^But I think the unhappiness with Janeway's death would've been noticed just as much even if there'd been no boycott, if it had just been an active online debate. After all, the point of a boycott isn't to get attention, it's to attempt to cut into a company's profits as an incentive to promote a change in policy. If all you want is attention, then just expressing your opinions emphatically online can achieve that, and did achieve that. (After all, we've had similarly intense debates about Trip, about Data, about the quality of the 2009 movie, etc., and those have gotten plenty of attention without any boycotts being involved.) So whether or not there was a boycott would've probably made no difference in the actual response from Kirsten or Pocket or anyone. The only people you affected by boycotting the books was yourselves.
And if anything, by not reading the books, you and others only hurt your position in the debates, because you weren't able to address the books' content in an informed way but were left making guesses that the people who had read the books knew to be wrong. You probably would've been able to make your points a lot more persuasively if you hadn't boycotted the books.
I can understand being reluctant to admit that something you invested so much emotion in doing turned out to have no real impact whatsoever. But ultimately, the whole thing was pretty much unnecessary, if not counterproductive. The emotion was valid, but the boycott was not an effective or useful way of channeling it.