DO BOYCOTTS HELP?

Lack of communication fuels boycotts

One reason for the increase in boycotts is the lack of communication between vendors, trade associations and partners. Since an association calls for a boycott, it is imperative that it looks at the issue carefully. It is best if the issue is thrashed out amicably for the benefit of all concerned. 

Boycotts act as threats

Boycotts are useful, but only as weapons ofr threat and not as implementation tools. It is not feasible for partners to boycott any vendor for a long period, as it can be detrimental to their business.

“Boycotts are useful, but only as weapons for threat and not as a long-term solutions”

Sanjay Tayal  General Secretary, ACMA

Bans should be on reasonable grounds

Before calling for a boycott of any vendor, it is necessary to determine, whether it is fundamentally reasonable to do so. Boycotts should not become reasons for an ego or personality clash. It should be resorted to as the last option after all other alternatives have been exhausted. 

Boycotts are a sign of vendor failure

Often dealers agree to a boycott if an issue is not resolved for a long time. Boycotts can also be viewed as a failure of an association as they could not get the issue resolved quicker. Also, it helps if the vendor has a single point of contact in an association, who can act as a co-ordinator for service, warranty and other issues. This will ensure that channel grievances are resolved quickly through this appointed person.

Vendors will not accept unethical demands

It is very important for associations to introspectively view whether the boycott is morally ethical. If it is illogical, then the vendor is never going to accept it. The association will lose face and partners will lose business. Boycotts show that vendors are unable to keep their partners happy. They must be reasonable on certain issues and should take a clear stand on

Boycott hurt both partners and vendors

Boycotts often turn into a standoff game of who blinks first. In the bargain, both partners and vendors lose. During boycotts, gray and counterfeits of the banned company get a foothold in the market. 

Boycotts don’t serve any purpose

Boycotts do not address the core reason for contention. Therefore, it does not serve any purpose. I don’t think boycotts arise because of a communication gap. In fact, most vendors are willing to talk about issues affecting partners. The dialogue, of course takes time, as we have to also consider certain issues before dealing with partners.

“Boycotts do not address the core reason for contention and don’t serve any purpose”

Rahul Bindal  Country Manger, Logitech Far East

Dialogue is better than boycott

A dialogue across the table in a positive manner would be more helpful. This is because all the involved parties can put across their viewpoints and a solution can be reached. During the meeting, partners or even the vendors can lodge a protest or their difference of opinion.

Partners can seek legal recourse

I don’t think partners should resort to boycotts if their demands are not met. They should seek legal recourse in case there is some issue. For instance, if a dealer has been raided for selling spurious products and he is innocent, he should approach the courts to get justice. Starting a boycott is a high-handed manner of dealing with the issue.

Boycotts are an easy way out

Associations and dealers start boycotts because it is the easiest way out. In the past too, associations have held boycotts first and discussions later. This is a lop-sided way of doing things. They should first approach the vendors and if the issue is not resolved, they should then seek legal help.

Counterfeits gain stronghold

It is true that during the period of boycotts, counterfeit products get a chance to make their place in the market. This is because a customer is not going to cease using a product, just because the authorized channel is on strike. They will source the products from elsewhere and use it. This is bad for the partner and vendor.

Boycott is bad for all

A boycott is bad for the vendor, partner as well as the end-user. Each will have to deal with their own set of problems. Also, the end-user is denied his right to buy a product of his choice and will have to settle for something else.