Willie R. Tubbs, FISM News
Thursday morning, the New York Times listed “boycott” as its word of the day. Rarely has the timing of a word of the day been more appropriate.
The infographic mentioned that boycott had appeared in 308 New York Times articles over the last year. One can expect that number to bolt upward as the concept of consumer revolts has taken root across a diverse collection of interests.
Conservatives and Republicans have proven adept at using the mighty dollar, or lack thereof, as a means of quelling what they view as overly-woke practices by companies that ostensibly cater to a largely conservative audience – among them John Deere, Bud Light and Tractor Supply Company.
Now, groups ideologically opposed to the American right are attempting to muster their strength, too. As has become the norm since October 7, many of these burgeoning movements all center on opposition to Israel.
This week, as reported by NDTV of India, Starbucks came under fire after a fake letter posted on X suggested the company was funding the Israeli military.
Despite the falseness of the post, scores of international consumers bought the lie and say they will not buy Starbucks. It’s the latest in a long line of international boycotts that have targetted American-owned fast food chains. Pizza Hut, Dominos, and KFC have all faced similar boycotts.
This week, as reported by Al Jazeera, Coca-Cola has come under fire in Bangladesh for an ad in which it allegedly sought to distance itself from Israel. Again, calls for boycotts have emerged from across the Muslim world.
Although certainly not only because of international anti-Israel sentiment, Starbucks has continued to lose sales in recent years.
Ironically, in the States, it’s conservatives who have a long history of criticizing the coffee giant for perceived wokeness dating to the middle of the last decade.
The company has gone all-in on social justice through its branding and once encouraged its baristas to use the hashtag “racetogether” to gently (or perhaps not-so-gently) nudge customers into discussions about American race relations. The campaign, which took place in 2015, was a flop but the company continued to go for woke well into the 2020s.
Starbucks has since switched CEOs – indeed, they introduced a new CEO this week – and moved toward the middle on American politics, but the sales have not recovered.
SNOW WHITE BOYCOTTED FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS
In one of the stranger moments of modern boycott movements, the upcoming Disney movie “Snow White” is concurrently under fire from right-leaning Americans and pro-Hamas, anti-Israel groups.
For as many headaches as Starbucks has faced, it’s at least faced them sequentially. No such luck for woe-begotten Disney, a company that has hemorrhaged money on numerous big-budget films thanks to conservatives and moderates rejecting overtly far-left messaging.
The company has been under fire on “Snow White” since the movie was announced and Rachel Zegler was revealed as the person slated to play the titular character.
Zegler irked fans with her promises that the new movie would not feature Snow White being saved by a prince – she has gone so far as to say the original Snow White’s prince was a stalker – and that 21st-century Snow White dreamed not of marriage but of being the leader she knew she can be.
Consumer anger grew to a fever pitch when the first pictures of seven dwarfs were leaked and it was revealed that the dwarfs did not appear to be the lovable collection of diminutive workers known for generations but rather a diverse collection of what appeared to Bohemian theatre majors, or perhaps extras who were time-traveled from the set of the 1973 movie version of “Godspell”.
Disney has since used CGI to create the dwarfs, which was likely the company’s best chance to thread the needle between consumers who wanted dwarfs in “Snow White” and noted leftist actor Peter Dinklage, who demanded human actors with dwarfism not be cast as dwarfs.
However, even as the House of Mouse continues to struggle with its conservative detractor problem, pro-Hamas groups are calling for boycotts of “Snow White” because of the presence of Gal Gadot, a Jewish megastar actor who once served in the IDF.
Not helping matters is Zegler, who in recent days has posted “free Palestine” messages at least twice on X. That might make things odd at the launch party given that Gadot has used her social media presence to call for the release of hostages.
SNOW WOKE GOING BROKE? OR WILL ANTI-ISRAEL SENTIMENT SINK FILM?
This could be a case of anti-Israel protestors tossing rocks onto an already sinking ship and claiming victory, or it might be one of international blowback compounding troubles for Disney.
Disney’s remake of “Snow White” has long been cursed and figured to face an uphill battle at the box office thanks to conservatives who were going to use it as the latest attempt to prove to Disney and Americans writ large that traditionalism sells and progressivism does not.
To be fair, an anti-Gadot boycott could have a major effect in international markets, which would further harm the Dinsey bottom line if not tank the movie.
Ultimately, though, neither the conservative nor anti-Israel crowd might deserve credit if “Snow White” bombs. The movie might fail for the simple fact that it isn’t good.
Even apolitical fans have begun to criticize the film, which isn’t due out until next year, for having been miscast.
As the first trailer of the film has been released, numerous people have noted that the Evil Queen – played by Gadot, a former model and widely held as one of the most beautiful women on the planet – would have little reason to be jealous of Snow White.
Other observers have criticized the overall look of the film and worry that whatever modernization has been woven into the script will destroy that which made the ancient tale popular.
CONSERVATIVES SLAM DUNKIN’
If anyone worried that conservatives would not follow their recent boycott successes with forays into other industries, this week should assuage those concerns.
Dunkin’, formerly Dunkin’ Donuts, finds itself in the conservative crosshairs after Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski tweeted that the coffee-and-donut company would not advertise on his social media site because, Pavlovski alleged, Rumble would not cut ties with conservative media personality Steven Crowder.
“Both @Diageo_NA and @dunkindonuts want us to drop @scrowder and get away from “right wing culture” in order to get ad dollars from them,” Pavlovski posted. “My response: No, we don’t discriminate. All cultures are welcome on Rumble.”
Pavlovski shared emails he said came from Dunkin’ that indicated Rumble was “too polarizing from a brand sustainability standpoint.”
This boycott, such that is, remains in its earliest stages, but it will be worth tracking in the coming weeks as numerous conservative commentators and social media figures have joined the cause.