Following Israel’s indiscriminate attacks on Gaza, a recent study on the boycott of brands supporting Israel revealed that the highest participation, at 50%, came from the Generation Z demographic.

Since Israel's attacks on Gaza began on Oct. 7, a boycott campaign against multinational brands supporting Israel has been ongoing, initiated by various nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) following calls from civil society.

The results of a comprehensive study conducted by Istanbul University's Faculty of Economics, Department of Marketing, headed by professor Süphan Nasır and research assistant Merve Kır, were recently announced to unveil consumer attitudes toward this boycott.

According to the report, out of the 1,384 valid responses from a total of 1,545 participants, 50% of Generation Z actively or partially boycotted the targeted brands, while Generation Y showed a 40% participation rate. In contrast, participation from Generation X and Baby Boomers was around 20%.

The analysis section of the study revealed that Generation Z feels good about participating in the boycott, and they are willing to pay extra for alternatives if it means avoiding brands within the boycott. However, it was noted that the purchasing power of Generation Z is not as strong as other generations.

The evaluation emphasized the need to recognize the dominant role Generation Z is likely to play in future consumer behavior. The assessment stated, "Generation Z shows more participation in the boycott compared to other generations. The activist spirit of Generation Z suggests that they will not forget the brands involved in the boycott, and the perceptions and attitudes of Generation Z toward these brands may negatively impact future periods."

Nasır explained to Anadolu Agency (AA) that they conducted an extensive study because the tradition of boycotts is not deeply rooted in Turkish culture.

Nasır highlighted that the diversity of boycotted brands and the lack of effective organization resulted in low participation, estimating that only around 30% actively engaged in the boycott due to high brand loyalty and consumer confusion caused by the extensive boycott list.

Regarding the success of a boycott, Nasır emphasized the importance of providing a concrete reason for boycotting a brand, citing the example of a Spanish clothing brand that successfully faced a boycott after consumers found a specific reason through a communication campaign.

The professor stated that citizens were searching for information about "Israeli brands and boycotted brands" through search engines, indicating a desire for clear justifications. She emphasized, "The stronger the reason for the boycott, the stronger the boycott against the brand and product. The success of the boycott is directly related to how clearly the framework of the boycott is defined."

Nasır shared that 45% of participants believed the boycott would not provide a solution to the events in Gaza, while 35% felt it was not effectively organized. She concluded by revealing that 80% of participants had low confidence in the efficacy of the boycott, and those actively participating were motivated by the desire to contribute and show resistance, aiming to financially pressure brands supporting Israel.

Finding echoes

Nasır noted that searches for the keywords "Israel" and "boycott" on the "Google Trends" page fluctuated at different times, with periods of high and low search activity. "During cease-fire periods, we see a decline in the boycott. However, when attacks resume after a cease-fire, we observe a rapid increase in searches. (Some) 70% of participants say they joined the boycott to feel good about themselves and to do something for humanity."

"We notice a significant increase in searches during periods when the intensity of these attacks rises, especially when news about hospital and child casualties resonates more," Nasır added.

Discussing whether those participating or not participating in the boycott feel any reluctance when using boycotted brands, Nasır mentioned, "Those who do not participate in the boycott are not indifferent; they are sensitive and saddened by the events. However, they refrain from participating because they believe that not participating will not change the events."

"Therefore, they do not hesitate to be seen using boycotted brands. We can see clearly that those participating in the boycott do not feel pressured when using these products," Nasır explained.

X, Baby Boomers

The Turkish academic stated that the study also examined the participation of X, Y and Z generations, along with Baby Boomers, in the boycott and made intergenerational comparisons.

Highlighting that Generation Z led with a participation rate of 50%, followed by Generation Y, Nasır mentioned, "In X and Baby Boomers generations, this rate remained around 20%. Generation Z is spirited, questioning and researching. We are talking about a sensitive generation."

"They expect brands to be sensitive to environmental and social events. If brands are not sensitive, they blacklist them. Generation Z takes the lead in the boycott," Nasır added.

Nasır pointed out that Generation Z, in general, is not responsible for household shopping. "Generation Z says, 'I won't drink coffee from X chain, I won't eat from Y brand.' Therefore, Generation Z easily participates. We see that the shopping for X, Y and Baby Boomers is within the household. There are many products and brands entering the household. Therefore, these generations can only partially participate. When answering the question, they consider all the shopping they do," Nasır explained.

"Generation Z is currently making more limited purchases. They participate at a much higher rate because they conduct the boycott within the framework of the products they buy. X and Y generations have many brands on their shopping lists. Therefore, they participate more restrictively," Nasır concluded.