Journal of Services Marketing

On the effectiveness of consumer boycotts organized through the internet: the market model
Paul Sergius Koku
Article information:
To cite this document:
Paul Sergius Koku, (2012),"On the effectiveness of consumer boycotts organized through the internet: the market model",
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 26 Iss 1 pp. 20 - 26
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041211199698
Downloaded on: 31 January 2016, At: 04:20 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 30 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1453 times since 2012*
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAET OSNABRUCK At 04:20 31 January 2016 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Gayle Kerr, Kathleen Mortimer, Sonia Dickinson, David S. Waller, (2012),"Buy, boycott or blog: Exploring online consumer
power to share, discuss and distribute controversial advertising messages", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Iss 3/4 pp.
387-405 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561211202521
N. Craig Smith, (1989),"Consumer Boycotts", Management Decision, Vol. 27 Iss 6 pp. - http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
EUM0000000000050
N. Craig Smith, (1987),"Consumer Boycotts and Consumer Sovereignty", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21 Iss 5 pp. 7-19
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004694

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:203840 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 On the effectiveness of consumer
boycotts organized through the internet:
the market model
Paul Sergius Koku
College of Business, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of consumer boycotts, which have been launched by individuals using the internet,
in inflicting economic harm on the targeted firms.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses the event study technique to analyze the market’s response to consumer boycotts launched by
individuals using the internet.
Findings – The results show that consumer boycotts launched by individuals on the internet are ineffective in inflicting economic harm on the targeted
firm.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAET OSNABRUCK At 04:20 31 January 2016 (PT)

Research limitations/implications – Despites the buzz about the “dark side” of marketing using the internet, the stock market does not react
significantly to boycotts launched by individuals using the internet. However, the small sample size of 63 events tampers the temptation to generalize
the findings. Future studies can be conducted with a larger sample size with a different time horizon for a deeper understanding.
Practical implications – In spite of the findings of this study, managers should still monitor how consumers use the internet to mobilize others against
an organization as such consumer actions can affect a firm’s reputation negatively.
Originality/value – The study contributes to the boycott literature and furthers the understanding on the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of the internet
as a boycott tool that is intended to inflict economic harm on the targeted firm.

Keywords Consumer boycotts, Consumer behaviour, Event study, Stock market reaction, Stock markets, Internet, Cost effectiveness

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
have been defined differently by different scholars. Friedman
(1985, p. 97) defined boycotts as:
[. . .] an attempt by one or more parties to achieve certain objectives by
urging individual consumers to refrain from making selected purchases in the
marketplace.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness
consumer boycotts organized through the internet by using
the market’s response. Boycotts have attracted the interests of
scholars who have examined it through different lenses. Some
researchers examined the phenomenon through the
disciplines of sociology and history (Laidler, 1913, 1930;
Hyman, 1980; Friedman, 1971, 1991), others through
psychology and economics (Mahoney, 1976; Koku et al.,
1997; Sen et al., 2001; Klein et al., 2004). Such other
disciplines as political science (DeCrespigny and McKinnell,
1960; Frank et al., 1982) and marketing (Garrett, 1987; Klein
et al., 2003) have also been used.
By their nature, boycotts are rather unique. Even though
they generally require group efforts, they are different from
embargoes which are state-sponsored (Garrett, 1987).
They are also different from industrial actions (work-
stoppage) which are often union-sponsored (see Chavez,
1983). Having been a subject of extensive inquiry, boycotts
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm
Journal of Services Marketing
26/1 (2012) 20– 26
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045]
[DOI 10.1108/08876041211199698]
Garrett (1987, p. 47) sees boycotts as:
[. . .] concerted, but nonmandatory, refusal by a group of actors (the agents)
to conduct marketing transactions with one or more other actors (the target)
for the purpose of communicating displeasure with certain target policies
and attempting to coerce the target to modify those policies.
Although scholars cannot agree on a single cause, it has been
well documented that boycotts have been increasing in
frequency over the years (see Savan, 1989, Friedman, 1991).
Several reasons have been adduced to explain this
phenomenon; one explanation is that they have become a
common means through consumers express their disapproval
of a company’s actions or products (John and Klein, 2003).
To the extent that boycotts are viewed as empowering an
otherwise powerless group, Etzioni (in Hoandler, 1969)
ascribed the increasing frequency of boycotts to a part of the
“daily routines of democracy.”
However, a unique aspect of a democracy is mass
participation, a collective action, or the involvement of a
large number of individuals. As such, the means through
democratic instrumentalities are organized is very important
to its success. In a similar vein the organizational facilities of
boycotts are important to their success. To this end the
internet, a recent invention, which makes communicating
with a large number of people quick, easy, and cheap
(Sen et al., 2001) becomes the sacred double-edged sword. Its
use by businesses has changed many time-tested business

20
 On the effectiveness of consumer boycotts organized through the internet
Paul Sergius Koku
models and has introduced such words as e-tailing, web-
surfing, and netnography into our lexicon. It has also
provided an important means through which boycotts could
be organized by consumers. Other social and political groups
such as People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA),
earth first (a group that promotes environmental
consciousness), and a group known as Ethical Consumers
(EC) have also used the internet to organize boycotts.
Given the advantages that the internet offers over previously
existing means of organizing boycotts through such news
media such as radios, newspapers and the television in
reaching consumers that are spread over a wide geographic
location, it is not surprising that several scholars (Kozinets
and Handelman, 1998; Sen et al., 2001) have examined the
internet as a means of organizing boycotts. However, no study
has yet examined the success of the internet as a vehicle for
organizing boycotts. Because boycotts are not organized for
the sake of organizing one, knowing whether a boycott has
been successful or not is as important as knowing whether the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAET OSNABRUCK At 04:20 31 January 2016 (PT)
means through which a boycott has been organized is effective
or ineffective. Thus, this study fills an existing knowledge gap
by focusing on the financial impact of consumer boycotts that
have been organized using the internet. Arguing that the
market is a good arbiter of the financial success of a boycott,
we use the market model to evaluate the stock market’s
reaction to boycotted firms when a boycott is launched on the
internet. Because the internet is essentially a service that is
engaged primarily for communicating and marketing, the
topic for this study is a suitable and an appropriate line of
inquiry for the journal of services marketing.
Literature review
Scholars have been actively studying boycotts since Laidler’s
early foray into the world of boycotts and labor movements
over a century ago (see Laidler, 1913, 1930). Then, boycotts
were viewed as a tool by which labor could stand up to
recalcitrant management. Curiously, that notion still prevails
as a trigger for boycotts as evidenced in Chavez’s actions,
speeches and writings (see Chavez, 1983). In spite of these
exhaustive studies, new studies on boycotts continue to
generate new insights.
Because it can be adapted to different situations researchers
of boycotts have examined it from different viewpoints using
different paradigms. Funches et al. (2009) examined
consumers call for people not to patronize targeted firms as
an offshoot from customers’ anti-consumption behavior.
They argued that customers call to others not to patronize a
targeted firm goes beyond the desire to retaliate and stems
from what the researchers referred to as a self-serving motive
or the customers’ desire to “teach the service provider a
lesson”, or from a more altruistic goal “to save others from the
same fate.” Fuches et al.’s work extends Hunt (1991) by
showing the close connection between consumer
dissatisfaction, complaining behavior and the inclination to
spread negative word-of-mouth about the targeted firm.
A consumer’s call to others not to patronize a firm as a result
of that consumer’s dissatisfaction is the ultimate negative
word-of-mouth.
Hoffman and Muller (2009) in a study on consumer
boycotts examined consumer boycotts due to factory
locations. They extended Klein et al.’s (2004) Awareness-
Egregiousness-Boycott model by introducing consumers’
“trust” in management as a possible intervening variable.
21
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 1 · 2012 · 20 –26
The results of the study showed that consumers’ trust in a
company’s management is indeed an important intervening
variable in the boycott decision regarding factory relocation.
Attacking consumer boycott issues from a different angle,
Yuksel and Mryteza (2009), through experimental
manipulations, examined the relative effectiveness of
marketing strategies, particularly public relations strategies
that targeted firms could use to combat boycotts that are
politically motivated form of anti-consumption. They
concluded that presenting unrelated positive information
about the targeted firm is effective in reducing the negative
effects of a boycott.
Garrett (1987), in observing the absence of attention to
forces in an organization’s external environment that opposed
the organization’s marketing policies, focused his attention on
boycotts. As a tool often used by protest groups, Garrett
(1987) proposed that the effectiveness of boycotts be
measured by the extent to which the boycotts’ goals have
been achieved. He suggested three areas in which boycotts
could induce change; namely economic pressure (boycotts
could exert economic pressure on targeted a firm), image
pressure (boycotts could be used to create negative image for
the targeted firm), and policy commitment (boycotts could
make the targeted firm to re-examine its policies).
Monroe Friedman (1971) in a series of studies analyzed
boycotts in the context of social protests. He viewed boycotts
from perspective of protest leaders, as historical events, and
examined its use by “surrogate groups” such as the labor
unions and a “group housewives” who protested rising food
prices (Friedman, 1995). By considering these groups to be
external to the marketplace, the researcher provides a
conceptual framework and a research agenda which outlines
how the effectiveness of boycotts could be evaluated
(Friedman, 1991).
The likelihood of success of a boycott is a nested issue. For
boycott to be successful it must attract enough participation,
however, the decision to participate is not costless to the
individual. To this end, Sen et al.’s (2001) examination of the
factors that influence the likelihood of an individual’s
participation in a boycott is significant to the literature.
Using the social dilemma and reference group theories, the
researchers in an experimental study determined that
consumers’ boycott costs are determined by the preference
for the boycotted goods and availability of substitutes.
Furthermore, consumers who are susceptible to the more
normative influence exerted by the reference group of
potential boycotters are more likely to participate in a boycott.
More closely related to the current study in terms of
consumers’ internet use in organizing boycotts are two key
studies by Kozinets and Handelman (1998), and Ward and
Ostrom (2006). The findings of Kozinets and Handelman’s
(1998) study on consumers use of the internet challenges the
long-held view that consumers use the internet to organize a
collective effort to pressure firms to institute changes that they
were not willing to do on their own. The researchers in a
netnographic study which analyzed 14 cyber-interviews and
68 Usenet postings found that that many “net-boycotters”
participate in boycotts not to inflict economic harm on
targets, but more as an expression of a complex emotional
expression of their individuality, and because the boycott
serves as “a vehicle for moral self-realization.”
Contrary to the findings of Kozinets and Handelman’s
(1998) study, Ward and Ostrom (2006) found in using
protest-framing theory to analyze the role of protest framing
 On the effectiveness of consumer boycotts organized through the internet
Paul Sergius Koku
in customer created web sites that consumers use rhetorical
tactics to mobilize others against a perceived injustice or
betrayal by a corporation. To the extent that these tactics are
effective, a community of dissatisfied consumers may be
formed. However, we noted that dissatisfied consumers use
other options on the internet such as ellenspoison which
floods a targeted firm with complaint letters or www.cemptor.
com, or www.complaintous.com
Theories and hypotheses
As much as boycotts have been studied, there is still no
consensus on the objectives of boycotts. However, three
separate and apparently disparate objectives initially argued
by Garrett (1987) have emerged as dimensions along which
the effectiveness of boycotts could be evaluated. Garrett
(1987, p. 49) argued that the effectiveness of boycotts could
be measured through the extent to which the boycott exerts
image pressure (create undesirable publicity for the target),
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAET OSNABRUCK At 04:20 31 January 2016 (PT)
economic pressure (create financial hardships), and policy
commitment “which is the level of resistance that the target
decides to adopt, at the outset of the boycott, in response to
the agents’ coercive efforts to modify its policies.”
Following Garrett (1987), Friedman (1991), in his work on
the conceptual framework and research agenda of consumer
boycotts, identified four main types of boycotts, namely
media-oriented boycotts, marketplace-oriented boycotts,
instrumental boycotts and expressive boycotts. Friedman
(1991, p. 153) suggested that consumer boycotts that are
media-oriented are “concerned with publicity in the news
media than with action in the marketplace”. What Friedman
classifies as media-oriented boycotts is similar to Garrett’s
(1987) “image pressure” since the media could serve as a
means through which boycotts could generate negative
publicity for the targeted firm.
Furthermore, Friedman’s marketplace boycott is similar to
Garrett’s economic pressure since the objective of the
marketplace pressure is to inflict an economic loss on the
targeted firm. Friedman (1991) differentiated instrumental
boycotts from expressive boycotts. The researcher argues that
instrumental boycotts have practical definite objectives such
as a union seeking recognition. On the other hand, expressive
boycotts are simply meant to vent protestors’ frustration with
the target. In some ways, Friedman’s (1991) explanation of
expressive boycotters is consistent with the findings of
Kozinets and Handelman (1998).
Because corporations, whether for-profit or not-for-profit,
consist of different stakeholder groups, it is not inconsistent
for boycotts to have different objectives that might be directed
at the different stakeholders. We argue that the most powerful
stakeholder group, by far, for for-profit organizations is its
shareholders. These individuals are interested in realizing a
reasonable return on their investment when they invest in a
firm, because all other “social objectives” could be
individually pursued by an individual shareholder. For
example, an individual investor interested in environmental
issues might engage in a trade off to maximize his/her returns
in one firm while settling for mediocre returns in another firm
that might be more oriented toward preserving the
environment but does not realize much profit.
We acknowledge that inflicting economic hardship on a
targeted firm is not the only objective of boycotters.
Sometimes, the objective is to get to targeted firm to change
its ways by creating negative publicity. For example, the
22
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 1 · 2012 · 20 –26
American Family Association launched a boycott against Ford
Motors in 2006 to get Ford to stop advertising its Volvo,
Jaguar, and Land Rover brands in gay media (see Peters,
2006). Similarly, the same association launched a boycott
against Target (a national chain of department stores) for
substituting “holiday” for “Christmas” (see Ahrens, 2008).
However, we seek to evaluate the effectiveness of the use of
the internet by a dissatisfied consumer or consumers’ in
exerting what Garrett (1987) referred to as “economic
pressure”, or what Friedman (1991) referred to as
“marketplace-oriented boycott” by appealing to others to
withhold their purchases from the targeted firm.
We accomplish this goal by examining the abnormal returns
of the targeted firms when the boycott is launched.
There are number of “hurdles” that an individual using the
internet to organize a boycott has to first clear. First, the story
for which s/he is seeking “revenge” must be credible or
believable. Then, there is the need to attract a significant
number of people to withhold their purchase. It is, however,
not sufficient for a significant number of individuals who
currently “deal” with the targeted firm to heed the call of the
boycott organizer or organizers. It is also important that all
these boycott sympathizers, besides being large in numbers
withhold their purchases approximately around the same time
in order for the boycott to be able to inflict any meaningful
noticeable economic effect on the targeted firm.
Even though the internet is widely used by many consumers
who are also widely dispersed over a rather wide geographic
area, because these consumers access the internet at different
times, it is very difficult for them to really act in concert.
Hence despite the wide reach of the internet, it will be an
ineffective tool for organizing boycotts that are intended to
inflict economic hardships on the targeted firm. Thus, we
hypothesized that:
H1. Boycotts organized by individuals using the internet
are ineffective in inflicting economic damage on
targeted firms.
An argument could be made that the credibility required
could be easily satisfied and a critical mass attained if a
credible group such as a church or a well-known consumer
group endorses the individual or group of individuals who is
organizing the boycott on the internet. We argue that even if
these hurdles are “crossed”, not everybody hears the news at
the same time as in the case of a radio. Furthermore, unlike in
the case of a newspaper, not everybody will read the same
news on the same day. Because of what we refer to, for lack of
better term, as spatial incoherence, or the fact that different
people access the internet at different times, the internet will
not be an effective tool in organizing boycotts whose objective
is to inflict economic damages on the targeted firm. Hence we
hypothesize that:
H2. Boycotts organized by an individual consumer using
the internet and endorsed by a group are ineffective in
inflicting economic damage on targeted firms.
Data
We used two different computer search engines to search for
web sites that called for consumer boycotts. Our search
focused on the period from January 1, 2004 to December 31,
2008. We chose this period simply because of convenience,
but we have no reason to believe that this period is atypical of
 On the effectiveness of consumer boycotts organized through the internet
Paul Sergius Koku
any other period. We obtained hundreds of boycott web sites
which were narrowed down to only web sites that were
launched by individuals. The list of targets includes a wide
range of entities such as countries such as China to vague
targets such as “all companies sponsoring the Olympics in
China”.
Because we are interested in evaluating the effectiveness of
individual boycotts by using the market model, we further
narrowed down our data to include only boycotts that
targeted publicly traded companies. We also required that the
targeted firms have no other discernible activity to which the
market could react during the period under investigation.
These requirements further narrowed down our sample to 63.
Out of this number about 12 received endorsement of groups
such as the National Council of Churches. This observation is
important since we are interested in the effect of such group
endorsements in order to answer the question of whether
group endorsements improve the likelihood of success of a
boycott that is launched by an individual.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAET OSNABRUCK At 04:20 31 January 2016 (PT)
We noticed from the data that some firms were targeted on
more than one occasion, but there was no overlap during the
event windows as such there were no clustering problems. We
also noted that some individuals launched more than one
boycott during the period under investigation and targeted
more than one company, but that too did not affect our
analysis. We got the market returns data on the 63 events
using Center for Research on Security Prices (CRSP) data.
The event study methodology
We analyzed the data using the event study methodology
(Fama et al., 1969; Fama, 1970; Brown and Warner, 1985)
which allows us to detect the impact of unanticipated events
on stock prices by analyzing the stock market’s reaction to
new product announcements. Note that using the stock
market’s reaction to assess the financial impact of individual
boycotts allows us to get around problems inherent in using
accounting information. The efficient market hypothesis
(EMH), and the rational expectations model (REM)
constitute the two main drivers of the event study
technique. The EMH posits that publicly traded asset prices
reflect all publicly available information, while the REM
posits that current asset prices represent the discounted
streams of future income. Using these two theoretical models
as the underlying construct, we used the market model to
capture the effect of the market’s reaction.
The market model posits that the expected returns on any
asset, in a given period, are linearly related to the return on a
market portfolio over the same period (see Brown and
Warner, 1985). The basic assumption is that all the firms in
the economy are affected by the changes in the economy. The
market model could be algebraically written as:
Rit ¼ ai þ bi Rmt þ git
where:
Rit ¼ the return on stock i time t;
Rmt ¼ the return on market portfolio at time t;
ai ¼ the intercept;
bi ¼ the slope; and
git ¼ the error term.
We estimated the unknown parameters (a and b) in the model
using ordinary least square regression, returns data, and a
value-weighted market portfolio from the CRSP data. The
estimation period consisted of 224 days (t-245 to t-21), which
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 1 · 2012 · 20 –26
is consistent with prior studies (see Koku et al., 1997). The
market’s reaction is measured as ERit ¼ Rit 2 ai 2 bi Rmt . The
excess abnormal return is the difference between the actual
and the predicted return on the event day t0 – that is the day
that boycott web site was launched.
The unanticipated negative news which is consumers’
(boycott sympathizers’) withdrawal of purchases from the
targeted firm would result in the presence of excess return
that is not equal to zero, that is E(git) w 0 (see Fama et al.,
1969). Positive unanticipated news will result in positive
excess returns, while negative unanticipated news will result
in negative abnormal returns. In this case because boycott is
negative unanticipated news, we expect excess negative
abnormal returns.
Analysis and results
First, we conducted the market returns analysis on all the 63
events. This allows us to test H1. Then, we conducted the
market returns analysis on only the 12 events which received
endorsement from groups. The results of the first analysis are
reported in Table I. They show that the cumulative abnormal
returns on day t0, that is the day that the boycott web site was
launched was 0.00918 which was not significantly different
from 0 with a z-value of 1.0087. Furthermore, abnormal
returns during the next 20 days of launching the web site do
not show any significant difference from zero either.
The results from the 20 post-launched days are important
in case one argues that the web sites needed post-launched
time to “catch on”. However, because of possible
confounding variables, it becomes increasingly difficult to
extend the post-launched days for an extended period. The
results of our analysis show that the market does not react
significantly to boycotts launched by consumers using the
internet, thus H1 is supported. The second analysis which
comprised boycotts endorsed by groups only also shows the
absence of a significant negative abnormal returns and
reported in Table II. The cumulative abnormal return on day
t0 was -0.00778 with a z-value of -1.0057. This result also
supports H2.
Managerial implications
Despite the buzz about the “dark side” of marketing using the
internet etc., the results of this study suggest that the internet
is not an effective arsenal that dissatisfied consumers can use
organize boycotts to inflict economic damage on a targeted
firm. However, as observed by Garrett (1987), Friedman
(1991), and Kozinets and Handelman (1998), economic
damage is only one of several possible goals of a boycott. The
fact that the internet might be ineffective for one boycott
ð1Þ objective does not mean that it is ineffective for all other
possible boycott objectives. Hence management cannot afford
to be less vigilant about consumers’ use of the internet to “get
even” with a company that consumers feel has wronged them
in one way or the other.
As noted earlier, the use of the internet in other ways such
as ellenspoison, commplaintous and the like could, at the
minimum, be an irritant that must be dealt with. In some
instances, however, “flooding” a targeted firm with massive
complaint e-mail messages could lead into a failure of the
targeted firm’s on-line service. Furthermore, it is possible that
the internet is effective in creating negative publicity for the
targeted firm, as in the case of Target or Walt Disney, but such
23
 On the effectiveness of consumer boycotts organized through the internet Journal of Services Marketing
Paul Sergius Koku Volume 26 · Number 1 · 2012 · 20 –26

Table I Abnormal market returns to consumer boycotts Table II Abnormal market returns to group endorsed consumer
boycotts
Day AR A CAR B Z-value
Day AR D CAR E Z-value
2 20 20.00070 20.00018 20.8556
2 19 0.00110 0.00012 1.1156 220 2 0.00030 20.00010 20.3456
2 18 20.0016 20.00312 20.5566 219 2 0.00100 20.00030 20.5156
2 17 20.00011 0.00022 1.2134 218 2 0.00216 20.00222 20.8986
2 16 0.00006 20.00033 20.5566 217 2 0.00055 20.00522 21.1134
2 15 0.00244 20.00051 20.8997 216 0.02267 20.00433 20.7866
2 14 20.00433 20.00101 21.1568 215 2 0.00565 20.00665 21.0777
2 13 20.00227 0.00229 0.3347 214 2 0.00115 20.00200 21.0008
2 12 0.00056 20.00366 21.0568 213 2 0.00106 0.03329 1.1347
2 11 20.00090 0.00112 0.0897 212 0.00089 20.00556 20.9088
2 10 20.00219 0.00065 1.2116 211 2 0.00109 20.00232 20.9897
29 0.00659 20.00601 1.0155 210 2 0.00211 0.00025 0.9916
29 0.00449 0.00305 1.0255
28 20.00166 20.00670 20.6896
28 2 0.00145 20.00350 20.4576
27 0.00035 20.00779 21.1229
27 0.00015 20.00669 21.0389
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAET OSNABRUCK At 04:20 31 January 2016 (PT)

26 0.00124 20.00889 20.7779

26 0.00104 20.00443 20.9977
25 20.00335 0.00115 0.3458
25 2 0.00225 0.00110 0.2550
24 20.00085 20.00332 20.2225
24 2 0.00005 20.00112 20.1225
23 20.00003 20.00445 20.9879
23 2 0.00335 20.00655 20.9998
22 20.00178 0.00232 21.1124
22 2 0.00145 20.00562 20.8995
21 0.00091 0.00432 0.9908
21 0.00113 20.00333 20.6780
0 0.00006 0.00918 1.0987 0 2 0.00226 20.00778 21.0057
1 0.00145 0.00008 20.4423 1 0.00225 0.00108 0.6795
2 0.00181 0.00219 0.9876 2 0.00155 0.00368 1.1076
3 20.00221 0.00333 1.1615 3 2 0.00891 0.01414 1.1215
4 20.00013 20.00564 20.9867 4 2 0.00203 20.00666 20.9769
5 0.00039 20.00089 20.6779 5 0.00010 20.00009 20.5554
6 0.00271 20.00141 0.6751 6 0.00111 20.00613 0.7181
7 20.00231 20.00049 20.5101 7 2 0.00669 20.00087 20.4445
8 20.00078 20.00121 20.9880 8 2 0.00058 20.00101 21.0161
9 20.00029 20.00477 21.0891 9 2 0.00222 20.00667 21.0331
10 0.00019 20.00139 21.1008 10 2 0.00115 20.00229 20.7751
11 20.00075 0.00018 0.7651 11 2 0.00275 0.00010 0.8897
12 0.00056 0.00110 1.1008 12 0.00016 0.00270 1.1006
13 0.00066 20.00771 20.7765 13 2 0.00056 20.00328 20.8667
14 20.00226 20.00012 20.8895 14 2 0.00113 20.00412 21.0235
15 20.00094 0.00866 21.0115 15 2 0.00020 20.00155 20.9115
16 20.00028 20.0001 20.8999 16 2 0.00025 20.00067 20.7798
17 0.00009 20.00099 20.9008 17 0.00005 20.00029 20.8890
18 20.00056 20.00449 20.5505 18 2 0.00025 20.00344 20.9989
19 0.00011 0.00021 20.9988 19 2 0.00015 20.00225 20.7988
20 0.00081 20.00551 21.0890 20 0.00020 0.00055 0.9890

Notes: AR ¼ abnormal market returns; CAR ¼ cumulative market returns Notes: AR ¼ abnormal market returns; CAR ¼ cumulative market returns

an evaluation is not the objective of this paper. Nonetheless,
they ought to be taken seriously because of their potential to
damage the targeted firm’s image.
Because the internet has become an important
communication tool, both for firms and consumers, it
would be a good strategy for management of a firm to
devote some of its resources to specifically monitor
consumers’ web sites for complaints about the firm. A team
such as the “Internet Squad” should be specifically created
and assigned the responsibility of monitoring subjects of
discussions that are related to the firm, thus proactive
measures can be taken to defuse situations that seem to be
gathering momentum which might not bode well for the firm.
For example, consumer web sites that have repeated
discussions of negative company policies could be an
indication of potential trouble that would require
intervention from the firm. The firm must not wait until a
boycott is launched before an action is taken.
Furthermore, it may also be a good strategy for
management to devote web sites to spreading news about
the laudable activities that company might be involved in.
Such web sites could also be used to cultivate the firm’s “good
public image” and its good citizenship. The “Internet Squad”

24
 On the effectiveness of consumer boycotts organized through the internet
Paul Sergius Koku
could be used to counteract the possible negative publicity
that a dissatisfied consumer might seek to create for the firm.
Conclusion
It has become quite clear that the internet has morphed into
unforeseen uses with its reach being limited only by our
imagination. Currently, it is a double-edged sword that can be
wield by management and consumers alike to pursue some
desirable or undesirable objectives. Thus far, it appears that it
is an ineffective tool in the hands of consumers in organizing
boycotts, however, management cannot rest unconcerned.
Given its wide use in other activities and the use of such other
communicating devices as the u-tube etc. management could
be well-served to commission different studies or how
consumers could use the internet against companies and
how companies could also use the internet to neutralize the
effects of its undesirable use by consumers.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAET OSNABRUCK At 04:20 31 January 2016 (PT)
References
Ahrens, F. (2008), “Gay-marriage opponents to boycott
McDonald’s”, Washington Post, July 4, p. D1.
Brown, S.J. and Warner, J.B. (1985), “Using daily stock
returns: the case of event studies”, Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol. 14, pp. 56-62.
Chavez, C.E. (1983), “Future of the boycott”, memorandum
to the Executive Board, May 27.
DeCrespigny, A.R.C. and McKinnell, R.T. (1960),
“The nature and significance of economic boycott”, South
African Journal of Economics, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 319-36.
Fama, E.F. (1970), “Efficient capital markets: a review of
theory and empirical work”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 283-417.
Fama, E.F., Fisher, L., Jensen, M. and Roll, R. (1969),
“The adjustment of stock prices to new information”,
International Economic Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Funches, V., Markley, M. and Davis, L. (2009), “Reprisal,
retribution and equital: investigating customer retaliation”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 231-8.
Frank, T.M., Padgett, A., Mitchell, J., Kanaan, L.,
Bonbright, D. and Moelis, R. (1982), “An investment
boycott by the developing countries against South Africa:
a rationale and preliminary assessment of feasibility”,
Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 309-27.
Friedman, M. (1971), “The 1966 consumer protest as seen
by its leaders”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, pp. 1-23.
Friedman, M. (1985), “Consumer boycotts in the United
Sates, 1970-1980: contemporary events in historical
perspective”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 96-117.
Friedman, M. (1991), “Consumer boycotts: a conceptual
framework and research agenda”, Journal of Social Issues,
Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 149-68.
Friedman, M. (1995), “American consumer boycotts in
response to rising food prices: housewives’ protests at the
grassroots level”, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 55-72.
Garrett, D.E. (1987), “The effectiveness of marketing policy
boycotts: environmental opposition to marketing”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 46-57.
Hoandler, M.S. (1969), “US laws fail to check aid to campus
protestors”, The New York Times, February 16.
25
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 1 · 2012 · 20 –26
Hoffman, S. and Muller, S. (2009), “Customer boycotts due
to factory relocation”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 239-47.
Hunt, H.K. (1991), “Consumer satisfaction, dissatisfaction,
and complaining behavior”, Journal of Social Issues,
Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 107-17.
Hyman, P. (1980), “Immigrant women and consumer
protest: the New York kosher meat boycott of 1902”,
American Jewish History, Vol. 70, September, pp. 91-105.
John, A. and Klein, J.G. (2003), “The boycott puzzle:
consumer motivations for purchase sacrifice”, Management
Science, Vol. 49 No. 9, pp. 1196-209.
Klein, J.G., Smith, C. and Andrew, J. (2003), “Exploring the
motivation for participation in a consumer boycott”,
in Broniarczyk, S. and Kent, N. (Eds), Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 29, Association for Consumer
Research, Provo, UT, pp. 363-9.
Klein, J.G., Smith, C. and Andrew, J. (2004), “Why we
boycott: consumer motivations for boycott participation”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 92-109.
Koku, S.S., Akhigbe, A. and Springer, T. (1997),
“The financial impact of boycotts and threats of
boycotts”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 15-20.
Kozinets, R.V. and Handelman, J. (1998), “Ensouling
consumption: a netnographic exploration of the meaning
of boycotting behavior”, Advances in Consumer Behavior,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 475-80.
Laidler, H.W. (1913), Boycotts and the Labor Struggle, Russell
and Russell, New York, NY.
Laidler, H.W. (1930), “Boycott”, in Seligman, R.A. (Ed.),
The Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 2, Macmillan,
New York, NY.
Mahoney, J. (1976), “The relation of anticipated
effectiveness, alienation, and value structure to planned
participation in a national meat boycott”, Psychology,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 39-47.
Peters, W.J. (2006), “Still advertising to gays, Ford under
boycott again”, New York Times, March 15, p. C5.
Savan, L. (1989), “Where the boycotts are”, Village Voice,
June 6, pp. 47-8.
Sen, S., Gurhan-Canli, Z. and Morwitz, V. (2001),
“Withholding consumption: a social dilemma perspective
on consumer boycotts”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 399-417.
Yuksel, U. and Mryteza, V. (2009), “An evaluation of strategic
responses to consumer boycotts”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 248-59.
Ward, J.C. and Ostrom, A.L. (2006), “Complaining to the
masses: the role of protest framing in customer-created
complaint web sites”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 220-30.
About the author
Professor Paul Sergius Koku is involved in many professional
associations which include: The American Bar Association,
The American Finance Association, American Marketing
Association, Academy of Marketing Science, The Florida Bar,
The Federal Bar-Southern District of Florida, and The
Institute of Operations Research and Management Sciences.
He is tenured professor in the College of Business at Florida
Atlantic University and engages in interdisciplinary research.
 On the effectiveness of consumer boycotts organized through the internet
Paul Sergius Koku
His papers have appeared in several peer-reviewed journals
and book chapters. Professor Koku holds a BA (summa cum
Laude) with concentration in Finance from the University of
the Virgin Islands. He also holds MBA (Marketing) from
Oregon State University, MBA (Finance), MA (Applied
Economics) and a PhD in Finance and Marketing, all from
Rutgers. He also holds the Juris Doctor degree from the
University of Miami School of Law. Paul Sergius Koku can be
contacted at: Koku@fau.edu
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the
material present.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAET OSNABRUCK At 04:20 31 January 2016 (PT)
Although there is no agreement on a single cause, boycotts
launched against companies have increased in frequency over
the years. It is clear that the internet has morphed into
unforeseen uses with its reach being limited only by our
imagination. Currently, it is a double-edged sword that can be
wielded by management and consumers alike to pursue
desirable or undesirable objectives. Inflicting economic
hardship on a targeted firm is not the only objective of
boycotters. Sometimes, the objective is to get the targeted
firm to change its ways by creating negative publicity.
So far it appears the internet is an ineffective tool in the
hands of consumers in organizing boycotts – at least as far as
stock market reaction is concerned. Damage to revenue or
reputation is another matter. Even though the stock market
does not appear to react significantly to boycotts launched by
individuals using the internet, management cannot rest
unconcerned. Given its wide use in other activities and the
use of such other communicating devices such as social
media, management would be well-served to commission
different studies or how consumers could use the internet
against them and how companies could also use the internet
to neutralize the effects of its undesirable use by consumers.
In “On the effectiveness of consumer boycotts organized
through the internet: the market model” Paul Sergius Koku
suggests an “Internet Squad”. Because the internet has
become an important communication tool, both for firms and
consumers, it would be a good strategy for a firm’s
management to devote some of its resources to specifically
monitor consumers’ web sites for complaints about the firm.
A team (such as the “Internet Squad”) should be specifically
created and assigned the responsibility of monitoring subjects
of discussions that are related to the firm, so that proactive
measures can be taken to defuse situations that seem to be
gathering momentum which might not bode well for the
organization.
For example, consumer web sites that have repeated
discussions of negative company policies could be an
indication of potential trouble that would require
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
26
Journal of Services Marketing
Volume 26 · Number 1 · 2012 · 20 –26
intervention from the firm. The firm must not wait until a
boycott is launched before an action is taken.
Furthermore, it may also be a good strategy for
management to devote websites to spreading news about the
laudable activities that the company might be involved in.
Such sites could also be used to cultivate the firm’s “good
public image” and its good citizenship. The “Internet Squad”
could be used to counteract the possible negative publicity
that a dissatisfied consumer might seek to create for the firm.
Because corporations, whether for-profit or not-for-profit,
consist of different stakeholder groups, it is not inconsistent
for boycotts to have different objectives which might be
directed at the different stakeholders. Paul Sergius Koku
argues that the most powerful stakeholder group, by far, for
for-profit organizations is its shareholders.
Several reasons have been put forward to explain the
increasing number of boycotts launched – such as a means of
empowering an otherwise powerless group in expressing
disapproval about a company’s products or actions. To this
end the internet has provided a quick, easy and cheap method
of doing so.
However, the results of this study suggest that the internet
is not an effective arsenal that dissatisfied consumers can use
to organize boycotts to inflict economic damage on a targeted
firm. However, economic damage is only one of several
possible goals of a boycott and the fact that the internet might
be ineffective for one boycott objective does not mean that it
is ineffective for all other possible boycott objectives. Hence
management cannot afford to be less vigilant about
consumers’ use of the internet to “get even” with a
company that consumers feel has wronged them in one way
or the other.
As much as boycotts have been studied, there is still no
consensus on the objectives. However, three separate and
apparently disparate objectives have emerged in previous
research as dimensions along which the effectiveness of
boycotts could be evaluated:
1 the effectiveness of boycotts could be measured through
the extent to which the boycott exerts image pressure
(create undesirable publicity for the target);
2 economic pressure (create financial hardships); and
3 policy commitment which is the level of resistance that the
target decides to adopt at the outset of the boycott in
response to coercive efforts to modify its policies.
The use of the internet in other ways such as flooding a
targeted firm with massive complaint e-mail messages could
at best be an irritant but could also lead to a failure of the
targeted firm’s online service. Furthermore, it is possible that
the internet is effective in creating negative publicity for the
targeted firm – but such an evaluation was not the objective
of this paper. Nonetheless, they ought to be taken seriously
because of their potential to damage the targeted firm’s image.
(A précis of the article “On the effectiveness of consumer boycotts
organized through the internet: the market model”. Supplied by
Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
 This article has been cited by:

1. Tobias Hahn, Noël Albert. 2015. Strong Reciprocity in Consumer Boycotts. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
2. SUZANNE C. MAKAREM, HAERAN JAE. 2015. Consumer Boycott Behavior: An Exploratory Analysis of Twitter Feeds.
Journal of Consumer Affairs n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
3. Hyang-Ran Jeon, Jeong-Hee Seo. 2015. Relevance between Consumer Boycott Participation and Perception Types on the
Consumer Boycotts. Family and Environment Research 53, 143-155. [CrossRef]
4. Shannon Cummins, James W. Peltier, John A. Schibrowsky, Alexander Nill. 2014. Consumer behavior in the online context.
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 8:3, 169-202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Kent Walker, Andre Laplume. 2014. Sustainability fellowships: the potential for collective stakeholder influence. European Business
Review 26:2, 149-168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Pierre R. Berthon, Leyland F. Pitt. 2012. Brands and burlesque: toward a theory of spoof advertising. AMS Review 2, 88-98.
[CrossRef]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAET OSNABRUCK At 04:20 31 January 2016 (PT)