This case study demonstrates a business situation encountered by several multinational corporations as they faced social boycotts of their products in countries where the policies of their home countrys government were unpopular. The case examines the issues surrounding the boycott of Danish products following the publication of cartoons depicting the likeness of Prophet Muhammad in what was interpreted as blasphemous by Muslim consumers. In September 30, 2005, Denmark's largest newspaper JyllandsPosten printed twelve drawings depicting Prophet Muhammad. In one of the drawings, an image assumed to be that of the Prophet appeared with a turban shaped like a bomb strapped to his head implying that Islam preaches violence and condones terrorism. The images, considered blasphemous under Islam, caused uproar among the Muslim masses around the globe and triggered a diplomatic crisis with Arab and Islamic countries. Islam prohibits any drawings of Prophet Mohammad. The Danish newspaper that had published the cartoons refused to apologize, and maintained that printing the cartoons was a way to ensure freedom of speech in the face of intimidation from radical Islamists (Copenhagen Post, December 28, 2005). The Arabic media insisted that the publication of the blasphemous cartoons had nothing to do with the freedom of expression. They reiterated that the freedom of expression did not mean freedom of insult, defamation and slander, and while demanding an apology, suggested economic boycott and political action.

From the above case study, assume that a citizen action group in the Middle East is planning for organizing a social boycott of Danish products. The group has two options: 1) to distribute millions of posters to customers who frequently buy Danish products to convince them to abstain from such purchases, and 2) to lobby hard with retailers who typically carry Danish products to abstain from stocking such products. Of these two options, appraise which one is likely to be more effective? Justify your stand?