How a 2022 cartoon didn't significantly affect a company's Q3 2025 revenue.
While customers hinging their support for certain products based on the company's or creator's perceived ideological alignment is certainly no new development, the trend has been accelerated thanks to the mobilizing power of large-scale social media platforms.
One of the most widely-received recent examples of this was a boycott call of Netflix' services by US billionaire Elon Musk on September 19, 2025, following criticism over one of the child-oriented shows hosted by the streaming site including a transgender character. Recent reports have however shown that Netflix has been largely unaffected by these boycott calls.
The Cartoon And The Billionaire
The boycott calls arose after right-wing US-based influencer Chaya Raichik posted a clip from the animated series Dead End: Paranormal Park (running throughout 2022 and based on a 2018 novel) on her social shaming "Libs of TikTok" account on X/Twitter on September 19, condemning the show for featuring a transgender main character. The same day, Elon Musk shared and thus amplified the post, urging followers to cancel their Netflix subscriptions.
His post, viewed tens of millions of times, triggered a wave of similar statements from other right-wing influencers accusing Netflix of promoting shows featuring sexual and racial minorities, which they broadly labeled as "woke". Critics circulated clips from other series available on the platform, claiming they included inappropriate LGBTQ+ themes for young audiences.
Netflix' stock price fell roughly 2% following the online campaign, though a direct causal link to the boycott is hard to discern. The stock recovered to its previous monthly high by October 9. Meanwhile, Dead End creator Hamish Steele became a target of online harassment after unverified social media posts attributed to him surfaced, prompting him to reduce his public activity.
(Un)fortunate Circumstances
The calls failed to have a measurable financial impact, as Netflix continued to report strong revenue growth and subscriber engagement. Since the debate over the proper treatment of trans people has so far been mostly politicized in the US or countries with already averse governments, the global Netflix audience likely felt less need to act on the accusations.
At the same time, major new exlusive releases like the second season of Wednesday and KPop Demon Hunters, combined with the service's ad-supported tier continued to expand its revenue potential, with overall income projected to rise more than 17% year-over-year, suggesting resilience across Netflix' key business segments.
Consequently, the controversy over LGBTQ+ content likely simply represented a limited cultural flashpoint rather than a structural business threat. As company leadership and shareholders saw no major threat to its market value in the near term, the Netflix boycott calls likely only generated short-term publicity rather than having lasting economic effects.
But what do you think? Was the boycott simply badly organized, given its centralized leadership and lack of concrete demands? Or was is doomed to fail based on its premise alone? Let us know in the comments!