Answer to Question 1
Admitting that a mistake had been made and that it ran contrary to the company's
values was probably the best thing it could do under the circumstances. Reebok
scored well for honesty and humility.
Answer to Question 2
It depends on how one chooses to measure success. As the Financial Times noted,
from an economic standpoint, the boycott appears to have been ineffective.
However, in terms of the company's reputation, the continuing boycott has been
an unqualified success. The fact that we are still writing about it nearly three
decades after it began is as much a testament to boycott's staying power as it is to
the company's stubbornness. Economic boycotts should be an act of last resort. Innocent people not involved in a company's decision-making processes can get
hurt. However, in a democratic society, people are free to choose with whom they associate. Boycotts usually happen when communication fails. For those who value money over principles, an economic boycott is often the only language they hear.
A Dose-Response Curve
Dose-Response Curves for Morphine
Physiological Stress Response (cont.)
The primary response causes B cells to produce memory B cells and a few antibodies. The second ...
Schematic diagram showing polyclonal response by B cells against linear epitopes.
Replication fork regression as a likely response to a blocking DNA lesion