When online sentiment leads to real-world boycotts
Editor's note: Brent Pearson is an OSINT subject matter expert. He can be reached at brentdpearson@gmail.com. The author wishes to acknowledge Derek Pearson, senior research consultant with MarketResponse International, for his generous help in preparing this article.
This is an article written for an insights industry publication by someone who is not in the insights industry. I am a career intelligence professional specializing in analysis of publicly available information aka open-source intelligence (OSINT). My intention is to share my thoughts on how uncontrolled dissemination of information online is causing real-world consequences for iconic and popular brands today and propose a way forward for you, the insights professional, to defend and maintain the health of your brand in today’s digital media landscape.
Because I have worked in the U.S. intelligence community as a government employee or as a private defense contractor I need to begin with a disclaimer: This article is not written in an official capacity and therefore the views expressed in this article are my own and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. government.
To get us started I want to dispel any sense of mystique you may have about the work of an intelligence professional by simply defining intelligence as: a process focused externally using all available sources of information to reduce uncertainty for decision makers and avoid strategic surprise.
With OSINT, we use the same definition and insert the word “publicly” between “all” and “available.”
Using the above definition, I believe the work of an intelligence professional is not all that dissimilar from your insights work. As an insights professional you gather, process and present information from surveys, focus groups, car clinics, etc., to reduce your clients’ uncertainty about how to design, present, price and promote a product or service.
Brands seek to bring their products or services to market in a way that distinguishes them from similar offerings in the eyes of the public and they expect their insights professionals to help them obtain, maintain and grow customer loyalty. Your role in maintaining your client’s brand is exactly like that of the intelligence professional’s in avoiding strategic surprises.
In recent years, several multibillion-dollar brands have experienced strategic surprises in the form of online activity that resulted in real-world boycotts. In this article we will review four case studies: Bud Light, Planet Fitness, McDonald’s and Starbucks. I argue that the reason for these brands experiencing these strategic surprises was a lack of knowledge of what the intelligence community and Department of Defense (DOD) often refer to as the information environment.
The DOD defines the term “information environment” as “an aggregate of individuals, organizations and systems that collect, process, disseminate or act on information.”
I would add that any individual, organization or system can only be a participant in an information environment. They cannot own or control an information environment, nor can they choose the information environments in which they are participants.
It is also important to note that when we use the term information, we do not mean only factual or verifiably true information but also information that is deliberately or unintentionally false. In this context the term information includes the categories of misinformation, disinformation and mal-information.
- Misinformation: Unintentional mistakes such as inaccurate photo captions, dates, statistics, translations or when satire is taken seriously.
- Disinformation: Fabricated or deliberately manipulated audio/visual content; intentionally created conspiracy theories or rumors.
- Mal-information: Largely accurate information that is based on reality but may be presented out of context to inflict harm on a person, organization or country.
In 2017 the United States military fully acknowledged the need to understand information environments and how influence in those environments can affect the real world by adding information as the seventh joint function of the military. This means that information is as much a priority for the military as the functions of command and control, intelligence, fires, movement and maneuver, protection and sustainment.
The objective of the joint function of information is: to influence relevant actor perceptions, behavior, action or inaction and human and automated decision-making.
By using information, online organizers of boycott calls against Bud Light, Planet Fitness, McDonald’s and Starbucks influenced perceptions of those brands and the purchasing decisions of online participants in information environments relevant to those brands. Now let us go through in detail the events that caused the boycotts against the above-mentioned brands and understand how a better grasp of information environments of those events could have prevented or at least softened the effects of the boycotts they experienced.
Bud Light
In 2023, popular American beer brand Bud Light partnered with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender social media influencer documenting her transition in a series of videos called “Days of Girlhood.” Bud Light partnered with Mulvaney by sending her customized cans of their beverage featuring her image. Mulvaney made videos prominently displaying the cans and promoted a contest put on by Bud Light for March Madness, the annual American collegiate men’s basketball tournament. At the same time Bud Light also released a series of “Pride-themed” cans listing various pronouns. Online activists immediately took to social media to call for boycotts of the brand for supposedly alienating its main customer base in favor of promoting an LGBTQ agenda.
The backlash was exacerbated by misinformation when a satirical website posted claims that the entire Bud Light marketing team had been fired over the success of the boycott. Those participating in the boycott shared the claim online believing it to be true, further encouraging continuation of the boycott.
Bud Light’s sales in the United States suffered throughout 2023. Its parent company Anheuser-Busch InBev reported a 9.5% decline for the whole year and 17.3% decline in the fourth quarter, “primarily due to the volume decline of Bud Light.”
By partnering with Mulvaney, Bud Light appeared to be responding to recent activity in the information environments of popular entertainment, politics and parts of academia calling for greater inclusivity of what some consider to be historically marginalized communities. Bud Light did nothing wrong wanting to gain appeal among potential customers who value inclusivity. What Bud Light missed was an awareness of the polarizing online information environments whose participants viewed the partnership with Mulvaney as a deliberate departure from the brand’s identity and disregard of its main customer base.
In-depth knowledge of the information environments relevant to the partnership initiative would have enabled Bud Light to better assess the potential pitfalls of partnering with certain social media influencers. An influencer may have a large online following but if their content does not align with the brand’s identity among its core audience, there are risks of negative bottom-line impacts.
Bud Light could have achieved a more effective and sustainable brand expansion by exploring gradual, adjacent opportunities that naturally resonate with its audience. For example, by introducing campaigns or product innovations that celebrate inclusivity within the context of shared values like camaraderie, lighthearted fun or communal experiences, Bud Light could have broadened its appeal while maintaining its connection to its loyal customers.
Planet Fitness
Planet Fitness operates over 2,000 health centers throughout the United States and had a policy that allowed members to use the locker rooms associated with their individual gender identity. That policy brought controversy in March 2024 when a female member of a Planet Fitness in Alaska took photos of a biological male shaving in the women’s locker room. Upon complaining to staff claiming that women and girls were uncomfortable with the presence of a male in the women’s locker room, Planet Fitness reiterated its position on inclusivity and revoked the woman’s membership over its policy of prohibiting taking photos in locker rooms.
Popular conservative social media influencers spread mal-information about the controversy depicting it as Planet Fitness revoking the membership of the woman who stood against the company allowing men into women’s locker rooms and “creating unsafe spaces for women.” This took attention away from the fact she herself violated a Planet Fitness policy against taking photos in locker rooms. The controversy went viral and online influencers called for boycotts.
In less than one week Planet Fitness lost $400 million in valuation. In the following weeks dozens of Planet Fitness locations reported receiving bomb threats, sometimes causing their facilities and the businesses next to them to evacuate members and staff until law enforcement could investigate and give the all-clear.
The online backlash about a single incident at one Planet Fitness caused real-world consequences for the brand. Awareness of the relevant information environments would have provided Planet Fitness insights about the online depictions of the controversy and enabled it to implement mitigation strategies before the losses became significant.
An insights professional with an understanding of the information environment would approach the Planet Fitness controversy by uncovering how the issue unfolded and gained traction. This would involve mapping out the narratives, key influencers and platforms driving the backlash to guide the brand’s response and reframe the conversation. For example, they might recommend a messaging campaign with an empathetic tone to clarify misinformation while announcing a review of company policies and a commitment to improvement.
Rather than elevating the controversy by addressing it too directly, a measured approach informed by deep insights could have defused tensions and positioned the brand as responsive and forward-thinking.
McDonald’s
On October 7, 2023, Israel experienced a terrorist attack, losing over 1,000 of its citizens. In the immediate aftermath, Alonyal Limited, a company operating McDonald’s fast-food franchises in Israel, posted on social media that it was donating meals “to all those who are involved in the defense of the state, hospitals and surrounding areas.” Alonyal Limited was probably thinking that posting on social media about its gesture to support the country’s first responders after a disaster would paint the brand in a positive light in the eyes of the Israeli public in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy. What ended up happening was online activists used the gesture as a way to spread disinformation by depicting McDonald’s entire global brand as having deliberately politicized itself by choosing a side in the long-running Israel-Palestine conflict. Since October 2023, McDonald’s franchises in the Middle East, Asia and Europe have encountered boycotts, protests and even vandalism over the perception of their having chosen a side.
The immediate backlash was so severe that in early November 2023 the McDonald’s corporation issued a statement attempting to explain how the donated meals were actions of the local franchise operator and “made independently without McDonald’s [Corporation] consent or approval.” In January 2024, McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski acknowledged the continued effects of the boycotts on the company’s performance in the Middle East, blaming “war and associated misinformation.” Kempczinski also tried to convey how McDonald’s franchises in the Muslim countries are locally owned and employ thousands of people and that claims of the corporation supporting Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip were “disheartening and ill-founded.”
In April 2024, the McDonald’s Corporation announced a buyback of all 225 franchises owned by Alonyal Limited in hopes of rebuilding the brand’s reputation in the Middle East. However, the McDonald’s corporate outlook is not 100% positive, according to its CFO Ian Borden: “We do not expect to see meaningful improvement until there is a resolution in the Middle East.”
McDonald’s restaurants are independently operated by individual franchise owners. The initiatives of one owner resulted in online actors using information to target the entire brand for boycott on a global scale. Brands with a global presence (or those striving for such a presence) are vulnerable to their reputation being negatively affected, rightly or wrongly, by perceptions of associations with political issues of international significance. Mitigation strategies will likely be different for each country and/or region where a brand has presence. Characterizing the information environments relevant to where brands operate enables effective monitoring of online activity and development of mitigation strategies unique to the circumstances in a given locale.
Starbucks
From October 2023 to January 2024 Starbucks lost around $11 billion in market value after being subjected to boycotts over disinformation that claimed the coffee giant had taken the side of Israel against the Palestinians in the current conflict. The reality is that neither Starbucks Coffee Company nor its then-CEO Laxman Narasimhan ever made any official statements about the conflict and the company has not operated in Israel since 2003.
On October 9, 2023, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union, representing Starbucks Workers United, posted on social media, “Solidarity with Palestine.” Starbucks claims to have received over 1,000 complaints about the union’s social media post, including threatening phone calls and vandalism of some of its stores. In response, Starbucks filed a lawsuit against the union demanding removal of the social media post in question and cessation of use of the Starbucks logo.
The lawsuit was an attempt by the Starbucks Corporation to distance its brand from any political position about the Israel-Palestine conflict but online supporters of Starbucks Workers United were able to spread disinformation on social media that Starbucks was taking the side of Israel against the Palestinians and therefore deserved a boycott.
Although there is no way to prove definitively that the company’s reported loss of market value was a direct result of boycotts, online activists certainly believed it was and continued to spread disinformation. Activists posted and shared further disinformation online that Starbucks announced “…they are ready to donate money to Palestine,” and its CEO was “begging for forgiveness,” after having made public statements against the Palestinians and stating, “Starbucks is forever a pro-Israeli company.” The truth is that no such statements from the company or its CEO exist and Starbucks has made multiple public statements expressing sympathy for innocent victims on both sides of the conflict. However, the calls for boycotts continued into the spring of 2024, resulting in Starbucks’s Middle East franchise operator laying off 2,000 employees throughout the region.
Similar to McDonald’s, Starbucks became embroiled in information environments related to the heated politics of an ongoing conflict in the Middle East. Starbucks from the very beginning publicly tried to distance itself from being associated with any side of the conflict but its detractors were able to create a perception of partisanship within the information environment that caused real-world consequences for the brand.
Be an active participant
As stated earlier, you cannot choose your information environment, nor can you control it. The best-case scenario for any brand is to be an active and influential participant in its relevant information environments and be ready for a quick response when your brand finds itself threatened by controversy due to damaging information.
However, mitigating controversy is not the only benefit of knowing your information environment; it’s also a rich source of insights waiting to be uncovered. Knowing your customers’ motivations and their adjacent brand affinities requires understanding their information sources and influences. Knowing those sources and influences, and monitoring how they change over time, is how you can make your information environment a constant source of insights about the customer experience and loyalty to your brand.
The case studies of Bud Light, Planet Fitness, McDonald’s and Starbucks illustrate the tangible impact of online sentiment on real-world brand performance. Going forward, brands will be at risk of more than just the deliberate spread of misinformation on social media. As AI technologies continue to advance, AI-generated video, images and audio files at a glance will appear authentic and permeate information environments. These deepfakes could associate your brand to emotionally charged social and political issues and lead to boycotts, loss of investor confidence and ruined individual and corporate reputations.
Even with the proliferation of AI, the most effective way for you as an insights professional to detect damaging information, AI generated deepfakes, etc., is to immerse yourself in the information environments relevant to your brand. Through continuous monitoring of those environments, you will develop a deeper understanding of your customers and a sixth sense of when new information is disingenuous or out of place.
Understanding information environments provides opportunities for insights professionals to anticipate risks, protect brand reputations and better inform decision-making for all elements of brand management and strategy.