I'm confused here. First by your wording -- what does "jump back up" mean, and what message are you talking about? Second -- OK, you're not a book buyer, so why are you talking about things that are of concern to book buyers? That's like me offering an opinion on football, when all I've ever done is glance at a game and start up Civilization because football bores me to tears. Obviously I'm free to say what I want, but nobody's going to pay any attention to me, because people who watch the game avidly are going to understand it better, and people who actually play it are going to understand it better still. I'm just some loudmouthed yahoo off in a corner that doesn't know what she's talking about.
Ok, so, I'll talk about boycotts, because the use of the word has broadened over the years. When I talk about a boycott, I mean an action, targeted at a business entity, to achieve a specific end. The protoypical example is "We won't buy your products until you negotiate with the union." It isn't, "You've done X, and I'll never buy from you again." The first is trying to get the business to change, and part of that means being willing to forgive the business when it does things right. The second is writing off a company completely for one's own reasons, possibly with the hope that you've helped, in a small way, to hasten its death.
So a boycott of a pubisher goes, "I am a buyer of books, I would normally buy your books, but I won't buy your books until you've done X. Once you have, I'll start buying those books I've been holding off on." There's a stick and a carrot, and it makes the financial ramifications of the company's actions clear, not just in terms of money lost, but in terms of money that could be gained. With this comes the implicit notion (which you've mentioned) that the trouble caused and money lost by the boycott is more than, or at least roughly equal to the change demanded.
And part of boycotting/strike is helping the employees affected by it in the meantime, which is where alternate revenue comes in.
But many people use "boycott" in a general sense of "reasons not to buy X." My problem with that is that there are lots of reasons not to buy X, and they're different for everybody, and they have different values for everybody. An author being a horrible person or doing horrible things is a reason not to buy their books, but so is being a horrible writer who writes horrible fiction. "Boycotting" an author until they stop being an asshole online is about the same as boycotting an author until they write a book you want to read.
This is why I'm generally against boycotts of authors, because they have so little control over the books, and where they do, the change that's desired is often unachievable or nebulous. I can't boycott John Ringo until he unwrites or unpublishes Ghost, because he can't. And if the goal is too ambiguous ("I'm not buying your books until you stop being an asshole online!"), the author (or a company) has no way of knowing how to meet it. So they don't.
So when the local supermarket union was striking, I boycotted their employers, and often shopped at Whole Foods. When the strike was over, I went back to the 24-hour supermarket. Now that Whole Foods has been making horrible statements, political contributions, and internal policies based on healthcare, health, and fatness, I don't ever see myself going into them again. That's not a boycott, that's just my opinion.
no subject
So a boycott of a pubisher goes, "I am a buyer of books, I would normally buy your books, but I won't buy your books until you've done X. Once you have, I'll start buying those books I've been holding off on." There's a stick and a carrot, and it makes the financial ramifications of the company's actions clear, not just in terms of money lost, but in terms of money that could be gained. With this comes the implicit notion (which you've mentioned) that the trouble caused and money lost by the boycott is more than, or at least roughly equal to the change demanded.
And part of boycotting/strike is helping the employees affected by it in the meantime, which is where alternate revenue comes in.
But many people use "boycott" in a general sense of "reasons not to buy X." My problem with that is that there are lots of reasons not to buy X, and they're different for everybody, and they have different values for everybody. An author being a horrible person or doing horrible things is a reason not to buy their books, but so is being a horrible writer who writes horrible fiction. "Boycotting" an author until they stop being an asshole online is about the same as boycotting an author until they write a book you want to read.
This is why I'm generally against boycotts of authors, because they have so little control over the books, and where they do, the change that's desired is often unachievable or nebulous. I can't boycott John Ringo until he unwrites or unpublishes Ghost, because he can't. And if the goal is too ambiguous ("I'm not buying your books until you stop being an asshole online!"), the author (or a company) has no way of knowing how to meet it. So they don't.
So when the local supermarket union was striking, I boycotted their employers, and often shopped at Whole Foods. When the strike was over, I went back to the 24-hour supermarket. Now that Whole Foods has been making horrible statements, political contributions, and internal policies based on healthcare, health, and fatness, I don't ever see myself going into them again. That's not a boycott, that's just my opinion.
Too busy at work to address part 2 yet. . .