I agree that revenue hits are not the only (and usually not the primary) effect of boycotts. But what I'm questioning is "due to the public attention drawn by

I agree that revenue hits are not the only (and usually not the primary) effect of boycotts. But what I'm questioning is "due to the public attention drawn by the boycott." Was the consumer boycott actually a major reason SeaWorld feared legal action? When Blackfish came out, a lot of musicians cancelled planned SeaWorld concerts, which had a visible and immediate revenue impact. Share prices dropped 33%, even though revenue only dropped ~1%; presumably shareholders feared the possibility of legal action. And a range of state and federal Congressmen introduced bills on regarding orca captivity, explicitly citing Blackfish as a motivator. Boycotts are certainly correlated with major corporate and legal changes, but I'm skeptical that they're a significant cause. Examples like SeaWorld make me think that boycotts and policy changes have common causes (e.g. Blackfish), but the boycotts aren't themselves very impactful. The Chicago Tribune had a clever bit about the gun-seller boycotts, arguing that boycotts only matter as a way to keep the topic in the news, and it basically doesn't matter whether people actually participate. That's basically my guess, also. http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/opinion/zorn/ct-perspec-zorn-nra-boycott-fedex-apple-amazon-0228-20180227-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/opinion/zorn/ct-persp...