YENİ MEDYA; ÇEVRİMİÇİ BOYKOT VE BUYCOTT'U ANLAMAK

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 1 Sayı: Özel Sayı, 1 - 15, 27.11.2024

Mustafa Aydın , Aşina Gülerarslan Özdengül

Öz

Bu araştırma, yeni medyanın bağlı bilgisayar ağları yoluyla dayanışma ağları geliştirme sürecini, boykot ve satın alma (buycott) yaratmadaki etkileşimsel gücünü ve bireysel yanıtların çevrimiçi ortamlarda hiyerarşik olmadan kartopu etkisiyle büyümesine katkısını incelemektedir. Bu araştırma aynı zamanda, politik tüketicilik (boykotlar ve satın almalar) tercihlerindeki belirleyiciliklerin ve kamu-özel sektörün politikalarındaki değişikliklere doğrudan etkisinin yeni medyadaki yansımalarını ele almaktadır. Bu araştırmanın amacı, dijital çağın etkisiyle şekillenen tüketim seçimi ve reddetmesine ilişkin literatür çerçeveden hareketle; 7 Ekim sonrası Filistin’de yaşanan soykırıma yönelik Türkiye’de çevrimiçi ortamlarda şekillenen boykot ve satın alma (buycott) içeriklerini incelemektir. Çalışma sonuçları göstermektedir ki; çevrimiçi duyurulan bir eylem çağrısının etkisi internet tabanlı yeni medya yoluyla katlanarak artmakta, böylece yeni medya, kişisel değerlerinin içine gömülü etik standartlardan yola çıkan bireylerin soylu ve değerli bulduğu davranışlarına iş birlikleri fırsatı sunmaktadır. Özellikle sosyal medya platformları, çevresel felaketlere, doğayı korumaya, çocuk işçilere, kadın-çocuk istismarına, emeğin sömürülmesine, insan onurunun zedelenmesine, militarizme, soykırıma ve küresel adaletsizliklere karşı müşterek tepkiyi seslendirmek ve görünürlüğünü arttırmaya yönelik son derece etkili platformlar olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yeni Medya, Boykot, Buycott, Tüketici Boykotu, Politik Tüketicilik

Destekleyen Kurum

Herhangi bir kuruluştan destek alınmamıştır.

NEW MEDIA; UNDERSTANDING ONLINE BOYCOTT AND BUYCOTT

Öz

This research examines the process by which new media develop networks of solidarity through connected computer networks, their interactive power to create boycotts and buycotts, and the contribution of individual responses to the non-hierarchical snowballing of online environments. This research also examines the determinants of political consumerism (boycotts and buyouts) choices and the direct impact of public-private sector policies on new media. The purpose of this research is to examine the boycott and buycott contents that took shape in online environments in Turkey in relation to the genocide that took place in Palestine after October 7, within the framework of the literature on consumption choice and rejection shaped by the influence of the digital age. The study results show that the impact of a call to action announced online is multiplied by internet-based new media, thus new media offers the opportunity for collaborations for behaviors that individuals find noble and valuable, based on ethical standards embedded in their personal values. Social media platforms, in particular, emerge as extremely effective platforms for voicing and increasing the visibility of collective reactions against environmental disasters, nature protection, child labor, women-child abuse, exploitation of labor, violation of human dignity, militarism, genocide and global injustices.

Anahtar Kelimeler

New Media, Boycott, Buycott, Consumer Boycott, Political Consumerism

Kaynakça

• Aung, M., Wang, J., & Zhang, X. (2021). Navigating the field of contemporary political consumerism: Consumer boycott and consumer buycott vistas. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 15(4).
• Baek, Y. M. (2010). To buy or not to buy: Who are political consumers? What do they think and how do they participate?. Political Studies, 58(5), 1065-1086.
• Braunsberger, K., & Buckler, B. (2011). What motivates consumers to participate in boycotts: Lessons from the ongoing Canadian seafood boycott. Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 96-102.
• Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
• Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer–do ethics matter in purchase behaviour?. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560-578.
• Chatzidakis, A., & Lee, M. S. W. (2013). Anti-Consumption as the Study of Reasons against. Journal of Macromarketing, 33(3), 190-203.
• Ciftci, D. (2020). Political Consumerism: Discussion on the Motivation of Boycotting and Buycotts. Dördüncü Kuvvet Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi, 3(1), 39-55.
• Friedman, M. (1985). Consumer boycotts in the United States, 1970–1980: Contemporary events in historical perspective. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 19(1), 96-117.
• Friedman, M. (1995). On promoting a sustainable future through consumer activism. Journal of Social Issues, 51(4), 197-215.
• Friedman, M. (1996). A positive approach to organized consumer action: The “buycott” as an alternative to the boycott. Journal of Consumer Policy, 19(4), 439-451.
• Friedman, M. (2001). Ethical Dilemmas Associated with Consumer Boycotts. Journal of Social Philosophy, 32(2). Friedman, M. (2002). Consumer boycotts: Effecting change through the marketplace and media. Routledge.
• Green, N., & Haddon, L. (2009). Mobile communications: An introduction to new media. Berg.
• Green, L. (2010). The internet: an introduction to new media. Berg.
• Hawkins, R. A. (2010). Boycotts, buycotts and consumer activism in a global context: An overview. Management & Organizational History, 5(2), 123-143.
• Hoffmann, S., Balderjahn, I., Seegebarth, B., Mai, R., & Peyer, M. (2018). Under which conditions are consumers ready to boycott or buycott? The roles of hedonism and simplicity. Ecological Economics, 147, 167-178.
• John, A., & Klein, J. (2003). The boycott puzzle: Consumer motivations for purchase sacrifice. Management Science, 49(9), 1196-1209.
• Kam, C. D., & Deichert, M. (2020). Boycotting, buycotting, and the psychology of political consumerism. The Journal of Politics, 82(1), 72-88.
• Kahn, R., & Kellner, D. (2004). New media and internet activism: From the ‘Battle of Seattle’to blogging. New Media & Society, 6(1), 87-95.
• Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• King, B. G. (2011). The tactical disruptiveness of social movements: Sources of market and mediated disruption in corporate boycotts. Social Problems, 58(4), 491-517.
• Klein, J. G., Smith, N. C., & John, A. (2004). Why we boycott: Consumer motivations for boycott participation. Journal of Marketing, 68(3), 92-109.
• Koku, P. S., Akhigbe, A., & Springer, T. M. (1997). The financial impact of boycotts and threats of boycott. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 15-20.
• Lievrouw, L. A. (2023). Alternative and activist new media. John Wiley & Sons.
• Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I., & Kelly, K. (2008). New media: A critical introduction. Routledge.
• Makarem, S. C., & Jae, H. (2016). Consumer boycott behavior: An exploratory analysis of twitter feeds. Journal of consumer affairs, 50(1), 193-223.
• Micheletti, M. (2004). Just Clothes? Discursive Political Consumerism and Political Participation. Paper for the 2004 ECPR Joint Sessions, April 13-18, Uppsala Workshop 24: Emerging Repertoires of Political Action. Toward a Systematic Study of Postcoventional Forms of Participation.
• Pettit, P. (2017). The conversable, responsible corporation, 15-35. Orts, E. W., & Smith, N. C. (Eds.). (2017). The moral responsibility of firms. Oxford University Press.
• Prasad, B. D. (2008). Content analysis. Research methods for social work, 5(le20).
• Redpath, J. (1881). Talks of Ireland. Magazine of Western History, 5,214–215.
• Sak, R., Sak, İ. T. Ş., Şendil, Ç. Ö., & Nas, E. (2021). Bir araştırma yöntemi olarak doküman analizi. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 4(1), 227-256.
• Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. Yale University Press.
• Sen, S., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Morwitz, V. (2001). Withholding consumption: A social dilemma perspective on consumer boycotts. Journal of Consumer research, 28(3), 399-417.
• Smith, N.C. (1990). Morality and the market: consumer pressure for corporate accountability. London: Routledge.
• Stolle, D., & Micheletti, M. (2013). Political consumerism: Global responsibility in action. Cambridge University Press.
• Yates, L. S. (2011). Critical consumption: Boycotting and buycotting in Europe. European Societies, 13(2), 191-217. Yuksel, U. (2013). Non-participation in anti-consumption: Consumer reluctance to boycott. Journal of Macromarketing, 33(3), 204-216.
• Online Kaynaklar Aslanhan, U. (2023, Ekim 2). Trendyol'dan Gazze'ye 10 milyon dolarlık insani yardım. www.aa.com.tr. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/sirkethaberleri/perakende/trendyoldan-gazzeye-10-milyon-dolarlik-insani-yardim/683241.
• Ampalestine. (2022, Haziran 7). Pillsbury is Divesting from Apartheid Israel. www.ampalestine.org. https://www.ampalestine.org/media/media-room/news/pillsbury-divesting-apartheid-israel
• Baum, D. & Perry. N. (2020, Ağustos 13). We’re boycotting Pillsbury. Here’s why you should join us. www. afsc.org. https://afsc.org/news/were-boycotting-pillsbury-heres-why-you-should-join-us.
• BDS National Committee (BNC). (2022). VICTORY! General Mills to divest from apartheid Israel. www.bdsmovement.net. https://bdsmovement.net/news/victory-general-mills-divest-from-apartheid-israel.
• Cjpm. (2022, Ağustos 01). Pillsbury İsrail Yerleşimlerindeki İşini Sonlandırıyor. www.cjpme.org. https://www.cjpme.org/fs_231.
• Gs1. (2023, Ağustos). GS1 Şirket Öneki. www.gs1.org. https://www.gs1.org/standards/id-keys/company-prefix.
• Gzt. (2023, Kasım 10). İsrail'i destekleyen markalar. www.gzt.com. https://www.gzt.com/infografik/genc-motto/israili-destekleyen-markalar-31560
• McDonald's Türkiye [@McDonaldsTR]. (2013, Ekim 13). “McDonald’s Türkiye olarak savaş mağduru Gazze halkına 1 milyon dolarlık insani yardım [Photograph]. twitter. https://twitter.com/McDonaldsTR/status/1712905231850250633.
• Ohchr. (2020, Temmuz 01). İşgal Altındaki Filistin Topraklarındaki Yerleşimlerle İlgili Ticari Faaliyetler. www.ohchr.org. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/02/un-rights-office-issues-report-business-activities-related-settlements.
• Starbucks. (2024, Ocak 12). Starbucks’tan Açıklamalar. https://www.starbucks.com.tr/starbucks-haberler/starbucks-aciklama.
• Tihek. (2024, Mayıs 05). Türkiye İnsan Hakları Ve Eşitlik Kurumu. www.tihek.gov.tr. https://www.tihek.gov.tr/public/images/kararlar/em1o5l.pdf.
• Trendyol [@Trendyol]. (2023, Ekim 20). Platformumuzdaki Filistin temalı ürünlerin kasıtlı olarak yayından kaldırıldığı iddialarına dair açıklamamızdır. [Photograph]. twitter. https://twitter.com/Trendyol/status/1715304800131137544.
• Türk Kızılay [@kizilay]. (2023, Kasım 3). “Gazze’deki sivil halkın temel ihtiyaçlarının karşılanması için; [Post]. https://www.instagram.com/kizilay/p/CzLWmfgsRdJ/.
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Yenicaggazetesi. (2023, Ekim 20). Trendyol'a Filistin tepkisi. Binlerce kişi uygulamayı sildi. www.yenicaggazetesi.com.tr. https://www.yenicaggazetesi.com.tr/trendyola-filistin-tepkisi-binlerce-kisi-uygulamayi-sildi 723278h.htm.
• Zraporucom [@zraporucom]. (2023, Mart 13). “İftar sofranda İsrail destekçisi firmaların değil ülkenin içeceği tüket. [Post] https://www.instagram.com/zraporucom/p/C4dbmJjCZgI/.
• Zorlu, A.E. (2023, Kasım 10). İsrail'i destekleyen markalar. www.gzt.com. https://www.gzt.com/infografik/genc-motto/israili-destekleyen-markalar-31560.