Western Union - Behind and Beyond the Boycott.

Implications: Immigrant advocacy groups raise valid issues regarding Western Union. Significantly higher remittance fees  and an underinvestment in the immigrant community are the reasons for the boycott. Beyond the boycott advocacy groups should identify and promote remittance alternatives to Western Union, thereby adding a competitive market force to their efforts.

Analysis: Western Union has been targeted by for a boycott by immigrant advocacy groups because of high remittance fees and low investment in immigrant communities. Those points are valid. In spite of those factors Western Union enjoys a leading share of the remittance market. That leadership position is due to its high brand recognition and  reliable service. In addition, a strength of Western Union has been its network of non-bank receiving locations that are essential to provide service in rural locations in receiving countries. In the words of one customer quoted in the Los Angeles Time s article, " many immigrants believed they had no choice but to go to Western Union". But they do have a choice.

Companies such as Xoom and Quisqueyana have emerged as viable alternatives in many receiving markets, especially Mexico. These companies have established networks of storefront locations, in addition to bank locations to meet the needs of rural recipients that are not served by banks and urban customers who prefer a non-bank point of service. And, these companies are delivering the remittance services at a significant discount, with fees that are 30- 50% less that Western Union.

To advance their cause the immigrant advocacy groups should increase resources towards the promotion of alternative remittance services. In doing so they will add a competitive market force to their campaign.