A few weeks ago, I noted a recent conference paper which found that - at least based on self-reported behavior among Algerian university students - hostility to American foreign policy had more impact on consumption of American brands than had been found in other studies. While that study had its flaws (especially the reliance on self-reported behavior, without correlating it to actual market data), it now seems to have been somewhat replicated in a study reported in the Christian Science Monitor:
Offer to buy the world a Coke and you'll probably find plenty of takers. But try to sell the iconic American drink, and you might meet with some ambivalence among youths these days, particularly abroad. That's according to a recent study that compared big global brands it considered "teen relevant," gathering feedback from thousands of youths in 13 countries - including the United States.
Coca-Cola still topped the chart in terms of name recognition, followed by McDonald's. But Coke fell to eighth place when it came to likeability, and the burger chain dropped all the way to No. 32. Disney and America Online also nose-dived in appeal.
The top three affinity slots went to Sony (Japan), Nokia (Finland), and Adidas (Germany). Top US finisher: Nike at No. 4, a somewhat surprising result given that US firms have traditionally wielded a collective hegemony with this very desirable demographic.
This study doesn't offer any real causal arguments, and more specifically does not attribute the shift in brand perception primarily to political anti-Americanism. It surveys a range of possibilities, including simply better advertising, youth self-definition, and so forth. But it is interesting that it finds a similar move in perceptions of American brands among the same demographic group discussed in that earlier survey. Again, nothing conclusive but food for thought.
In this world of mega corporations and 24 hour marketing, such behavior is a powerful form of protest - and the only one most people have. CocaCola doesn't really care if you march in the street, holding signs and screaming - but boycott their product? That hurts.
Similarly, Wal-mart is actually beginning to respond to criticism of their employee policies - not responding that well, mind you, but the elephant has begun to notice the stinging of gnats. They've figured out that some consumers, possibly those with desirable demographics, won't shop Wal-Mart for any reason.
I've been shopping low on the food chain for years. Marketers hate me - I don't hold up the middle-class side very well. It's a non-stop push-pull - I have small children, and for instance just dropped some money on brand new lunch boxes with water bottles - they don't "really need" them but the little guys want what their friends have. (and the lunch boxes are bigger and cooler than what they've got) I don't want to make my kids into the freaks of the school because their mother hates consumption and globalization.
In sum, I hope the rest of the world puts their money where their beliefs are. Don't like US policy? Don't buy US crap.
Posted by: Leila Abu-Saba | February 20, 2006 at 11:10 AM
Leila,
While I agree with your "don't like it, don't buy it" summary up to a point, I recently encountered a different argument (viz the Danish boycott) that's got me thinking. Evidently, there's been an 80% reduction in profits for the main company in Lebanon importing Danish foodstuffs. They now have to lay off workers. In addition to those lost jobs, the majority of the company's stockholders are also Arabs, mainly Lebanese. Several of the products are produced regionally in factories in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Gulf, meaning more jobs and potential job losses for Arab workers and investors.
This is the impact of the boycott on one company - others may be in a different position, or it may be a representative case, I don't know. But it is worth thinking about whether those are costs that boycotters have considered, and encouraging them to factor in the punishment of their fellows in pursuit of politics that might be pursued through other means.
Posted by: Stacey | February 20, 2006 at 12:43 PM
Not sure if there is real evidence that connects the survey responses to any real dropoff in revenues for the firms in question. I spoke to the authors of the study and they say they couldn't get reliable data on the financial end of things. It would be most useful (and believable) if anybody could dig out pertinent financial time series data to support the claim.
Posted by: hk | February 20, 2006 at 02:14 PM
hk - Yeah, I think I said that at the end of the post.. this can't be really convincing without pegging it to some concrete evidence of actual consumption patterns, rather than just self-reported behavior or perceptions. I'd guess that the authors have gotten that comment before!
Posted by: the aardvark | February 20, 2006 at 02:17 PM
News item today (Corriere della Sera)
The executives at Mecca Cola, the Islamic alternative to Coca Cola, saw the sales of their soft drink, bottled in the UAE, triple since the cartoon protests. (European Muslims are their target demographic.) When introduced in October 2002, the drink met with some success, then sales fell off. The cartoon scandal has produced a boom in sales.
Posted by: Nur al-Cubicle | February 20, 2006 at 04:55 PM
But....can we get any hard numbers on Mecca Cola?(or, indeed, any other goods that would pertain to the topic).
Posted by: hk | February 20, 2006 at 05:48 PM