Something shifted this week in the boycott economy. For years, "we're boycotting you" was a threat — a hashtag, a bad news cycle, a week of heat. This week it came with receipts: a donut letter that doubled overnight, a coffee chain's revenue reportedly sliding, and a newspaper that walked out on a sport. If you want to know which side of that ledger a brand sits on before checkout, that's literally what we do — but first, the receipts.
The Dunkin' letter that doubled overnight
The single biggest brand card on our radar right now isn't from a politician or a pundit. It's an open letter to Dunkin' from a customer account (@Sassafrass_84) accusing the chain of stripping Christmas out of its stores — and it doubled from 150.1K to 302.5K views in a single day, sitting at 1,544 replies, 7,130 reposts, and 25.6K likes as of Saturday morning's capture. A companion boycott call from @CreasonJana pulled another 8,767 views, and the anger has spread across multiple platforms and tabs — including UK-side boycott chatter.
Important caveat, because we run a database and not a rumor mill: the Christmas-stripping claim belongs to the poster. Dunkin' hasn't confirmed a policy, and we haven't verified the trigger. The score on our Dunkin' profile is under content review precisely so we don't print a number we can't stand behind yet. But the engagement is a fact, it's compounding into a second week, and brand silence is feeding it. Open letters that @-tag the brand keep winning — that's the format lesson.
Starbucks: the boycott that showed up in the P&L
While Dunkin' trends, Starbucks — which scores 100/100, extremely woke, the only perfect score in the coffee lane — is in week two of a different kind of story: a viral card (@fuckyouiquit) citing revenue down nearly 5% after roughly a month of boycott pressure, now at 5,575 views and climbing. We've already done the receipts-versus-earnings-release teardown on that claim in a separate piece — the honest version is "reportedly," and the earnings release is the arbiter. But directionally, this is the first boycott cycle in a while where the dollar claim, not the outrage, is the thing traveling.
That's the flywheel conservatives keep getting told doesn't exist. Nobody serious claims a month of boycotts bankrupts a $100B chain. The point is that a measurable customer segment now treats coffee brands the way it treats any other vendor: check the record, then check out. Starbucks' 100 isn't a vibe — it's a documented pattern that predates this boycott, and the boycott is the market finally reading the file.
The weird one: Daily Mail is doing the boycotting
Here's the inversion nobody had on their bingo card. Daily Mail — which scores 20/100, mildly woke on our scale — announced via its sport desk (@MailSport, 172.7K views) that it will drop coverage of the final three Grands Prix of the 2026 Formula 1 season after the FIA banned its reporter. A media company boycotting a sport, because the sport's governing body punished its journalism.
For a site that spends its days watching boycotts flow one direction — consumers at brands — this is the first time we've watched a scored brand pick up the picket sign itself. And honestly? It's the most defensible boycott on the board this week. The usual boycott logic is "you offended me." This one is "you banned our reporter, so you don't get our coverage" — consequence aimed at a decision, applied by an institution with actual leverage. F1 isn't in our database (it's a sports body, not a consumer brand — it's on the discovery watchlist), so we're not scoring it. But the mechanic matters: boycotts work best when they punish a specific decision rather than demand a theology.
The backdrop: "MERIT, not DEI." went government-scale
Over on the DEI side of the radar, the loudest voice this week isn't a corporation at all — it's the Department of Education's account, whose three-word post "MERIT, not DEI." pulled 96.7K views with 9,337 likes. Corporate DEI announcements, by contrast, have gone quiet. That's not an accident. The 2024–2026 retreat from HRC indexes and DEI branding is now old enough that companies have stopped bragging in either direction — the smart ones quietly deleted the page, and the ideological ones (see: Starbucks at 100) kept the flag up and are now eating the receipts.
The gap in the market is honesty about the record. When nobody announces anything, the only thing left to evaluate is what a company actually did — which is the entire thesis of this site.
The gamer lane: loud, tiny, and ours to poll
The "go woke go broke" chatter that remains on the gaming tabs is small but instructive: pre-release boycott calls against the new Fable over what posters call a "DEI train wreck," at single-digit views each, plus mockery of anti-woke game awards. Volume without views. Xbox — 80/100, extremely woke, the worst-scoring platform holder we track in video games — is the brand actually attached to that anger, and the boycott sentiment hasn't moved a needle yet. Gamers talk a big boycott and then buy the game; the score exists so the choice is at least informed. Watch whether it grows past the triple digits.
The scoreboard, not the scream
Add it up and the week's lesson is simple: the boycott economy now keeps score. Views (302.5K on a letter), revenue (a reported ~5% dip), coverage (three Grands Prix gone) — every fight ends with a number now. The question was never whether boycotts are effective; it's whether you're punishing a real record or a rumor. Dunkin's trigger is still the poster's claim. Starbucks' record is documented. Daily Mail's grievance is verified. Same tool, three different levels of proof.
That's the discipline we bring: 2,400+ brands scored on what they did, not what a thread says they did. Check the score before you check out — and if a brand you care about isn't in the database yet, it probably will be soon.