Pakistan has recently witnessed a significant shift in consumer behaviour, marked by a surge in support for local brands. This change follows the widespread boycotts of international brands, particularly those perceived to be linked to Israel.
With hard-hitting messages such as “each rupee spent buying an American product is transformed into a bullet to kill our brothers in Palestine” or “they use our money to kill our children in Palestine,” consumers are increasingly inclined towards making a tangible difference in whatever capacity they can. They feel a sense of empowerment and solidarity by taking action, even if it means changing their shopping habits.
Since this is not the first time a boycott has taken place in the wake of this conflict and with the past trend of most Pakistani customers then reverting to purchasing their regular products, this shift begs the question of whether the latest boycott signals a fundamental change in buying behaviour for Pakistani consumers or is merely a temporary ‘compromise’.
The Context
The Israel-Palestine conflict has long been a catalyst for boycotts worldwide and Pakistan is no exception. Calls to boycott international brands associated with Israel have gained momentum several times in the past, fuelled by social media campaigns and public protests. These movements prompt Pakistani consumers to re-evaluate their purchasing decisions, leading to a noticeable, if temporary, pivot towards local brands.
According to Nielsen’s 2016 Global Brand-Origin Survey, 75% of consumers worldwide consider the country where a brand originates to be just as significant, or even more, than other factors influencing their purchasing decisions. On a regular day, imported products across many categories are considered to be of better quality in Pakistan and preferred by consumers who can afford them. However, this preference swiftly changes when the country of origin becomes a problem.
In Pakistan, Pulse Consultants conducted a survey soon after the beginning of last year’s boycott and found that about 80% of consumers supported the boycott, while almost 70% actually stopped buying several multinational and western brands.
Same Old Targets
Brands like Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Nestlé, PepsiCo, P&G and Unilever almost always find themselves in the crosshairs during these boycotts because of their strong American ties or perceived pro-Israel stance. To counter this, these brands enter a communication phase to salvage the image they worked so hard to build over the years. The interesting aspect of this is that while people boycott these brands, they still acknowledge their product quality. For example, as a result of the boycott of Coca-Cola and Pepsi, local players such as Cola Next and Gourmet Cola found great opportunities. People shifted towards these brands and even acknowledged that they were ‘not so bad’, but they still have no reason to say that Coca-Cola does not taste better. While some consumers expressed a newfound appreciation for the quality of local products; for example, when Kababjees Fried Chicken entered the market upon KFC’s boycott – others admitted to a sense of compromise, particularly in categories where international brands have historically set higher standards.
Out of Sight, Out of Mind
Similar boycotts took place in Pakistan in 2009, 2014 and 2021 in the wake of escalations of the Israel-Palestine conflict. However, upon the announcement of ceasefires and when the noise regarding these events died down, a vast majority of consumers reverted to their usual purchasing habits. This is because people have an inherent tendency to return to familiar routines and behaviours, especially when the social and emotional triggers (media coverage and peer pressure) diminish. This is when the motivation to continue the boycott wanes. Furthermore, sustaining a boycott can become inconvenient and costly, prompting consumers to prioritise their own convenience and finances over a continued protest. Be it the inconvenience of travelling to alternative retailers, the higher cost of substitute products, or the lack of quality in local products, consumer commitment to a boycott starts to wane as practical considerations come into play. In Pakistan, it is often difficult to boycott certain brands when local alternatives do not exist (such as powder detergents or computer and software brands).
After all, how can a Pakistani freelancer consider signing off from Fiverr, a Tel Aviv-based freelance platform that ensures bread and butter for their family?
Where Do Local Brands Stand?
Despite the positive trends (even if temporary), local brands face several challenges in the face of well-established international brands. Ensuring consistent quality and maintaining supply chain efficiency is critical to sustaining consumer trust, while expanding market reach and competing with the extensive resources of global brands require significant investment in innovation and infrastructure. Nevertheless, the current surge also presents opportunities for local brands to establish a loyal customer base. By continuously improving product quality and aligning with consumer values, local brands can transform this temporary shift into a long-term change in consumer behaviour, provided they demonstrate the ability to consistently meet and exceed consumer expectations after the boycott enthusiasm wears off. Whether this represents a genuine change in lifestyle or a temporary trend remains to be seen this time around, but it’s very probable that history will repeat itself once more. The majority of people are likely to eventually revert to their original spending habits when the conflict goes out of sight, and as a result, out of mind.
Alyan Khan-Yusufzai is an advertising practitioner with over a decade of experience in multiple regional markets.
No comments:
Post a Comment