I previously addressed the dollar vote, but there is more to express.
I stated that if one has a problem with a product or service itself, that makes sense. But if one refuses to shop a store or company for political stance, forget it.
The best example is in the entertainment industry. The industry is smaller than it appears when you look at what company owns what and who collaborated with who. Disney has caught flak from conservative religious communities in the past for their stances. Yet, being a religious conservative myself, am I going to remove Disney/Pixar/Lucasfilm titles from our movie selections as a family? Probably not. But, if a movie plot promotes an agenda or ideal that I have a moral disagreement with, I will remove the individual story from our selection. Such targeting will have a better effect than company-wide boycotting.
Company-wide boycotting only works when there is a large enough group making a concentrated effort. Otherwise, you’re just a drip on a hot fry pan. You don’t even register. Product specific boycotting, on the other hand, requires fewer people for a company to notice. A product can still make a profit and get cut, if it is making less profit than other ventures. People are buying more of X than they are Y, so project Z needs to be more like X. That’s how a company sees it. Company-wide boycotting has to cut into the overall profitability of a company to work, where product-specific only has to reduce the profit margin a little on one product or service. Therefore, product-specific isn’t likely to need orchestration to be effective.
I still believe company-wide boycotting as a general practice to be inadvisable, not even remotely feasible, and economically impossible. From time to time an egregious breach of public trust may call for a community group or two to launch one, but on an ongoing individual level the statement stands. Product-specific, that is an entirely different matter.