The late Hayden Panettiere’s fans are demanding a boycott of Neutrogena products, re-igniting a call that came after the actress made allegations the skin-care company wanted to fire her for speaking out about her postpartum depression.
But will the push to stop using products on many people’s bathroom shelves make a difference to the company’s bottom line?
Boycotts have mixed results. Some cause some consumers to stay away short-term while others stay away permanently, experts say. But often, they fizzle.
Calls for a boycott against Neutrogena “may have a minimal short-term impact” but not a long-term meaningful one, said Charles Byers, teaching professor of marketing at Santa Clara University’s Leavey School of Business.
Contract not renewed
In her 2026 memoir “This Is Me: A Reckoning” and interviews promoting the book in May, Panettiere said the brand, owned by Kenvue, wanted to “fire” her after she shed light on her condition on “Live with Kelly and Michael” in 2015, less than a year after she gave birth to her daughter Kaya. Panettiere said in several interviews that she was not invited back to represent Neutrogena after a 10-year relationship.
Social media users in May reacted, saying consumers should boycott the brand.
And now, since Panettiere’s death, fans have again flooded Neutrogena’s social media. One woman wrote: “I’ll never ever use a neutrogena product ever again and I’ll make sure that my daughter doesn’t as well. #riphaydenpanettiere”
Neutrogena and Kenvue did not respond to requests from media outlets in May. USA TODAY also reached out to Neutrogena on Aug. 19 for a comment.
But Allen Adamson, a brand specialist and co-founder of Metaforce, a marketing and brand consulting firm, said Neutrogena and Kenvue must address the issue.
“When a story is trending, silence isn’t neutral. It’s an answer. And it’s the wrong one. Consumers read silence as guilt, and every day without a response fuels the fire,” Adamson told USA TODAY. The company should express genuine condolence, affirm the brand’s commitment to women’s health and then stop talking, he said.
“Three sentences. No lawyers. The trap is defending the decision. The play is acknowledging the person,” Adamson said.
But Adamson also said if the backlash keeps building, a statement won’t be enough. A statement doesn’t travel half as fast as the outrage, he said. The brand has to do something extraordinary and not just say something expected, he said.
“For Neutrogena, extraordinary means a real, funded commitment to maternal mental health,” Adamson said. “Something that proves the brand of 2026 is not the brand of 2015. A brand is a promise. Only proof changes minds.”
Will people stop using Neutrogena products?
Convincing skin-care users to stop using Neutrogena could work since face wash is a product category with little notable difference between brands, said Adamson.
“When product differences are small, consumers connect on other things,” he said. “How a brand behaves becomes the differentiator. And for a brand whose customers are overwhelmingly women, ‘Does this company treat women fairly’ is not a side issue. It’s the issue.’ “
Adamson said while Panettiere said Neutrogena didn’t fire her, but instead didn’t renew her contract, the “asterisk won’t save the brand. If consumers are inclined to believe a company behaved badly, the distinction between firing and non-renewal disappears. The consequence reads the same.”
The wild card is attention, Adamson said.
“Social media outrage is powerful but fleeting,” he said. “If another story pulls focus, this fades. If it keeps swelling, it goes from a wave to a tsunami. Time will tell how serious it gets.”
Do boycotts work?
While Civil Rights boycotts, like the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955 and 1956 led to seismic change, more recent actions have had mixed results, and have worked most noticeably for the political right.
In campaigns using hashtags and slogans like “go woke go broke,” boycotts waged by conservative activists have taken aim at some of the nation’s largest consumer names, including retail chain Target. Some have succeeded in slashing sales and forcing policy changes, USA TODAY has previously reported.
In 2025 and this year, several grass-roots consumers groups supportive of DEI policies have called for boycotts of some national retailers and companies who rolled back programs they previously championed.
Brayden King, a professor of management and organizations at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, previously told USA TODAY that boycotts can be effective, but not in the way consumers think. That’s because they create attention for the cause, including from the media, which “puts a negative spotlight on the companies they’re boycotting, and that could in the long run have reputational consequences.”
But often, they don’t have much impact on consumer behavior and over a long period of time, boycotts don’t have an impact on sales because some shoppers can have a hard time continuing the actions, he said.
Ryan Hamilton, an associate professor of marketing at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School, agrees that boycotts tend to fizzle out more than they cause measurable harm to a brand.
But “the greater danger may be long term change in consumers’ perceptions of the Neutrogena brand and what it stands for,” Hamilton said.
Given the attention the story has gotten, “that story will essentially be a part of the brand image for some people. That could make them like the brand less and may cause some people to abandon the brand for other options.”
Betty Lin-Fisher is a consumer reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at blinfisher@USATODAY.com or follow her on X, Facebook or Instagram @blinfisher and @blinfisher.bsky.social on Bluesky. Sign up for our free The Daily Money newsletter, which breaks down complex consumer and financial news. Subscribe here.