Due to massive differences in revenue multiples, consumer spending cuts affect companies differently. A dollar lost by a high-multiple tech company like OpenAI (40x revenue) erases far more market cap than a dollar lost by a low-multiple retailer like Kroger (0.3x revenue). This gives consumers targeted leverage over Big Tech valuations.

Related Insights

Activism is more effective when focused on the subscription revenue of tech companies. These firms are highly sensitive to churn, trade on high revenue multiples, and have political influence. This approach amplifies consumer signals far more than general boycotts requiring significant personal sacrifice.

Bill Gurley questions if America truly benefits from trillion-dollar tech monopolies. He suggests these massive market caps could indicate a lack of "pure competition," where excessive profits are captured by a few giants instead of benefiting consumers through lower prices.

Due to high valuation multiples (8x-20x revenue), subscription-based businesses are exceptionally sensitive to activism. A small loss of subscribers can trigger a disproportionately massive drop in market capitalization, as seen when Netflix lost $50 billion after a minor churn.

Valuing companies like Meta based on past P/E multiples is flawed because their business model is changing. The shift from a capital-light, high-margin software firm to a leveraged, hardware-heavy business means it should command a much lower valuation multiple.

A general boycott hurts everyone, but a targeted strike on high-valuation tech and AI sectors creates a disproportionate ripple effect. Since their valuations are 'priced to perfection,' even a small revenue dip can cause significant market turmoil, capturing the administration's attention without widespread consumer harm.

To influence a market-obsessed government, citizen boycotts should target high-margin, high-growth tech companies. These firms are the market's "soft tissue," where a slowdown has an outsized impact on the S&P 500, making the protest more potent than targeting low-margin businesses like grocery stores.

Scott Galloway's "Resist and Unsubscribe" movement highlights the leverage individual consumers have. Each cancellation directly hits subscription revenues, which the market punishes severely, creating significant market cap loss from a small, individual action.

The AI buildout is forcing mega-cap tech companies to abandon their high-margin, asset-light models for a CapEx-heavy approach. This transition is increasingly funded by debt, not cash flow, which fundamentally alters their risk profile and valuation logic, as seen in Meta's stock drop after raising CapEx guidance.

To effectively exert economic pressure, focus on the 'soft tissue' of the economy. A small disruption in the subscription revenue of major tech companies has a disproportionately large impact on their market capitalization and investor sentiment, making it a more potent lever for change than boycotting essential goods.

Pre-AI, the price ceiling for consumer power users was low (~$25/month on Spotify). AI products have shattered this ceiling, with users paying hundreds per month (e.g., Grok) plus consumption-based fees. This makes the 'power user' segment exponentially more valuable to acquire and serve.