We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
Scott Galloway's "Resistant Unsubscribe" campaign successfully sent a "signal" to the public but has not yet reconfigured the "incentives" for big tech executives. Lasting impact requires moving beyond raising awareness to creating concrete, board-level pressure that alters corporate behavior.
The "Resist and Unsubscribe" movement is based on the premise that withdrawing economic participation is the most powerful form of protest in a market-driven society. It's a low-effort way for citizens to exert influence, as markets respond more crisply to shifts in consumer behavior than to ideological arguments.
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.
To be effective rather than just morally 'right,' activism should target the 'jugular' of a system. This means focusing on a small number of companies with outsized economic influence and vulnerability, rather than a broad list of all complicit actors, to maximize impact.
Modern administrations, immune to moral outrage but sensitive to market fluctuations, can be influenced by targeted economic strikes. Mass unsubscriptions from major tech platforms can directly impact the stock market, forcing a political response where traditional protests fail.
In a consumer-driven economy, withdrawing participation by unsubscribing from services sends a powerful market signal. This financial pressure can influence corporate behavior and government policy more effectively than traditional protests or heckling from the sidelines.
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.
Scott Galloway's "Resist and Unsubscribe" site being blocked by Microsoft was seen not as a setback, but as validation. This institutional pushback fueled media attention and public support, demonstrating that corporate attempts to silence criticism can backfire and legitimize a movement.
Tech executives like Tim Cook, who attend White House events after state-sponsored killings, are immune to moral shaming. The only effective leverage against their complicity is threatening their company's stock price, as shareholder value is their primary, and perhaps only, motivator.
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.
The grassroots movement to boycott big tech gained media exposure equivalent to a $5-9 million advertising campaign without any paid spend. This was primarily driven by the hosts' established podcast and social media platforms, demonstrating the power of these channels for non-profit campaigns.