The basic narrative of a grassroots boycott is familiar: a group of consumers, angry about an issue, refuse to spend money at a retailer. They enlist like-minded consumers, the boycott grows and the company suffers from lower sales.
While these sorts of campaigns are useful for expressing displeasure, they aren't all that successful when it comes to changing a company's policies. For example, one of the most widespread grassroots campaigns of recent years – the 2003 US boycott of French wines – quickly caused a 26% drop in sales, but had little long-term effect on either France's wine industry or its politics. Within six months, says Larry Chavis, a professor of entrepreneurship at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, "sales had returned to the same trajectory that they had been on before the boycott."
"Smart campaigners combine boycotts with carrots such as brand promotion if a company makes a change, and other types of sticks if it does not, such as targeted protests, social media campaigns, and brandjacking," he says.
Successful campaigns, Steele says, also have well-defined "asks" that let a brand know what, exactly, the campaigners want. To be most successful, he argues, campaigners need to present a business with two paths. "In one, the brand loses value because it is connected with a problem," Steele says. "In the other, the brand gains value when it is perceived as a leader. Combined with a smart, do-able ask, a brand might be inclined to sign on without the need for a public boycott."