I was reading this article from Variety about the March on Washington, and a segment about the potential reaction against movie stars who participated in the march piqued my interest:

"But there were worries that business would slow elsewhere in the South for movies featuring some of the participants — but the fears were unfounded."

What I'm wondering is whether people "cancelling" a brand has any significant economic effect on that brand.

This is somewhat different from a government cancelling a brand, such as when a county in North Carolina cancelled Coca-Cola, and then reversed that decision.

For example, when the Goya CEO publicly supported Trump, some people organized a consumer boycott of the brand. However, according to this report, the reaction to the boycott created a surge in sales.

I understand that theoretically consumers boycotting a product would decrease sales and profits, but what I'm asking is for some empirical evidence that boycotts do work, and don't suffer from a form of the theoretical Bystander Effect, where people assume their individual inaction will be masked by the actions of other people.

Edit: I just realized that it's very hard to define "cancel culture," so this might be a poor question to ask or research. I guess I'm just wondering if anyone's studied the effectiveness of boycotts over time; are they more effective, less effective, or mostly the same?

Edit2: Just wanted to add that the reason I asked this question is because I am watching the film "I Am Not Your Negro," (very good so far), and saw Charlton Heston on a panel with James Baldwin, Harry Belafonte, Marlon Brando, and others. I was surprised by his involvement due to his later political activism and leadership of the NRA, where he gave a speech saying the government could take his gun from his "cold, dead hands."