Do Boycotts Against McDonalds and Starbucks Work? An Analysis

The recent surge in boycotts against multinational corporations such as McDonalds and Starbucks has stirred significant debates. Some argue that these campaigns can be an effective means to voice opposition, while others dismiss their impact. This article delves into the real-world implications of such boycotts, focusing on the recent tensions involving McDonalds and Starbucks in the context of the Israeli attack on Gaza.

Boycotts and Publicity

While it is often argued that boycotts provide companies with free publicity, the case of McDonalds and Starbucks offers a more nuanced perspective. For instance, the actions of McDonalds' branches in Israel providing food to military forces in Gaza have led to a significant downturn in sales in Egypt. According to a Reuters report, sales at Egyptian McDonalds stores have plummeted.

Impact on Egypt

In Egypt, a country not typically known for frequent demonstrations, a growing number of individuals are responding to the conflict in Gaza by boycotting these brands. An anonymous employee at a McDonalds office in Egypt stated that franchise sales in October and November dropped by 70% compared to the same period the previous year. This decline speaks to the broader wave of discontent over Israel's military operation in Gaza and the coalition's stance on the conflict.

Economic and Trade Isolation

These boycotts are part of a broader campaign organized by the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which aims to economically and trade isolate Israel. The BDS movement advocates for ending the Israeli occupation in Palestine and has seen similar incidents across multiple Arab countries.

Arab Countries' Response

In Jordan, for example, proponents of the boycott sometimes enter McDonalds and Starbucks branches to persuade customers not to patronize these businesses. In Kuwait City, McDonalds and Starbucks were almost entirely empty, reflecting a marked difference in customer counts compared to usual. In Rabat, the capital of Morocco, a Starbucks branch worker noted a significant decrease in customers, though exact figures were not available.

Effectiveness of Boycotts

Despite the claims of some that boycotts are merely symbolic, evidence suggests that they can be quite effective in causing real financial harm. Take McDonalds, for instance. The company has experienced a substantial drop in earnings, moving from hundreds of millions of dollars to under 100 million due to these campaigns.

Edward Hume, a well-known analyst, emphasized the impact of boycotts, stating, "They went from making hundreds of millions of dollars down to now just making under hundreds of millions." This financial impact underscores the power of collective consumer action in driving change.

The Disconnect in Israel

However, it’s important to note that while these boycotts harm companies based in the United States, such as McDonalds and Starbucks, they have little to no impact on Israel's economy. Israel does not benefit from these companies' operations, and boycotts are therefore unlikely to affect the country's economy adversely.

Conclusion

In conclusion, boycotting multinational corporations can be an effective means to amplify voices of protest and bring about change. However, the impact varies depending on the specific circumstances and the targeted countries. For McDonalds and Starbucks in the context of the Gaza conflict, the boycotts have clearly had a tangible and significant financial impact.

The effectiveness of such campaigns is demonstrated by the marked decline in sales and earnings, making it clear that boycotts can yield real-world consequences.