Especially this past year, the idea of “voting with your wallet” has taken on a certain cache as consumers have looked to connect their spending habits with their larger ethical stance. The #GrabYourWallet movement, for instance, took President Trump’s lewd comments as a springboard to encourage consumers not to buy from more than 50 Trump-affiliated brands. And new financial tools, like the impact measurement score from the company Aspiration, help consumers to track the environmental and ethical implications of where they shop.

But what’s not discussed in the “vote with your wallet” conversation is the very different implications of supporting a company by purchasing from it, or refusing to do so all together. A new report from the public relations firm Weber Shandwick investigates the different motivations behind the former, which they term “buycotts” and the latter boycotts–and why buycotts are slowly overtaking boycotts as the preferred mode of consumer activism.

In an online survey, conducted last August, Weber Shandwick polled 2,000 self-identified consumer activists throughout the U.S. and U.K. on what actions they’ve taken in support of or opposition to brands, and what forms of consumer activism they believe to be most effective.

What the researchers found was that while “buycotts” are currently fewer in number than boycotts, the tide seems to be turning. Around 83% of the people Weber Shandwick polled said that it’s more important than ever for consumer activists to show support for companies by buying from them; 59% said the same for boycotts. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the results are drawn along generational lines: Buycotters are more likely to be millennials, and boycotters are more likely to be boomers, who probably recall when the tactic was deployed during the Civil Rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s.

Read the full article about why "buycotts" work more than boycotts by Eillie Anzilotti at fastcompany.com.