Boycott vs Buycott

I prefer to focus on the positive over the negative. Blame my interest in positive dog training, but I'd much rather use something positive to do encourage a behavior I want (whether it's from a person, an animal, or an entity) than using something negative to discourage a behavior I don't like. Hence my preference of a buycott over a boycott.

A lot of the companies that I want to avoid are big companies. Procter and Gamble, for instance, has an enormous advertising budget and produces a long, long list of products. Groups have been encouraging boycotts of Procter and Gamble for a long time and I know people who do avoid their products because of their animal testing policies, but it doesn't seem to affect their bottom line. Point blank, unless a lot more people decide to take a stance against Procter and Gamble products and are willing to spend a little extra money and time to find alternatives, then Procter and Gamble isn't going to change due to even a substantial minority of consumers avoiding their products.

So why bother?

The obvious answer is that everyone has to decide where to draw the line. For a lot of people, their decision to refuse to buy certain products or patronize certain businesses doesn't come from a belief that a boycott will actually make the company change. Instead, it's making about making choices that you can live with. Regardless of what everyone else does, they choose to follow their conscience when it comes to shopping. This is good and admirable and if more people did it, we might see more change.

There's a second thing to consider, though. Very often, companies that don't test on animals or that produce a green product are smaller and every little bit of business helps. Frequently, shopping is a zero-sum game since most consumers only use one toothbrush or one bottle of shampoo at a time. Buying a product from a company you don't support means that not only does that company get your money, but you're also taking money away from a company that might better match your ideals.

Furthermore, in addition to supporting these companies, there's also the matter of supporting the stores that carry the products. Unless you live in a larger city, it might be hard to find a lot of green and cruelty-free products on the shelf of your local grocery store. If you're committed to buying these products, you can check Amazon or go out of your way a bit. However, it's important to encourage local stores to carry these products because while you might be willing to go the extra mile to find the "good" products, other people probably won't be. Some of them might scan the shelves for cruelty-free or green products and buy one them if they're readily available, but others might not bother to check, instead choosing products based on packaging, price, efficacy, and other factors that don't relate to the companies stance on animal testing or green products. It doesn't matter why the consumer is buying the product, though. What matters is increasing the number of times a consumer buys a "good" product over a "bad" product, regardless of their reasoning. If the products aren't on the shelve, then the consumer won't have a chance to buy them. If a store can't sell the products, they won't be on the shelf.

While it might be tempting to focus on the negative in all of this and do everything in your power to not only avoid products from companies you disagree with, but also to encourage everyone you know to do the same, that's not the only consideration. Punishing a company like Procter and Gamble for the stance on animal testing is tempting, but it's equally important to focus on supporting a company like Seventh Generation. That's why my primary goal is to support the "good" companies instead of penalizing the bad and why I prefer buycotts to boycotts. Anything that helps increase the choices available to consumers is a great thing in my book.