In late February, a man named John Schwarz, known for his mindfulness and meditation videos, had an idea. He wanted to create a 24-hour blackout of big corporations. He wanted people to avoid spending money at large retailers and fast-food chains. Instead, he suggested spending money only at small businesses and on essential needs.

        Schwarz, who is 57 years old, didn't have a background in social or political organizing. He usually shared inspirational messages and motivational tips online. He didn't expect his idea to gain much traction. He thought only a few of his followers would participate.

        But Schwarz's call to action quickly spread online. His video was shared over 700, 000 times on Instagram and viewed 8. 5 million times. Celebrities like Stephen King, Bette Midler, and Mark Ruffalo encouraged people to join. This led to more media coverage, which further boosted the boycott's visibility.

        The "economic blackout" effort was not well-organized. Experts on consumer boycotts and corporate strategy were doubtful that it would affect the targeted companies' bottom lines. Effective boycotts usually have clear demands and focus on one company or issue.

        This boycott, however, gained strength online because it tapped into public anger about the American economy, corporations, and politics. People wanted to do something to show their dissatisfaction. This boycott was a way for them to engage in collective action outside of the electoral arena, giving them a sense of power.

        People joined the boycott for various reasons. Some were upset about high prices and the cost of living. Others were angry about the influence of large corporations and billionaires. Some were against the Trump administration's efforts to cut federal programs. Others wanted to boycott companies that were rolling back their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.

        Schwarz was surprised by the response and quickly created a group called The People’s Union. He described it as a movement created by the people, for the people, to take action against corporate control, political corruption, and the economic system. He raised around $70, 000 in donations and called for more targeted boycotts in the coming weeks against specific companies.

        The boycott's online support seemed strongest from the political left, but Schwarz had no consistent ideology. He supported Bernie Sanders and advocated for various issues, including the end of federal income tax, term limits in Congress, universal health care, and price caps.

        Schwarz said the boycott spread quickly because people were fed up and tired. This sentiment was reflected in a more organized effort to punish retailers that had retreated on DEI, particularly Target. Target faced backlash for eliminating hiring goals for minority employees and ending an executive committee focused on racial justice.

        Target had been a leading advocate for DEI programs after George Floyd's murder in 2020. But days into the Trump presidency, Target announced changes to its diversity initiatives. This sparked anger from customers and boycott calls, particularly from Black consumers.

        Rev. Jamal Bryant called for a 40-day boycott of Target to coincide with the start of Lent. Participants were encouraged to purchase products from Black-owned businesses during this period. There were signs that the blowback from Target's move may be impacting the company. Customer visits to Target had slowed over the last four weeks, but they had dropped the most at Target.

        Boycotts tend to be short-lived and rarely do financial damage to companies. Consumers are typically fickle and don't want to disrupt their routines for extended periods. Boycotts can also spark a counterreaction, leading supporters of a company to mobilize and increase their spending, negating the impact.

        The most successful example of a boycott in recent years came from the right. In 2023, Bud Light's parent company A-B InBev lost as much as $1. 4 billion in sales because of right-wing backlash to Bud Light's brief partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. The boycott was successful because it was easy for customers to replace Bud Light with another beer.

        Boycotts and protests can raise public awareness about an issue, pressure companies to make changes, or hurt their public reputations. In the 1990s and 2000s, protests over Nike’s use of sweatshop labor forced the company to raise the minimum age for hiring new workers at shoe factories to 18 and allow human rights groups to inspect factory conditions in Asia.

        After the Parkland, Florida, school shooting in 2018, consumers and activists successfully pressured Delta, Avis, MetLife, and other companies to sever ties with the National Rifle Association and end discounts to NRA members.

        The more specific the reason to boycott, the more effective those boycotts have a chance of being. Boycotts rarely cripple incredibly powerful companies, but they can put them on the defensive.

The Power of People: A 24-Hour Economic Shutdown

Actions