why arizona should fear the boycott
Arizona’s anti-immigration policy has attracted many critics across the country, including activists and politicians in California and Washington D.C. A number of these critics have called for a boycott of Arizona businesses. Protesters lined up outside Wrigley Field today where the Chicago Cubs hosted the visiting Arizona Diamondbacks, encouraging fans to boycott the game. Some associations have already pulled conventions from Arizona cities.
Boycotts with diffuse targets aren’t usually as successful as boycotts with specific organizational targets (which is one reason boycotters have focused their efforts on the Diamondbacks), but there are a couple of reasons that this boycott may have real teeth. The first is that the boycotts are being mobilized through institutions, like associations and conventions. Working through institutional means avoids the problem of trying to convince consumers to change their buying habits. Research on boycotts shows that consumers don’t like to change their buying habits, and so even ideologically supportive consumers will often fail to follow through with a boycott once they get to the store. But if associations cancel conventions, the losses to the tourism revenue of Arizona will be much greater. The associations essentially make the decision for the consumer.
Another reason Arizona should worry about the boycott is that it is affecting the reputations of local businesses. The Diamondbacks, while not a huge source of revenue for the state, are a stand-out organization that represents the entire state. Baseball is obviously worried about the potential image consequences that the immigration law is creating. The player’s union, which consists of a healthy proportion of Latino players, released a statement criticizing Arizona for the policy. A real indicator of the boycott’s success will be if MLB announces that it will take the 2011 All-Star game away from Arizona, where it is currently scheduled. Other businesses associated with Arizona are also distancing themselves from the state (who knew that AriZona Iced Tea was actually made in New York?). The reputational consequences may also be long-term. If Arizona doesn’t do something to change the public’s perception, businesses may think twice before moving their operations to the state. Following the supply chain theory of activist influence, as activists put pressure on local businesses, those businesses will in turn get sick of all the negative attention and start griping to their legislators.
Arizona can’t afford more hits to their reputation. They’ve already suffered enough from the recent decline in housing prices, and Arizona is not exactly thought of as having a booming economy right now. As my research shows, organizational targets that have suffered recent reputational declines are much more vulnerable to boycotts. Arizona isn’t in a strong reputational position to suffer more hits to their reputation.
Boycotts are essentially impression management tools. The boycott keeps the Arizona immigration law in the news and keeps people talking about its consequences. As Guillermo pointed out in a comment in Fabio’s earlier post, right now roughly half of Americans think the law is okay, but as the law attracts more negative attention and as the debate continues, some of those lukewarm supporters will turn into critics. Roughly 25% of boycotts that get some national media attention are successful in getting concessions from their targets, and this boycott is certainly getting media attention. The boycott keeps attention focused on the law, and that’s not something Arizona businesses will be happy about.
The distinction is important: 51 percent of Americans *who have heard about the law* are in favor. Some 22 percent of the sample had not heard of it, and they do not count. If you count the entire sample, 39 percent favor the law.
Guillermo
April 30, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Why should they fear?
They have the rest of us in other states that are boycotting California and supporting Arizona.
It’s all about BUYCOTT.
Jackie Fisher
May 1, 2010 at 12:10 am
Guillermo, good point. The actual approval of the law may be quite lower. I expect that the more media attention this boycott gets, the more educated people will become about the law.
Jackie – The problem with your logic is that the most detrimental effects of boycotts don’t come from immediate disruption to sales but from the disruption of the target’s image. Boycotts keep media attention focused on the issue, which is exactly what boycotters are hoping to accomplish. And so even if buycotters make up the difference in lost revenue, they’re still accentuating the effect of the boycott by keeping the public’s attention focused on the issue.
brayden
May 1, 2010 at 5:41 am
Brayden – what a brilliant application of research to a timely issue. Do you know of some examples in which sovereign bodies was effectively boycotted to effect a change in policy? SSL
Sheen
May 1, 2010 at 10:32 am
Hi Sheen. Thanks.
Arizona has a history of being boycotted. In the early 1990s tourists and several associations boycotted Arizona because the state did not approve the new national holiday, Martin Luther King Day. The NFL even revoked an invitation to Phoenix to host the Super Bowl. Eventually the state gave in and approved the observation of MLK day.
brayden
May 1, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Boycotts are usually ineffective. I have no interest in the matter and less than no interest in the Diamondbacks or the Cardinals or the Online University.
In point of fact, to be effective Arizona would need to build a fence along the New Mexico border, as well, so any gestures are, well, gosh, just gestures.
That said, my grandparents came from Italy without passports, hence were WOPs. But passports were invented only for World War One when monarchies feared spies. Before that, people went wherever they wanted to. Some restrictions applied, of course, during wars, which were dangerous, though certain special persons had “folded papers” — diplomas, hence “diplomats” — that allowed them to cross borders at will, even in time of war.
Michael E. Marotta
May 3, 2010 at 2:22 am
“In point of fact, to be effective Arizona would need to build a fence along the New Mexico border”
Hmmm… actually, due to the increase in border controls, most illegal immigrants actually cross the border at the Arizona-Sonora line.
Guillermo
May 3, 2010 at 2:38 am
there’s some more coverage at Ad Age
gabrielrossman
May 6, 2010 at 12:29 pm
I live in Arizona and don’t even go to Diamondback games. Is that really supposed to be a threat? If you don’t go see your local team play when they are hosting the Diamondback’s it would seem like the people suffering would be your team. Instead of spending money at the park they’d sit at home.
Personally, I think it would be funny if Arizona cut off California’s water and electricity.
Skateboarder
May 18, 2010 at 11:30 pm
All-
I could care less about all of the finer points of distinction you are making above about well its really not 51% but 39%. You are missing the broader point.
In recent polling, 70% of people in Arizona agree with the law. 24% oppose! I don’t care how you do the math…..that is an overwhelming number of people in favor of the bill. The governor, who is up for re-election, has gained 19 points in one month! Around the country, depending on which poll you look at 55-60% of people favor similar legislation being passed in their states. 75% of people think the federal government isn’t doing enough to secure our borders and 56% believe the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration. Who is really to blame here? Obama or the AZ governor?
Perhaps someone should put their biases aside and quit focusing on the fringe minority and look into the effects of how a small minority of people who start doing ridiculous boycotting outside a baseball game actually is counter-productive because it begins to mobilize the majority and make them even more firm in their convictions and makes what the boycotts end goal is even more remote because of their absurd means of trying to create change.
It is my opinion to let them keep boycotting! How many of the people boycotting do you think have actually read the bill? In statements from the Obama administration (AG Holder and Sec. HS Napoletano), they are criticizing a bill they haven’t even read! Perhaps they should start reading these bills and then they can make intelligent arguments instead of just trying to distort the truth. Let them continue to alienate themselves from the majority who favor this bill and make what they are ultimately trying to achieve even more remote!
Jonathan
May 22, 2010 at 1:58 am
Now back to enjoying a salad made with vegetables harvested by an immigrant.
Guillermo
May 22, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Arizona has little to worry about, they will soon be joined by most other states who will pass similar laws. It is a good start in securing our country, we
need to close our borders, remove those who are here
illegaly and reduce legal immigration to almost zero, we just do not need the people and everyone in this world does not have the right to come here.
YOU GO ARIZONA, WE ARE WITH YOU.
sailor
May 25, 2010 at 4:48 am
Companies who build the border fence across the US-Mexico border hire illegal immigrants to do the work:
http://www.ocregister.com/news/company-189562-illegal-immigrants.html
Could we do an orgtheory study on how they aren’t needed?
Guillermo
May 25, 2010 at 5:36 am
The political backdrop is of course the AZ election campaign, looking tough on illegal immigration is a vote winner among many.
To us apolitical types living in Arizona, the whole debate is unfortunate.
This is a state that badly needs investment, also foreign… there are tremendous undeveloped natural resources in wind and solar energy (104F outside today) and bickering over immigration paralyzes the polity in general.
For a way out, see my B2B Marketing blog at http://pmohstrom11994.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/the-pr-disaster-that-is-arizona/
pmohstrom11994
June 10, 2010 at 9:42 pm
[...] sociologist Brayden King explains, “Boycotts don’t tend to work in the way people think, by hurting the bottom [...]
Target: Why Organizations Should Boycott Target but Individuals Shouldn’t Bother
August 26, 2010 at 2:22 pm