadership 5% Start a viral social media following 5% Replace the company or brands leadership 4%; Encourage job applicants 4% Get attention for myself on social media 2% Hurt employee morale 3%Start a viral social media frenzy 2%; Get attention for myself on social media 2%BOYCOTTERSOUTCOMES HOPED TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BYBattle of the Wallets: The Changing Landscape of Consumer Activism 8The influence that consumer activism may have on company reputation should not be overlooked. While many companies may be concerned about the financial impact of a boycott, the effect on reputation is often the consumer activists priority. Companies should consider this ramification when faced with a boycott, and, alternatively, look for opportunities to leverage the power of BUYcotters who are willing to support and positively influence a brands reputation.Leslie Gaines-Ross, Chief Reputation Strategist, Weber Shandwick“RESPONDENTS WERE ASKED TO DESCRIBE IN THEIR OWN WORDS WHY THEY TOOK THEIR MOST RECENT BOYCOTT OR BUYCOTT ACTIONS. BELOW IS A SAMPLE OF RESPONSES.BOYCOTTERS“I found out that the company from which I stopped purchasing was not being fair when it came to their portion sizes for the prices I was paying. I decided to tell my family and friends about what the company was doing so we would not buy any more products from them until they change the way they do business.”“When a company talks down to its customers and acts like the customer is stupid by both actions and attempting to take money that shouldnt be taken, they lose my respect, patronage, and I tell everyone I know and meet.”“If a company cannot treat their employees right and pay them fairly, there is no reason for me to keep giving that company my money.” “This brand changed its recipe to make it not attractive to British customers and also moved their production. I no longer buy this brand.”“If I am helping your company by purchasing your products I should be treated with respect. I do not appreciate being discriminated against because of my race.” “Thi