Music Venues and the Never Ending Boycott

Exploring music venues in the Twin Cities that are being boycotted and the point and outcomes of boycotts

Sydney Jackson

Historically in the United States, boycotts have been a prominent tool in working against and combating social injustices. They cause organizations, businesses, companies, and more to reconsider their actions and how they go about their business on account of a reduction in their sales. Boycotts are still implemented onto an array of entities today by many, including Twin Cities locals. Many are fired up and passionate about injustices happening in our communities and on the international scale. As a result, boycotts of local businesses, like music venues have occurred. 

A major music venue that is currently under a boycott is First Avenue, a rock music venue in Minneapolis, famous for their iconic wall of stars that features numerous musicians and hosting famous acts. In recent years, the music venue has been under scrutiny for numerous reasons. One of the first instances of controversy happened when Dave Chappelle was expected to do a show at First Avenue in July of 2022. Prior to his show, Chappelle had a Netflix special that included transphobic jokes, causing backlash towards him and other venues that hosted his comedy show, including First Avenue. Over 100 people signed an online petition to get Chappelle booted from his show at the First Avenue, which resulted in the music venue dropping and canceling his show. 

More recently in March of this year, First Avenue hosted pro-Israeli extremist Matisyahu, an American reggae singer. The singer criticized the calls for ceasefires and denied Palenstine as a sovereign state. Despite only recently getting recognition for the attacks, Israel has been committing genocide against Palestine for decades. Most recently, Israel has been unfairly attacking Gaza and Raffah in the name of defense from Hamas. So, Matisyahu’s performance caused online backlash. Despite it though, Matisyahu still performed at First Avenue, and as a result a loud protest, accompanied by chants, boisterous music instruments and clanging of pots and pans, formed outside the venue in order to distract and disturb his performance. 

Including these two events as well as scrutiny due to predatory staff behavior, and poor management, a boycott has been called against First Avenue. However, there is not a clear goal and endtime defined, which I think is important and vital for a successful boycott. 

I think that boycotts have the ability to be successful. In the past, successful boycotts, for instance like the Montgomery Bus boycotts, have made change. Black Americans boycotted the Montgomery bus system by refusing to use their buses, and to instead walk to places, with the goal of avoiding segregation. By the end of their 18 month boycott, it was written into law to remove segregation on public buses. 

I think currently with modern boycotts, many elements of successfulness are lacking. I think one of the main elements a boycott needs is a clearly defined goal. Many boycotts lack specific demands for corrective action , and instead only boycott in response to the actions of the entity. A clear goal helps to make a change more feasible because the entity would know what to change. Another element of boycotts I believe is successful is a clear and realistic end time. The obvious goal of a boycott is to reduce the funds of the entity, but it should only last for a period of time and not indefinitely. However, if the boycott has been going on for a prolonged period of time with no substantial change, it is rendered pointless. A new strategy needs to be implemented instead of continuing an unsuccessful boycott.

It is also important to remember that a boycott is only one element of a strategy to combat an issue. A boycott should not be the only thing that is happening to remove an issue, and instead needs to be paired with bigger actions. Boycotts grab the attention of companies, which is needed for social injustices movements; however, there needs dedicated time taken to communicate directly to higher ranks of the boycotted entity for a change. A boycott without proper acts of communication is like giving the silent treatment to someone without explicitly saying what is wrong—it’s ineffective and the issue persists.