An illustration of why the boycott may not be the best idea...

In regards to what I was saying the other day about boycotting and self-inflicted wounds.  The last line of this linked news article sort of illustrates the point:

A Walmart store near Ferguson decided to cancel Black Friday sales, and merchandise was moved to other locations in the St. Louis area, employees said. "St. Louis-area mall closes on Black Friday as Ferguson protests spread"

Or, in other words, "We're getting the money for these goods, just from other people."  All of which means--in the big picture--"We're responding to your actions by focusing on other people we can make money off of."

"Voicing your opinion is not enough," said Sergio Uzurin, a protester in front of Macy's flagship store in New York. "You have to disrupt business as usual for this to happen and that's the only thing that's ever made change. It's the real way democracies function."  "St. Louis-area mall closes on Black Friday as Ferguson protests spread"

I don't think the protesters who think like this man really understand a couple of simple business facts.  First, the incentive to sell isn't always purely based on the quantity of items sold, it's based on the marginal value.  You can make more profit by either selling more at a profit and/or losing less.  Boycotting, especially sustained boycotts, drive down the total amount of sales which should increase the cost per item to the consumer unless the stock can be stored without loss until after the boycott is over.  

By forcing sales down--if the company can't identify a way to cut losses--the company will probably try to recoup their losses and/or make profit by increasing the price asked.  On these boycotts, especially if it's along racial lines, it's may be easier to simply identify which stores are being boycotted and shift product--like Walmart did--to stores not suffering from the boycott and/or to cut overall production if particular products are more likely to sell only in the boycotted areas/stores (pre-boycott, of course).

So, essentially, by boycotting, you're kneecapping how responsive corporations are to your demand for any product that's not either universally salable or is otherwise of limited durability.

Again, a better way to have tried to handle this would have been to identify corporations and/or institutions who support your cause and publicly support them.  Provide them incentive for ongoing support by making yourselves profitable to them.

Still, just a lay-person's assessment.

EDIT:

This story: Black residents protect white-owned store in Ferguson is another form of non-boycott support, albeit at the very small scale and as a small-group rather than "racial" group level of action.  In this case, several black men took an overt, risky action to support a business that had supported them in the past.  It's almost garuanteed that future actions by this particular business will give great consideration to the interests of the local African-American interests in business decisions.