http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/02/chick-fil-a-appreciation-day-sets-record-restaurant-chain-says/?hpt=hp_t3
What is seen with activists is the belief that they can boycott a company and cause it to change its way. They operate under the assumption that prople outraged at a company will cause the company to be hurt so badly, it changes its views.
However, what happens when you have a situation where an issue is divisive and polarizes? Apparently with the whole Chik-Fil-A bruhaha, calls to boycott and protest lead people on the other side to do the opposite, to get people to shop at the place. End result? Well, the company apparently set sales records on Appreciation Day.
So, I would have a question: In case of polarizing issues, can a boycott really be effective, or does it just make a company a stronger niche brand and improves its bottom line by creating a stronger identity for itself? I would ask to focus on the effect of a boycott here, rather than have this turn into a discussion over gay marriage. I say this request because there is another thread on that subject. Also, it doesn't help any regarding the issue if people on one side or another are spun as spawns of evil.