Target is looking down the barrel of a 40-day boycott called by the Rev. Jamal Bryant of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Stonecrest, GA. Fasting is common practice among the Christian faithful during Lent so he is calling for a “Target Fast” to bring attention to the company’s backtracking on its diversity, equity and inclusion principles.
“Fasting is not just about what we abstain from — it is about what we embrace. By redirecting our resources toward businesses that uphold justice, we embody our commitment to God’s vision of equity and love in action,” he states on the TargetFast.org website.
The general consensus is that boycotts are a symbolic gesture that ultimately has little economic impact on the targeted company. However, feelings run high on DEI, tied to the broader Civil Rights issue. The 40-day “Target Fast” elevates it from mere emotions to a spiritual imperative.
Emotions Run High
Already Target was singled out for a boycott during February’s Black History Month and the People’s Union USA “Economic Blackout” on February 28. The blackout more broadly protested the county’s economic system controlled by big corporations and the government, but in Target’s case, it became enmeshed with the DEI protests.
To date, Target has taken a hit as measured in store foot traffic and website visits. On blackout Friday, it had an 11% drop in store visitors as compared with the previous five Fridays, and throughout February, foot traffic dropped 9% from previous year, according to Placer.ai. And website analytics firm Similarweb found Target website visits dropped 9% that day and its app use was down 14%.
On the emotional front, Target experienced a sharp drop in its corporate reputation earlier this year, as measured by RepTrak, coinciding with its pullback on DEI initiatives.
Consumer psychologist Chris Gray, the Buycologist, stressed that every consumer purchase decision has emotions at its core – “There’s always an emotional need that’s being fulfilled.” However, emotions are inherently subjective and extremely hard, if not impossible to quantify and measure.
Nonetheless, he said, “Emotional engagement can be a brand’s greatest asset or its greatest barrier.” Target seems to be particularly vulnerable in that regard, having been seen as a high-profile partner in the diversity, equity and inclusion movement, only to be perceived as abandoning the cause.
“While a single-firm boycott can be a powerful symbolic gesture and apply pressure to that company, the overall economic impact is likely minimal,” shared economist Bjorn Markeson of Implan and economics lecturer at Brandeis International Business School.
“However, for Target, a sustained boycott could lead to measurable revenue losses, potential reductions in employment or wages and disruptions in its supply chain, particularly for suppliers heavily reliant on its business,” he continued.
Black-owned businesses that supply products to Target could be collateral damage during the 40-day Target fast.
Behind Political Consumerism
Boycotts are an expression of what academics call political consumerism. While boycotts and “buycotts,” its polar opposite, are generally considered to have little impact on the rise or fall of a business’ financial performance, political consumerism – punishing or rewarding companies and brands for their political and social policy stances – can have a profound long term effect.
Boston College Professor Juliet Shor and co-author Margaret Willis studied the connection between political activism and conscious consumerism, defined as “any choice about products or services made in a way to express values of sustainability, social justice, corporate responsibility or workers’ rights.” They found that an individual’s consumption choices can affect broader social, cultural and political change.
The very title of their paper, “Does Changing a Light Bulb Lead to Changing the World?” proves their point. About a decade after the paper’s publication in 2012, the U.S. banned the sale of incandescent light bulbs in favor of the more energy-efficient LED variety.
Target Particularly Vulnerable
Unlike the delayed reaction to changing light bulbs, the Target 40-day Lenten boycott could have immediate effect. Target is already on its back foot. Its revenues dropped 3.1% in the fourth quarter and declined 0.8% for the full year to $30.9 billion.
A Target fast for Lent hits on three consumer psychological factors that give the boycott call more intensity.
Beyond Moral To A Spiritual Imperative
A paper published in the Journal of Business Research, entitled “The Dynamics of Consumer Boycott Intention,” led by researcher Eva Maria Jedicke, found that the willingness to boycott is driven by the “moral intensity” of perceived unethical corporate behavior.
“Motivated by both self-interest and the desire to benefit the community, boycotting represents an ethical consumer behavior and is a type of prosocial behavior,” Jedicke wrote, adding, “The more egregious the corporate misconduct is, the greater the consumers’ willingness to boycott.”
Rev. Bryant’s call not to patronize Target raises the stakes beyond the moral dimension to a religious imperative, calling it a “spiritual act of resistance.”
Lending A Helping Hand
As a form of prosocial behavior, boycotts are intended to benefit the greater community and are a manifestation of what is called “helping behavior,” where the participating individual gains little direct benefit. However, their boycotting activity is intended to benefit the greater good.
INSEAD professor of marketing Jill Gabrielle Klein and associates, in a paper entitled ”Why We Boycott: Consumer Motivation for Boycott Participation,” explains that in deciding whether to help, people weigh the costs versus benefits of helping. “The higher the net benefit of helping (rewards minus costs), the more likely it is that help will be given.”
In the case of boycotting Target, there is little direct cost associated with steering clear of the brand. Reliable and perfectly acceptable retail substitutes are available on virtually every corner.
And since it can take as little as 30 days to change a habit, “helping consumers” who participate in the 40-day Target boycott may permanently change their Target shopping habit.
Self-Actualization Reward
“There is substantial evidence from the helping behavior literature that people’s feeling good about themselves and admired by others are key benefits of helping,” Professor Klein writes. Conversely, people can experience self-blame and guilt by not helping out, a cost that is weighed in the balance.
Since shopping and buying are integral to the American consumer culture, consumers have more to gain than lose when taking part in the Target 40-day boycott.
“Participation enables the boycotter to boost social and personal self-esteem either by associating with the cause or group of people or simply viewing him- or herself as a moral person,” she continues.
More Boycotts On The Horizon
In case there is any doubt, political consumerism is on the rise and boycotts seem to be the favored means of expressing it. Given the increasing political divide in the country, politics is infiltrating many non-political dimensions of life, like shopping.
“We find American’s engagement in boycotts and/or buycotts for political or social reasons to be widespread,” writes Duke University’s Kyle Endres and Northeastern University’s Costas Panagopoulos in a paper published in the Research and Politics Journal. “Social media activity, political knowledge, ideological intensity and an interest in politics are significantly associated with political-consumer behavior.”
In analyzing the results of three consumer surveys conducted over a 16-month period after the Trump 2016 election, they found that 35% of respondents participated in a boycott during the previous 12 months and the participation rate rose to 39% among registered voters.
In addition, left-leaning individuals participated in boycotts at higher rates than conservatives to a statistically-significant degree. However, age and race did not play a role and in only one survey did women report more political-consumer behavior.
The researchers also found that consumers are much more likely to express their partisanship by punishing companies through boycotts rather than supporting them through buycotts.
“In an era characterized by heightened partisan polarization, political views and preferences may increasingly find expression in individuals’ consumer preferences and behavior,” they conclude.
The researchers also note that the rise of social media is transforming the “sociopolitical landscape” and extending individuals’ “interpersonal networks,” all of which elevate the rewards people experience when they take a stand against a company or brand that their ingroup perceives as behaving unethically.
As the Buycologist Gray observes emotions run deep when it comes to consumers’ purchasing behavior and being highly subjective, emotions are hard to measure. “Emotions are something that we are often not even aware of in ourselves. It’s not in our conscious level of thinking and decision making,” he said.
But then, in the famous words of Bob Dylan, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”
We may not be able to accurately measure it, but the wind seems to be blowing toward more political consumerism rather than less.