Usually they aren't very effective, but without more details, it's hard to say. There have been a few effective boycotts, when a substantial number of people, or even entire nations, have taken part, but in order for this to happen, you will have to present a pretty convincing reason for people to participate, and a "boycott" is only effective if the people participating would have bought the product/service/whatever in the first place (for instance, getting everyone in the Cat Fancier's Association to boycott Alpo is not likely to make a huge difference, getting them to boycott Fancy Feast might).
was a non-importance agreement boycott effective with the Townshend acts
It was not too bad.
Boycott against british goods. S.O.S, right?
The boycott is an effective way for disgruntled customers to be heard, because no business can survive when people refuse to buy their products and services.The consumer group decided to boycott the store because of the inaccurate scales at the check outs, which over weighed all produce.The people decided to boycott the company's product
boycott
The people put a boycott on tea. boycott - a refusal in buying goods from someone
Britain was in a national debt so the made the Stamp Act to pay back all the money. The boycott was effective because then Britain could not pay back the debt.
Boycott
they didn't won't to the boycotts taxes.
A boycott is effective because the people protesting have one of their products and prove that the product has a kind of chemical the company might go along and take the chemicals away.
Nonimportation Agreements
To have a money