Cancel Culture: Why Consumers Don't Hesitate to Walk Away From a Brand

Cancel culture no longer stops at celebrities or influencers. In recent years, companies have also increasingly become targets when the public judges their decisions to be at odds with shared values.

This pattern shows up in Altamira and Movementi's (2023) review of various cancel culture cases in Indonesia between 2018 and 2021. At first, public pressure was directed mainly at public figures — celebrities or content creators who lost contracts after becoming embroiled in controversy.

Public attention then shifted toward institutions. One example is when the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission faced backlash after a statement by its chairperson regarding a former convict in a sexual harassment case. The criticism that followed was directed not only at the individual, but at the institution itself.

The next development reached corporations. In 2020, the public boycotted AICE over alleged labor violations at the company. Citing Nguyen (2020), Altamira and Movementi explain that the "canceled" label can now attach itself to companies and institutions perceived to have violated social norms.

This shift shows that companies are now judged much like public figures. Consumers pay attention not only to the products being sold, but also to the decisions a company makes, the values it stands for, and how it responds when facing criticism.

For marketers, the biggest change brought by cancel culture isn't who becomes the target, but what consumers are actually evaluating. Where the product used to be the center of attention, a company's decisions now factor into the purchase decision as well.

How a company treats its workers, its environmental footprint, its stance on social issues, its position on geopolitical conflicts, and even a founder's personal statements on social media can now shape how the public views a brand.

Findings from the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report show that a company's country of origin is also something consumers factor in. More than two-thirds of global respondents named a brand's headquarters location as an important, or even a deciding, factor in whether they go through with a purchase — up five points from 2023. The same report also found that 66 percent of respondents are hesitant or refuse to trust people who hold different values, sources of information, or backgrounds from their own. Within that group, 30 percent said they were reluctant to use brands favored by people with different values.

The commercial impact of this shift is visible in Indonesia. PT MAP Boga Adiperkasa Tbk (MAPB), which operates Starbucks outlets in Indonesia, posted a net loss of IDR 22.23 billion in Q1 2024, reversing a net profit of IDR 13.65 billion in the same period the year before. Over the first half of 2024, the company's sales fell 18.68 percent year-on-year to IDR 1.62 trillion, with a net loss of IDR 50.11 billion.

According to IDN Times (2024), MAPB President Director Anthony Valentine McEvoy stated that boycott sentiment began affecting sales starting in Q4 2023. Although the financial report also noted pressure from operational costs and weaker market conditions, management directly linked the boycott movement to the company's declining performance.

What marketers should note isn't just the decline itself, but how long it lasted. Through the first nine months of 2025, MAPB still recorded a net loss of IDR 108.69 billion, up from IDR 79.13 billion in the same period the year before. The company stated that boycott-related pressure was still ongoing. In other words, a reputational crisis doesn't always end when the conversation on social media dies down.

At the same time, shifting consumer preferences have also opened opportunities for other players. Compas.co.id's (2024) analysis of e-commerce sales in the food and beverage category found that local manufacturers grew 18 percent during the boycott period. In the chocolate category, Silverqueen recorded the highest sales growth, at 34.4 percent. When some consumers abandon one brand, another brand seen as more aligned with their values stands to benefit.

On social media, people don't always say what they're actually thinking. The more familiar someone is with the dynamics of cancel culture, the more cautious they tend to be about voicing an opinion.

Brian, Santoso, and Sokang (2025) surveyed 85 young people in Jakarta aged 17–39 to examine how they view cancel culture. The finding most relevant to marketers actually came from the most active social media users.

Respondents who used social media for three hours or more per day had the highest familiarity with cancel culture, with an average score of 4.1 out of 5. Yet that same group also showed the highest level of caution when expressing opinions (3.9). The researchers interpreted this pattern as an indication of self-censorship, the tendency to hold back one's opinion out of concern over social consequences in digital spaces.

A similar pattern appeared among female respondents. They were more familiar with the concept of cancel culture (4.1) than male respondents (3.7), and also more cautious when expressing opinions on social media (3.9). Meanwhile, respondents aged 22–39 showed more reflective understanding of the phenomenon (4.3) than those aged 17–21 (3.8).

Interestingly, the study also found that spending more time on social media doesn't automatically mean higher critical literacy. Low-intensity users actually turned out to be the most critical group in assessing the social impact of cancel culture (4.0). High-intensity users, by contrast, were more familiar with the phenomenon but also more susceptible to the logic of virality and social pressure.

For marketers, this finding shows that a silent audience doesn't necessarily mean an agreeing one. The people who see a brand's content most often may well be the ones most cautious about voicing their opinion in public.

This means a relatively quiet comment section doesn't necessarily reflect positive sentiment. Some consumers may choose not to argue on social media, but still make decisions quietly — stopping their purchases or switching to another brand, for instance. Altamira and Movementi (2023) connect this pattern to the concept of the spiral of silence: people's tendency to stay quiet when they feel their views risk triggering rejection from other groups.

Because of this, engagement metrics shouldn't be read as the only indicator of a campaign's health. Combining them with social listening, conversation analysis, and sales data will give a fuller picture of how an audience is actually responding to a brand.

Not every crisis has the same impact. Some brands manage to restore consumer trust within months, while others face reputational pressure that lingers for years. The difference isn't determined only by how quickly a brand responds, but also by how it responds, which channels it uses, and the nature of the issue the public is upset about.

The Sprout Social Q2 2026 survey shows that social media is now where consumers first learn about a brand controversy, ahead of news articles, friends and family, and even a company's official statements. Because of this, consumers also expect clarification to be delivered on the same channel. 64 percent of respondents said a public response on social media matters more to them than a press release or a statement on a company website.

The good news is that consumers don't always close the door for good. In the same survey, 51 percent of respondents said they'd be willing to consider buying again a few months after an issue is handled well. Twenty percent even said they could come back within days.

But "handled well" doesn't just mean responding quickly. The public also judges whether the explanation given actually addresses the issue at hand.

Research by Kirkwood, Payne, and Mazer (2019), cited in Altamira and Movementi (2023), shows that a reputation built over a long time can collapse once the public perceives a gap between the values a company claims to hold and the actions it actually takes.

This is where the MAPB case offers a different perspective. Even though the company gave the public an explanation, pressure on its business performance continued into 2025. This suggests that when the issue at hand is seen as touching on a company's identity or affiliations, the recovery process can take far longer than a crisis triggered by a single communication misstep.

In the end, response speed does matter. But what matters more is what the public is actually upset about. The bigger the gap between the image a brand has built and the actions consumers perceive it taking, the harder trust becomes to restore.

This article shows that in the era of cancel culture, what consumers evaluate is no longer just the product, but also the decisions a company makes. Reputation now factors into purchase decisions at a weight nearly equal to product quality and price. This means reputation management is no longer the sole responsibility of the public relations team — it's now part of business and marketing strategy.

For marketers, there are a few things worth starting to pay attention to.

Run an audit before launching a campaign. Before choosing talent, collaboration partners, or running an activation, double-check whether everyone involved has a track record aligned with the values the brand wants to build. Preventing reputational risk from the start is almost always cheaper than repairing it after a crisis hits.

Make sure what the brand says matches reality. Consumers are getting harder to convince through claims alone. Edelman found that independent voices carry the greatest influence in building trust. So if a brand raises issues like sustainability, labor practices, or social impact, make sure those claims can be proven and verified.

Make sure the team can respond quickly. When a conversation starts on social media, consumers also expect a response on that same channel. The communications team needs a clear approval workflow so it can provide an explanation without waiting on an overly long internal process.

In the end, reputation isn't something built from scratch once a crisis hits. It's formed through the decisions made every day — from choosing partners, to shaping campaigns, to running day-to-day operations. When a controversy breaks out, the public is really just seeing the outcome of decisions made long before.

For brands, the challenge is no longer simply creating campaigns that grab attention, but making sure business, operational, and communication decisions all move in the same direction. In an era when consumers also judge the company behind a product, reputation is no longer shaped by the public relations team alone. How a company treats its workers, chooses its partners, responds to public issues, and how its leaders carry themselves — all of it becomes part of the brand experience consumers evaluate.

This means reputation management needs to start long before a crisis occurs. A good campaign still matters, but it won't help much if it contradicts the practices a company actually follows. When an issue breaks out, what's at stake isn't just the conversation on social media, but the trust that's been built all along.

References

Altamira, M. B., & Movementi, S. G. (2023). Fenomena cancel culture di Indonesia: Sebuah tinjauan literatur [The cancel culture phenomenon in Indonesia: A literature review]. Jurnal Vokasi Indonesia, 10(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.7454/jvi.v10i1.1177

Brian, C., Santoso, G., & Sokang, Y. A. (2025). Analisis persepsi orang muda Jakarta mengenai cancel culture [An analysis of young Jakartans' perceptions of cancel culture]. Ganaya: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora, 8(4), 66–73.

Compas.co.id. (2024, July 8). Compas market insight dashboard: Efek boikot, pasar F&B mengalami penurunan penjualan hingga 53% di e-commerce [Compas market insight dashboard: Boycott effect — the F&B market saw e-commerce sales drop by up to 53%]. Retrieved July 29, 2026, from https://compas.co.id/article/market-insight-efek-boikot-pasar-fb-alami-penurunan-penjualan/

Damara, D. (2024, June 28). Akibat invasi Israel ke Palestina, Starbucks Indonesia (MAPB) rugi [Following Israel's invasion of Palestine, Starbucks Indonesia (MAPB) posts a loss]. Bisnis.com. Retrieved July 29, 2026, from https://market.bisnis.com/read/20240628/192/1777795/akibat-invasi-israel-ke-palestina-starbucks-indonesia-mapb-rugi

Edelman. (2026, June). 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer special report: Brand growth in an insular world. Retrieved July 29, 2026, from https://www.edelman.com/trust/2026/trust-barometer/special-report-brands

Pitoko, R. A. (2024, July 9). Komisaris pengelola Starbucks Indonesia mundur di tengah aksi boikot [Starbucks Indonesia's managing commissioner resigns amid boycott]. IDN Times. https://www.idntimes.com/business/economy/komisaris-pengelola-starbucks-indonesia-mundur-di-tengah-aksi-boikot-00-brqf5-cbmy9j

Sprout Social. (2026, June 18). Social media is now the primary channel for brand crisis response, new research finds. Retrieved July 29, 2026, from https://sproutsocial.com/insights/press/social-media-is-now-the-primary-channel-for-brand-crisis-response-new-research-finds/