The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway

Episode: Scott Galloway Answers Your Questions on Resist and Unsubscribe

Date: February 6, 2026
Host: Scott Galloway (Vox Media Podcast Network)

Main Theme & Purpose

This Office Hours episode centers on Resist and Unsubscribe—Scott Galloway’s campaign urging consumers to wield economic pressure rather than outrage to influence corporate and political behavior, especially in the lead-up to the US 2026 election. Scott dives into listener questions, addressing how targeted unsubscription and avoiding certain platforms might function as an effective signal to power, and explores the risks, limitations, and ethics of this approach.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why Economic Pressure Over Protest?

• Scott introduces the campaign:
  • Resist and Unsubscribe is a framework designed to empower consumers to make market choices rather than relying on traditional protest or outrage.
  • The campaign provides resources at resistandunsubscribe.com, focusing on which platforms to avoid and how your money matters.
• Principle: Rather than asking people to take risks or protest physically, Scott posits that non-participation (unsubscribing, canceling non-essential services) in a consumer-driven economy can be a powerful market signal, especially to an administration receptive mainly to business interests.

Notable Quote

"I'm not asking you to risk getting fired. I'm not asking you to take your Saturday and go protest... This is meant to create a signal and a framework for showing people that they have more power than they think."
— Scott Galloway [03:09]

2. Listener Question: Could This Hurt Workers—And Will It Be Politically Weaponized?

• Question from Kia (Physician, Minneapolis):
  • Will economic action lead to job losses? Won’t Republicans blame liberals for any recession, making the tactic counterproductive?
• Scott’s Answer:
  • No action is consequence-free; job losses are possible, but major tech companies are already downsizing due primarily to AI, not boycotts.
  • The companies targeted are resilient—largely Big Tech—and not essential service providers.
  • Republicans will politicize economic downturns regardless of the cause—blame is inevitable.
  • The real pressure point is market sentiment: If the market sours ("S&P down 17%"), that's a lever for real policy change.

Notable Quote

"Anything bad that happens in the economy or anything, period that’s negative... it’s going to be reverse engineered not just to Democrats but probably to the Biden administration. So I think that’s coming no matter what."
— Scott Galloway [03:47]

"You want to find the soft tissue. And the soft tissue here is the markets. And the soft tissue within the soft tissue of the markets is in fact Big Tech..."
— Scott Galloway [04:10]

3. Risks of Backfiring: Political Division and Unintended Consequences

• Listener Email: What’s the biggest way Resist and Unsubscribe could fail or backfire?
• Scott’s Response:
  • Campaign could become overly politicized (e.g. conservatives counter-subscribing to targeted platforms just to spite progressives).
  • Not comfortable with the idea of politicizing all spending or threatening livelihoods over views—does not advocate cancel culture.
  • Personal risks: Scott describes loss of a speaking gig and declining an advertiser for the campaign’s sake—there are tangible costs.
  • Worried most about reputational or financial damage to his team if the campaign results in advertisers fleeing the podcast.

Notable Quote

"There is no battle, there is no effort that’s cost free... The thing I probably worry about most is that advertisers flee from our platform and it ends up damaging the economic well being of the people who work with me because of my political views."
— Scott Galloway [06:13]

"But it’s the shit that you don’t see that always hits you... Whether it’s Covid or 9/11. It’s the shit you’re not expecting that hurts you."
— Scott Galloway [07:39]

4. The Activist Leverage Point—Consumers or Advertisers?

• Reddit Question: Given that companies like Meta depend on ad revenue, shouldn’t the campaign focus on convincing advertisers, rather than consumers?
• Scott’s Analysis:
  • It's been tried—no single advertiser wields enough power to move the needle; the ad ecosystem at Meta/Google is too diversified.
  • Past advertiser boycotts (e.g., over content harmful to young users) fizzled out; advertisers just shifted budgets rather than enacting real change.
  • Most effective pressure comes from interrupting subscription revenue: it's recurring, high-margin, and market-sensitive. Even small drops have disproportionate effects on share prices and executive attention.
  • Example: A modest hit to subscription revenue in Big Tech “hits them in the nuts”—it’s the most sensitive point.
  • A 5% drop in Kroger sales is minor; a similar drop in Netflix or Meta subscription revenue can shake markets and provoke senior executive and political attention.

Notable Quote

"If you have an enemy, what do you want to do? ...You want to hit the kidneys, you want to hit ...the testicles, you want to hit the solar plexus... Whereas if you go after the subscription revenue of the seven companies responsible for 30% of the S&P, you are hitting these people in the nuts."
— Scott Galloway [12:47]

"A bad decision is wrong. No decision is worse... I want to start doing even if, you know, do I have this 100% right? Unlikely. But I felt like I needed to do something."
— Scott Galloway [15:29]

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• Scott’s forthrightness about the risks to himself and his team (“...advertisers flee from our platform and it ends up damaging the economic well being of the people who work with me because of my political views…” [06:25]) grounds the episode in personal stakes.
• Visual analogies (“You want to find the soft tissue...Big Tech…”) add humor and immediacy to the otherwise technical discussion of market pressure.

Key Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment/Topic | |-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:43 | Scott introduces Resist and Unsubscribe; first listener Q | | 03:09 | Non-participation as market signal—explained | | 04:10 | S&P and the idolatry of the dollar in US politics | | 06:13 | Backlash and campaign risks | | 07:39 | Unseen/unexpected risks | | 10:19 | Targeting advertisers vs. consumers—Scott’s rationale | | 12:47 | The "soft tissue" of Big Tech—subscription vulnerability | | 15:29 | Scott’s philosophy: Action over perfection |

Tone & Style

• Scott is candid, direct, analytical, and a touch irreverent—cutting through pretense to discuss the real mechanics of consumer power and political wrangling.
• He recognizes the ethical dilemmas and personal risks, and does not pretend to have a “clean” or cost-free solution.
• He fields tough questions without sugarcoating.

Summary Table

| Topic | Scott’s View/Advice | |------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------| | Economic resistance vs. protest | More leverage/$ impact, less personal risk than protests | | Political blame game | Inevitable—do what’s effective, not what’s blame-safe | | Potential harm/backfire | Can hurt workers/brand/team; not all consequences foreseeable | | Consumer vs. advertiser activism | Subscription revenue hits matter most; direct ad pressure too diffuse| | Ethical limits | Avoid cancel-culture, basic needs, respect dissent | | “Is it perfect?” | No, but better than inaction |

For Listeners Who Haven’t Tuned In

This episode unpacks whether ordinary consumers can use their spending power to shape national policy—especially amid polarization and Big Tech’s influence. Scott Galloway lays out not only the strengths of his Resist and Unsubscribe campaign, but also the messy, real-world consequences, including political backlash and personal costs. He invites open feedback and critique, suggesting activism is better than armchair commentary—even if the lever, and the risks, aren’t perfectly clear.

For feedback and questions: Email a voice memo to officehours@profgmedia.com or post on Scott’s subreddit.