Peter Suderman on How Boycott Research Explains Donald Sterling’s NBA Ban

The outrage over L.A. Clippers owner Donald
Sterling’s racist remarks, caught on tape and published by TMZ
over the weekend, has basically consumed the Internet over the last
few days. People are angry and offended, and they’re saying so.
They’re also calling for action. It looks like they just got it:
This afternoon, the National Basketball Association (NBA) hit
Sterling with a multimillion-dollar fine as well as a lifetime
ban. 

It wasn’t the only action that people have talked about.
Yesterday, before news broke of the suspension, Warriors coach Mark
Jackson had strongly suggesting that basketball fans should stay
away. “If it was me, I wouldn’t come to the game. I believe as
fans, the loudest statement they could make as far as fans is to
not show up to the game,” he said.

He’s not the only who has talked about a fan boycott. Former
Lakers player, and co-owner of baseball’s L.A. Dodgers, Magic
Johnson has called for a boycott, and the idea
has come up on ESPN radio shows. There’s a twitter hashtag
making the rounds: #BoycottClippers.

How loud a statement can fans really make with a boycott? To
some extent, writes Peter Suderman, it depends on how you define
success. Judged by their economic effects, they typically don’t
have much of an impact. But as Donald Sterling’s harsh punishment
shows, a corporation’s concern for its reputation means that even
the threat of a boycott can still have a big impact. 

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/QVZsej
via IFTTT

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *