The Dunkin’ Donuts boycott has drawn widespread attention, igniting a conversation that has piqued interest from both consumers and political commentators alike. What began as a seemingly minor incident has evolved into a broader debate about corporate involvement in political discourse and the power of consumer activism.

Brought to you by our experts at Business2Community, this article provides a comprehensive overview of the Dunkin’ Donuts boycott, detailing the key events and players involved. We will dive into the facts behind the controversy, its cultural impact, and the ongoing discussions it has fueled in the public eye.

Dunkin’ Donuts Boycott – Key Facts

  • Chris Pavlovski, CEO of Rumble, claimed that Dunkin’ Donuts refused to advertise on Rumble due to the platform’s right-wing associations, including creators like Steven Crowder.
  • Conservative influencers, including Catturd and Steven Crowder, fueled the boycott by encouraging their followers to avoid Dunkin’.
  • Dunkin’ Donuts and its parent company, Inspire Brands, have not publicly addressed the claims, leaving the controversy unresolved and ongoing.

The Story of the Dunkin’ Donuts Boycott

The Dunkin’ Donuts boycott erupted as a cultural flashpoint after Chris Pavlovski, CEO of Rumble, claimed that Dunkin’ pressured his company to dissociate from Steven Crowder, a prominent conservative talk show host. This situation brought to light intricate relationships between media platforms and corporations, sparking widespread discussion on the perceived influence exerted by Dunkin’ Donuts on political discourse.

What is Dunkin’ Donuts?

Dunkin’ Donuts is a globally recognized coffee and baked goods chain, known for its doughnuts and coffee offerings. The company is currently led by CEO David Hoffmann, who assumed leadership prior to Inspire Brands’ acquisition of Dunkin’ in 2020.

Dunkin’ Donuts has publicly taken an apolitical stance in the past. In 2019, the company announced at a panel that it didn’t intend to politicize its brand or align with either conservative or liberal causes. This is in contrast to brands like Starbucks or Chick-fil-A, which are perceived as politically affiliated with the left.

By stating “we’re not Starbucks”, Dunkin’ positioned itself as avoiding political endorsements, which has inadvertently led to political interpretations. Conservatives have largely interpreted this as supportive of their values, with some even promoting Dunkin’ as a preferred brand.

In contrast, some liberals reacted negatively, with some saying they would avoid Dunkin’ products.

What Is Rumble?

Rumble Inc., an online video-sharing platform founded by Chris Pavlovski in 2013, has positioned itself as an alternative to mainstream social media, appealing largely to conservative and far-right users.

Rumble office
With headquarters in Toronto and Longboat Key, Florida, the company was valued at $1.74 billion as of November 2024, and it generates revenue from ads, subscriptions, pay-per-view, and tipping, sharing income with creators.

A publicly traded company since 2022 (NASDAQ: RUM), Rumble has encountered substantial controversies. The platform’s relaxed moderation policies, partnerships with high-profile conservative investors, and alignment with alt-tech appeal have raised concerns regarding its political neutrality and societal impact.

The platform hosts various content creators, including controversial figures such as Steven Crowder, a conservative commentator known for his outspoken views and alleged poor treatment of his wife and employees. Crowder began his career in media as a comedian and commentator and later shifted to Rumble in 2023 after facing issues on other platforms, aligning himself with conservative politics.

Dunkin’ Boycott by MAGA Influencers

The boycott against Dunkin’ Donuts began after Chris Pavlovski, CEO of Rumble Video, claimed on social media that Dunkin’ Donuts refused to advertise on Rumble due to “right-wing culture”.

On August 7, 2024, Pavlovski shared emails on X (formerly Twitter) and alleged that Inspire Brands, the parent company of Dunkin’ Donuts, expressed reservations about advertising on the platform. Pavlovski also mentioned that Dunkin’ Donuts didn’t want to advertise with Rumble while creators like Steven Crowder were on the platform.

Neither Dunkin’ Donuts nor Inspire Brands publicly responded to these claims despite tags and mounting social media attention.

Pavlovski also posted a video where he symbolically threw away his Dunkin’ Donuts coffee pods in protest, saying he couldn’t support a company he felt was “discriminating against half of America”.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Chris Pavlovski (@chrispavlovski)

Following Pavlovski’s posts, social media erupted, with conservative users calling for a boycott similar to the backlash against Bud Light. Pavlovski explained he had initially approached Dunkin’ for a partnership, noting that both Rumble’s and Dunkin’s audiences showed strong coffee interest, but Dunkin’ ultimately declined, citing Rumble’s perceived conservative lean.

Social Media Sparks Dunkin’ Boycott

After Pavlovski’s post, prominent conservative influencers, including the social media personality Catturd, took to X to encourage a boycott.

Catturd’s posts about the controversy went viral among his 3.1 million followers, and he criticized Dunkin’ Donuts for perceived discrimination.

Influencers like Steven Crowder, whose name was initially part of the conversation between the company leaders, also urged their followers to avoid Dunkin’, amplifying the Dunkin’ Donuts boycott movement.

Israel-Palestine Tensions Heighten Dunkin’ Controversy

Dunkin’ Donuts has also faced backlash due to its perceived connection to the Israel-Palestine conflict, despite its parent company, Inspire Brands, maintaining an apolitical stance. The controversy escalated when some Dunkin’ locations, particularly those in Jewish communities, were found selling donuts shaped like the Star of David, which many saw as a show of support for Israel.

At a time when the country is accused of committing genocide and ethnic cleansing in the Gaza strip, some Dunkin’ customers thought that even this small measure of support was unacceptable.

@tresor111k

Replying to @alice.bickel Dunkin Donut is 100% supporting israel #coffee #boycottstarbucks #boycott #dunkin #freepalestine #freepalestine🇵🇸❤️

♬ original sound – Tresor111k

Even though Dunkin’ itself doesn’t officially take political positions, the association with these controversial products has led some to call for a boycott. This has sparked debates about whether to target specific Dunkin’ locations or the entire brand, considering the independent ownership of many franchises.

The issue highlights the complex dynamics between corporate branding, political symbolism, and consumer activism in an increasingly polarized environment.

The Consequences of the Dunkin’ Donuts Boycott

The Dunkin’ Donuts boycott has reverberated across multiple sectors, affecting consumers, investors, and the brand’s image itself.

Dunkin’s parent company, Inspire Brands, is a privately held restaurant conglomerate, making it challenging to gauge the boycott’s impact without full visibility into its financials. However, the financial repercussions may not be severe enough to hinder Inspire’s growth trajectory.

The fact that Inspire Brands is looking to go public suggests confidence in its business performance and resilience, indicating that it continues to do well despite the ongoing boycott.

inspire brands ipo
Source

The boycott, initially sparked by Chris Pavlovski’s claims about Dunkin’s refusal to advertise on Rumble, a platform known for its conservative audience, also grew in intensity after Dunkin’ Donuts became associated with the Israel-Palestine conflict. This ramped up in the wake of certain franchises offering products like Star of David donuts.

A divisive social media frenzy erupted, with conservative figures calling for audiences to boycott Dunkin’ Donuts for perceived discrimination against right-wing culture. There hasn’t been a direct link to large-scale cancellations, but the boycott sparked significant conversation, especially within politically engaged communities.

On the other side, Dunkin’ Donuts has faced criticism for being caught in the crossfire of a political issue not of their choosing. While the company has taken an apolitical stance in the past, it’s clear that its associations — whether real or perceived — have been politicized in the current climate.

CEO David Hoffmann has made no public statements directly addressing the boycott’s impact, and Dunkin’ Donuts hasn’t seen any reported loss in major corporate sponsorships or contracts. As such, while the Dunkin’ Donuts boycotts over Israel sentiment and the Rumble controversy have generated significant social media buzz, they don’t appear to have materially impacted Dunkin’s financial standing in the short term.

What Can We Learn From the Dunkin’ Donuts Boycott?

From a business perspective, the Dunkin’ Donuts boycott offers several key takeaways on navigating a polarizing issue.

Firstly, it highlights the challenges of maintaining a neutral or apolitical stance in an increasingly divided political climate. Dunkin’ Donuts’ attempt to remain apolitical was complicated by external associations, particularly the Dunkin’ Donuts boycott due to Israel and the Rumble controversy, both of which brought unintended political attention to the brand.

For business leaders, this suggests that even if a company claims neutrality, its actions — or inactions — can still be interpreted as political, and managing that perception is crucial.

The boycott also highlights the importance of understanding and knowing one’s audience. Dunkin’ Donuts’ customer base spans both conservative and liberal demographics, and any decision that alienates a portion of that base can have consequences. The controversy surrounding Dunkin’s perceived ties to political movements and global conflicts, such as the Israel-Palestine issue, illustrates the risks businesses face when they either publicly or inadvertently become entangled in politically charged matters.

Lastly, crisis management and reputation control are key lessons from this boycott. Dunkin’ Donuts has chosen not to directly address the boycott in public statements, which may have been an attempt to avoid further controversy. However, businesses can learn from this by recognizing the need to take proactive measures during crises, engaging with affected communities, and being transparent in their positions.

By making clear and informed decisions on where they stand, businesses can either weather the storm or, in some cases, strengthen their brand identity by standing firm on values that resonate with their audience. The Dunkin’ Donuts boycott, whether viewed as a crisis or an opportunity, serves as a reminder of the importance of carefully managing both public perception and internal values.

FAQs

Who currently owns Dunkin’ Donuts?

Who is the CEO of Dunkin’ Donuts?

What celebrity was fired from Dunkin Donuts?