Can Cancel Culture Damage Actually Benefit Anyone Financially?

The notion that cancel culture can actually benefit someone financially is a challenging one. At its core, cancel culture is about discrediting, ostracizing, or boycotting individuals or entities perceived to have misbehaved or acted insensitively. The primary outcome of being 'cancelled' is often a loss of social status and reputation that extends to professional and personal life.

Achieving Financial Gains Through Reverse Reputational Backlash

There are rare instances where a backlash against a person or entity can rebound and lead to financial benefits. This is often referred to as the Streisand Effect, an ironic phenomenon wherein an attempt to suppress information results in it going viral. For individuals or organizations outside the realms of fame, politics, or high finance, achieving a significant financial rebound from being cancelled is highly unlikely.

A notable example is Goya Foods. The company faced both a boycott and a “buy-cott” when the brand was associated with certain sentiments during the height of cancel culture. In June 2020, Goya received backlash for sponsoring a promotional campaign for Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva, a Bernie Sanders supporter. Subsequently, the brand experienced a sales surge due to consumers buying it in solidarity with the brand's stance. While this is a clear example of the Streisand Effect, it is critical to note that Goya Foods operates on a much larger scale.

The Financial Impact of Cancel Culture on Individuals

For the average person, the repercussions of being cancelled are often devastating. A YouTube channel, a job, or a political position can be permanently lost. The financial implications can be severe, especially when the reputation loss results in a loss of income. Most individuals do not have the financial resources to sustain a long-term boycott-induced crisis. An average “Karen” with a middle-class job and no significant online presence might see their life significantly disrupted by the cancellation, but they are unlikely to see any financial benefits.

The problem with cancel culture, therefore, goes beyond just the emotional or social impact. It targets those with the least systemic support and ability to leverage resources beneficially. Celebrities, high-ranking officials, and those with significant financial and social capital can go through the backlash and come out relatively unscathed or may even see an increase in support. However, the average person finds it almost impossible to gain financially or otherwise from being cancelled.

The Right Targets for Cancel Culture?

One of the major criticisms of cancel culture is that it misinterprets or overcorrects for issues. It often targets individuals who hold minor roles in society, like grocery store clerks or toilet salesmen, while ignoring the actions of powerful figures who arguably have a more substantial impact on society. For example, politicians and CEOs can drive policies, social movements, and economic changes that have far-reaching consequences. Their actions can lead to significant benefits or harms, but cancel culture tends to focus on trivialities that do not bear significant weight on societal outcomes.

Considering these points, while cancel culture is often discussed in terms of social impact, it is often seen that the financial gains, if any, are minimal and often negative for the average individual. The focus of cancel culture is often misplaced, as it diverts attention and resources away from more substantial issues that could actually lead to meaningful change.