if that really comes from former coca cola CEO then i think its kind of strategy they used in business.
As a consumer, we have less bargaining power to the necessary products such as petrol, so the petroleum companies are able to control the game in the market.
So, if we were to influence the petroleum supplier without much pain, one thing is concentrate to play against one weaker supplier, so that the supplier must react to survive and it will then influence the other players in the market.
We cant stop driving, so if we would to choose one company to play against, petron@s seems to be the victim. Firstly because it is own by the GLC people, secondly its not the foreign companies who have much choices to withdraw from malaysia market and still keep their business running.
By applying games theory in the micro economic, i think we should get a best outcome by picking against petron@s as well. We can still keep our life normal by going to other petrol stations, and so on petron@s lost business in the home market and have to come out with solution probably price reduction or call for government subsidize to keep their business going.
If we pick other foreign petroleum companies, they will have less impact if the boycott just plainly come from one country. So in the end they might not bother too much and no effect to influence them, also they cant call for our government to help.
If we dont do anything, we will still be letting the petroleum companies to play with the market.....so the best outcome could be pick one national petroleum company and force it to come down with price and make other cut price as well......
This is kind of common strategy in the business world. identify the player , select the strategy then estimate the best outcome.....