Interbrand IQ: The Best Asian Brands Issue

rss

it's on!

Occupy Movement Sparks Brand Boycotts

Posted by Abe Sauer on November 3, 2011 01:02 PM

The long winter of discontent for the discontented is setting in, historically early in the Northeast. Just as the Occupy movement is claiming some victories (Bank of America rolling back its $5 monthly fee in response to Occupy and social media outcry), some of its most important outdoor encampments are facing winter weather.

Now, a second wave of activism tangential to the global protests sparked by Occupy Wall Street is popping up. As supporters move to raise Made-in-the-USA money to help the movement through the winter, others are boycotting businesses perceived to show sympathy — or not.

Despite being a favorite of many on the left, a Whole Foods Market store in Oakland, CA, yesterday came under attack (as seen above) following a false rumor that any employees who left to attend the Occupy Oakland demonstrations would be terminated. Protesters also attacked a Bank of America branch.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the isle (of spite), right wing blogger Ed Morrissey, enraged that an Okland, California outpost of Men's Warehouse closed for one day in solidarity with the local Occupy movement, declared a boycott. Morrissey wrote:

"Over the years, I’ve spent quite a bit of money at Mens Wearhouse, in the low four figures. They generally have a good selection of clothing at pretty good prices, and in the Twin Cities have conveniently-located stores.  Overall I’ve been a pretty satisfied customer. After this week, though, they won’t see a dime from me, thanks to their support of the anti-free market mobs in Oakland that ravaged the city over the last couple of weeks."

Morrissey's rant goes on to declare that "Mens Wearhouse had a choice to stand with the market that made them a success and with their fellow businessmen in the community." Of course, all consumers have the right to shop where they like, but if Morrissey had done his homework he would have known that Men's Warehouse founder and CEO, and face of the brand, George Zimmer, is a long-time financial supporter of Democrats and progressive causes (unlike another outfitter favored by the protesting masses).

According to FEC filings, in just the last few years  Zimmer has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to a Who's Who of Dems: Barack Obama, Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Howard Dean, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. So, it seems, the joke is on Morrissey, who has been supporting Zimmer's "leftist" agenda all along.

As the saying goes, "mo' money, mo' problems." As numerous brands rush to cash in on "Occufashion," the movement itself is struggling with decisions about spending much of the hundreds of thousands of dollars it has raised.

One purchase the Occupy movement will not be making as the race to cash in on the grassroots movement heats up? The $150,000 requested by the cybersquatters who have been sitting on the Occupy.com domain. It turns out, the corporation-unfriendly movement has some of the same problems as the average cooperation.

And as we head into America's winter of discontent (and discount tent), the Fire Dog Lake news and activism website, reached out to its members and raised $50,000 for its #OccupySupply initiative to provide winter gear for those currently occupying the streets of New York's financial district and elsewhere. But, as everything is politicized, FDL announced that these funds would be used "to start a supply chain of union-manufactured goods." While $50,000 would buy a lot more imported cheaper-labor "stuff," the group is making a point by spending it on "American made hats, scarves, blankets, jackets, base layer underwear and extreme weather socks."

The fundraising comes as polling shows an increase in national sympathy for the Occupy movement. A new survey found that 36 percent of Americans now "agree with the overall positions of Occupy Wall Street," up from 27 percent a month ago."

There is even a website, We Stand With The 99 Percent, where "the 1%" can show support for the 99%." Maybe the proverbial tipping point came when author and corporate conference keynoter Malcolm Gladwell condemned Wall Street's behavior as "scandalous."

Comments

John Galt United States says:

If you feel you are under taxed, you have the option of voluntarily donating more money to the government.

How much money have Abe Sauer and Brandchannel donated to the government?

The real scandal is one-percenters who want to raise taxes on other people rather than paying for your own (alleged) sins.

It's always easier to pick other people's pockets than pony up your own money.

Like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates who shelter billions in the non-profit Gates foundation while demanding that other people (who aren't rich enough to afford private foundations) pay more. Especially the inheritance tax which just happens to benefit life-insurance companies like Mr. Buffett's.

Sorry to interrupt your left-wing rant, Abe. Please carry on.


November 3, 2011 04:41 PM #

A Sauer United States says:

Actually, the real scandal is people who comment under the name John Galt.

November 4, 2011 09:07 AM #

R Kelleher United States says:

Oh for heavens sake! Who is John Galt.
#John Galt Please tell me you absorbed the reason that he was called John Galt and not just because you think it is cool to put a different spin on the whole ideal he stood for.

November 4, 2011 11:12 AM #

Tim_CA United States says:

"Meanwhile, on the other side of the isle (of spite), right wing blogger Ed Morrissey, enraged that an Okland (sic), California outpost of Men's Warehouse closed for one day in solidarity with the local Occupy movement, declared a boycott. "

Funny thing Sport....you link us not to a "rant" but to a conservative (ex) customer exercising his right to chose.  He choses not to support a firm that is headed by someone who's ideology he doesn't share.  He's calm, measured and makes some great points.

Now Read what you wrote.

Remind me - Who's Ranting?

November 3, 2011 05:53 PM #

A Sauer United States says:

When you call a whole brand "Corporate lackeys of the Occupy Movement" because of a decision made by a single store, well, that's a rant. Actually, what it is, is a rant that was looking for a home and then he found one. If Morrissey were genuinely concerned about what his purchases were funding he would have never stepped foot in a men's warehouse, seeing as its CEO has used its profits to fund a list of people Ed despises. But, no, he never bothered to do that.

Instead, he wants to slam the Occupy movement (which deserves it, mind you) and he's looking for any possible way to do that. Including, oddly enough, going after one of America's almighty "Job Creators."

November 4, 2011 09:20 AM #

Tim_CA United States says:

I see.  So in you world, before we make any purchase, we should investigate the ideology of the CEO and the board of the company.

Wow Sport, good luck with that!

I'll stick with "Ed's" more rational method - If I discover that a Company that I frequent supports an ideology that I can't abide, I'll simply stop shopping there.

Nowhere by the way does "Ed" call for a boycott, btw he just tells the reader HE will no longer shop there.

It might be time for you to grow up a tad amigo.

November 4, 2011 02:16 PM #

JoelinPDX United States says:

Funny this when the mob tries this same game its called protection and is considered illegal. "Give us what we want or we'll trash your business." Now the "occupiers" do the same thing and think they should be lauded for their Americanism and their support for the constitution. Give me a break. This is just another example of the pampered OWS crowd letting us know it needs its diaper changed.

November 4, 2011 11:11 AM #

Don Music United States says:

And with this, I have canceled my subscription to the Brandchannel newsletter. Life's too short for me to have my time wasted by supposed industry news sites instead filling my mailbox with political screeds.

If you guys ever decide to return to your core competency, let us know.

November 4, 2011 12:10 PM #

FG60 United States says:

I'm not in the 1% and definitely not a part of what's termed the 99% by OWS. Stop co-opting the rest of us into your socialist/Marxist agenda to redistribute wealth. The administration's plan to tax millionaires is just more borrow and spend. The spend would happen immediately while the tax would go on for at least 10 years. Our government has to stop spending like they have a credit card with no limit and are not responsible for the interest. Which falls on the back of the taxpayer. The 50% who pay some level of federal income tax.

November 4, 2011 12:20 PM #

sarah Pisano United States says:

Hey, 1%'ers who want to share.  Send some to me, directly.  Or go and give 5,000 a pop to the homeless people you see....or even to the middle class people you see.... like me.  OR, JUST PAY MORE TAXES YOURSELF!  You can do that.  The government won't turn you down.  By your statements, no one should be a 1%er....so why is it you still have money when you "should" be sharing it.  (not me, I don't think you should be sharing it if you dont' want to...it's yours and someone earned it in your family and saved it to be passed down to you...or got lucky)  Quit taking advantage of your money and give it all away so you can live with the bare necessities and someone else can move up in the world.  Why don't you people do this?  Why are you still rich?

November 4, 2011 02:07 PM #

Tim_CA United States says:

I see.  So in you world, before we make any purchase, we should investigate the ideology of the CEO and the board of the company.

Wow Sport, good luck with that!

I'll stick with "Ed's" more rational method - If I discover that a Company that I frequent supports an ideology that I can't abide, I'll simply stop shopping there.

Nowhere by the way does "Ed" call for a boycott, btw he just tells the reader HE will no longer shop there.

It might be time for you to grow up a tad amigo.

November 4, 2011 02:16 PM #

Bill in CA United States says:

count me among the former patrons of this establishment.  I am certain I have spent well over 20K in MW stores over the last 8 years.  No longer after learning of this and I will tell everyone else I know.  I had no idea you people were so far removed from your patrons and now I do.  Good Bye and Good Riddance.

November 4, 2011 02:36 PM #

ertdfg United States says:

Ok, so the strike is a good way to get back at the 1%? Let me see if I follow.

1) The store shuts down for a day.
2) The sales they lose are made up tomorrow when they're open.
3) The store owner loses nothing.
4) The workers don't work for the day, and aren't paid.
5) The workers lose their wages for the day, and can't make that loss up.

So The store owner suffers nothing, and the workers lose a days' wages... and this is how we hurt the 1% and not the 99%...

When did the workers become the 1%, and the store owner become the 99% exactly?  I must have missed that.

Or was the goal to hurt the 99% without affecting the 1% at all... if that was the goal, well done you've achieved hurting the poor without affecting the rich, just as you desired.

Hooray for the rich, down with the poor, make the suffer!  I didn't realized this was a "pro-rich anti-poor" rally; I've got to pay more attention.

November 4, 2011 02:45 PM #

Falze United States says:

So you complain that Ed hadn't "done his homework"...and then you post a picture of someone saying they don't pay taxes on an inheritance because of the "Bush tax cuts"...that really have nothing to do with inherited money.  Brilliant.

November 4, 2011 02:46 PM #

Mark simon United States says:


Abe,  look, I am sorry that your not writing politics for the nyt.  Your with a website that is possibly the worst enemy of OWS.  Your bread on your table is writing about brands, which are promoted by, gasp, advertising.  Oil companies have more credence in the eyes of the left than your site.   So I al sorry if your on some self hate trip.  But your rants are an insult to those of us who come to this site for our corporate news.  Save your left righ crap for your personal blog.  

November 4, 2011 07:44 PM #

A Sauer United States says:

Hi Mark,

Really, the "worst enemy" of OWS? Well, if your dedication to the "corporate news" profit is accurate, you'd understand that there is money to be earned from OWS (and more important, research to be gained).

You're right, brands are promoted by advertising, but they are not advertising alone. In fact, advertising is one of the weaker elements of bran building. Some even argue that only weak brand need advertising.

November 5, 2011 12:20 AM #

Tim_CA United States says:

Good Lord Tiger - Money to be made?   Exactly how?  Please explain.

What are you - like 19 and living at home?  

There's no money here - this is a mob of predominantly white, young, anarchists, college students, homeless people, rapists/molestors, arsonists, theives and felons.

They're destroying/burning/tagging both public and private property.

Women (and now a disabled man) are being  sexually assaulted.

Police officers and civilians are being injured.

What the heck is going on in your twisted noggin?

You've really let your politics cloud your judgement amigo - in about 2 months, when your party (D), and beloved President are doing their best to distance themselves from this fiasco that they created, I'll be sure to stop back and remind you of this absolutely ludicrous and childish rant.

November 5, 2011 12:59 AM #

46&2 United States says:

--"One purchase the Occupy movement will not be making as the race to cash in on the grassroots movement heats up? The $150,000 requested by the cybersquatters who have been sitting on the Occupy.com domain." --

Under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), cybersquatting is illegal, and is actionable through several legal channels.

However, simply owning a domain that somebody else wants is not cybersquatting.  Never has been.

If you - somebody who's apparently in the branding business - don't even know something this basic, I'm not sure why I should pay attention to anything else you have to say.

November 4, 2011 08:48 PM #

A Sauer United States says:

The movement did apply for a trademark, and if granted, that will meet the criteria for cybersquatting as one of the determining factors is "if the registrant’s trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain name." Another criteria is "assignment of the domain name to the mark owner or a third party for financial gain, without having used the mark in a legitimate site." Intent is a lot of the cybersquatting law, and from I can tell from the situation (and I'm not the only one) this meets at least part of the fed definition of cybersquatting. Just because it hasn't been found to be so by authorities yet doesn't mean it isn't.

November 5, 2011 10:21 AM #

Comments are closed

Brand Chatter on Twitter

elsewhere on brandchannel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
brandcameo2013 Product Placement Awards
Which brand is most bullish on Hollywood?
Coca-ColaIt's the Journey That Matters:
Coca-Cola Opens Up With Story-Based Web Refresh
debateJoin the Debate
What makes a great brand?
BPBP
Branding Comeback Challenges
Denise Lee YohnLance Armstrong’s Brand
Denise Lee Yohn Weighs In
Digital Watch: WahlAT&T
Rethinking Possible With Transmedia Storytelling
paperGlobal Competitive [Ad]vantage
The latest from GeoEdge
Sheryl Connelly
Sheryl Connelly

Meet Ford's Resident Futurist
Marketing to the New MajorityBranding 123
A primer by Barry Silverstein