Economic Blackout: Can a 24-Hour Boycott Really Make a Difference?

The idea of an "economic blackout"—a 24-hour boycott of consumer spending—has gained traction in recent times, fueled by social media activism and growing discontent with corporate influence on society. 

The most recent attempt, spearheaded by The People’s Union USA on March 1, 2025, called for U.S. residents to refrain from spending money as an act of resistance against corporate and political dominance. But did it have a meaningful impact, or was it just another viral trend?

The Concept Behind the Economic Blackout

John Schwarz, founder of The People’s Union USA, envisioned the blackout as a demonstration of the power consumers hold over big corporations. His goal was to disrupt business as usual and send a message that working Americans refuse to be manipulated by billionaires and political elites. Participants were urged to avoid all spending—including retail purchases, dining out, and even filling up their gas tanks—unless it was an emergency or involved supporting small local businesses.

Was There a Noticeable Impact?

Despite the online buzz, retail analysts observed no major dip in consumer activity. According to Marshal Cohen, chief retail advisor at Circana, there were no significant signs of decreased foot traffic or reduced spending. "If you get 5% or 10% of the people that don’t shop, that could happen on any given day because of the rain," Cohen noted.

However, some individuals did make a conscious effort to participate. TikTok creator Rachelle Biennestin, already involved in the "No Buy 2025" movement, used the blackout as an opportunity to reinforce her personal commitment to reducing unnecessary consumption. Some small businesses even reported increased traffic, as consumers who chose to abstain from big-brand spending redirected their dollars to local shops.

Boycotts and Their Long-Term Effects

While a single day of reduced spending is unlikely to shake corporate giants, historical data shows that sustained consumer movements can have a lasting impact. Consider the contrasting examples of Goya Foods and Bud Light:

• In 2020, Goya faced a boycott after its CEO praised then-President Donald Trump. However, instead of suffering losses, the brand saw a temporary surge in sales, fueled by support from conservative consumers.

• On the other hand, Bud Light’s 2023 controversy over a partnership with a transgender influencer led to a long-term decline in sales. Unlike Goya, Bud Light's core customer base reacted negatively, and the brand has struggled to recover its pre-boycott sales figures.

What’s Next? More Boycotts on the Horizon

The People’s Union USA is already planning another economic blackout for March 28, alongside targeted week-long boycotts against major corporations like Walmart, Amazon, Nestlé, and General Mills. Additionally, faith-based groups are organizing prolonged protests against companies rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Rev. Jamal Bryant’s upcoming 40-day boycott of Target, beginning on Ash Wednesday, March 5, aims to hold the retailer accountable for abandoning its DEI commitments. Similarly, Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network is set to announce two companies that will be boycotted for reversing DEI policies.

Will Economic Blackouts Gain Momentum?

While one-day boycotts may not cripple corporations, they serve as symbolic gestures that can influence public discourse and corporate policies. The challenge lies in maintaining consumer commitment over the long term.

As history has shown, companies are more likely to feel the effects of sustained boycotts rather than short-term spending freezes. If activists wish to see real change, they may need to evolve their strategy beyond isolated 24-hour protests and towards consistent, large-scale economic pressure.

What do you think? Can economic blackouts truly impact corporate behavior, or are they just fleeting social media trends? Let us know in the comments!