Some interesting research on consumer behaviour published in the Sloan Review, taking as its starting point the case of Arla foods amba, a Danish food firm which [watched] their annual sales virtually vanish in the Middle East as a result of the “cartoon controversy”. The research concludes that high profile boycotts have only small long term effects, whereas boycotts arising from other societal pressures may have repercussions over the long term; the timescale for Arla’s recovery is being spoken of in terms years, rather than months.
Could these long term boycotts start to have an effect on the economy in general? The New Statesman paints a bleak picture of consumer need and rising debt, speaking of the way in which the casual, but constant, shopper can tell themselves that their actions have only benign, or even positive, consequences. Nevertheless, pressure not to consume seems to be rising, as evinced by articles such as that in the Statesman and an increasingly credible environmental lobby. Could this shift – in media, if not in any other perceptions – gain enough momentum to constitute the kind of moral boycott currently affecting Arla foods across a range of consumer goods?
Posted by conspicuousconsumption 