This paper investigates how demand for an artist’s creative work changes when social media mobilizes to “cancel” the artist in response to misconduct. Human brands are particularly vulnerable to reputational shocks, yet how misconduct translates into changes in demand remains poorly understood. Using R. Kelly’s case, we examine how consumption of his music changed following calls for boycott and platform sanctions, including the removal of his songs from major playlists on the largest streaming platform. A cursory examination of music consumption after these scandals would lead to the erroneous conclusion that consumers are intentionally boycotting the artist. We propose an identification strategy that leverages variation in song-removal status and geographic demand to assess the relative roles of platform visibility and intentional consumer responses. Our findings show that the decrease in music consumption is primarily driven by supply-side factors due to reduced platform visibility rather than demand-side factors. Media coverage and calls for boycott have promotional effects, suggesting that social media boycotts can inadvertently increase music demand. The analysis of other cancellation cases involving Morgan Wallen, Rammstein, and Diddy shows no adverse effects on music demand, reinforcing the potential promotional effects of scandals in the absence of supply-side sanctions.
Winkler et al. (Mon,) studied this question.