Nishimurarizzz

:))))))) "oh I know who he said this for" yeah. the company. #OurFutureIsPerfectWITH7 #BELIFT_Boycott_Continues

🎐I'M CRYING WHOEVER MADE THIS EDIT I LOVE YOU!! 🎐 Open your eyes, y’all we need to connect our 7! Don’t fall for Belift’s agenda. Keep boycotting we’re so close! #ShoutOutToENHYPEN #BOYCOTT_beliftLAB_HYBE

Fact-Checking ‘Boycotts Don’t Work’ - A Convenient Narrative This is a fact-check of key claims made in a recent anti-boycott article. PART 1 Anti-boycotters keep saying the boycott is “emotional but ineffective”. That argument sounds logical, but it leaves out key facts. So-Called Strategic Weaknesses 1. On ‘Fragmented Fandoms’- “Fans won’t unite, so it won’t work”. Boycotts do NOT need 100% participation to have impact. Research shows even a noticeable drop in spending or engagement can pressure companies, especially in fan-driven industries like K-pop. A boycott failing to be perfect does not mean it has no effect. Sources: sciencedirect.com (economic boycott theory), ethicalconsumer.org (boycott effectiveness) 2. ‘No Clear Plan’ — Or Poor Framing of One - Saying “there is clear target or plan” confuses execution with intent. A poorly planned boycott can fail, yes. But that doesn’t mean the method itself is useless. That said, the claim that “people don’t know what they’re doing” is also inaccurate. Our goal is clear: for ENHYPEN to have creative freedom and better treatment, not just to bring Heeseung back. That is the plan. 3. “No Defined Success Criteria” or Just Not How Boycotts Work - The claim that people “don’t know what success means” assumes boycott needs a fixed timeline or pre-set endpoint. In reality, most boycotts don’t operate that way. They continue until demands are met or meaningful change happens, that is the success condition. Calling this “confusion” ignores that boycotts are inherently adaptive, not bound to rigid deadlines. 4. Impact Chain - The “it only hurts staff and the group” narrative is simply an oversimplification. When revenue drops, companies adjust budgets—that’s exactly how pressure works. Boycotts are meant to force companies to make decisions they otherwise wouldn’t, even if that pressure spreads across operations. Source: sustainability-directory.com (impact of consumer boycotts) 5. The One-Sided Risk Analysis or “It only hurts ENHYPEN” - This assumes numbers are the only form of leverage. They are not. Public backlash, media attention, and fan pressure also influence company decisions. Reducing everything to charts and sales ignores how reputation affects business. Source: ethicalconsumer.org (reputation & financial impact) 6. On ‘Corporate Behaviour’ - The argument that companies don’t just respond to numbers, correct. But that’s exactly why boycotts work: they create financial + reputational pressure together. Venue contracts and planning don’t disprove this — they’re constraints, not immunity. If anything, they raise the cost of ignoring backlash. And HYBE being large doesn’t make them untouchable. Impact can still hit labels, projects, and public image, even if the whole company stays profitable. Source: hellokpop.com (shows that Belift is a joint venture within HYBE’s multi label system, not the entire company) Using LOONA or OMEGA X as “invalid example” because they’re from smaller companies misses the point. It’s not about scale, it’s about how fan pressure affects decision-making. Scale changes the extent of impact, not whether it exists. Financial projections (BTS tour, revenue growth, etc.) don’t disprove boycott impact either. Just like venue contracts, they show diversification, not immunity. Offsetting losses doesn’t mean no pressure is applied. 7. ‘No Control Over Narrative’ - This assumes the worst-case scenario as the only outcome. Yes, the public may not follow fandom context — but boycotts can still gain media attention and shape discussion. Numbers don’t exist in a vacuum, contexts matters too.