I would imagine that African American business owners in the tourism sector received a disproportionate impact.
There was many small business owners unhappy with the NAACP policy. Poorly thought-out plan and implementation. In the end, it probably hurt the folks it was intended to protect and proved to be ineffective.
They did. The story of the woman in the article was typical--the impact was disproportionately concentrated in black-owned businesses, and even more so down in the southeastern part of the state, where there is (was?) a growing black tourism industry because of the rich history of the black culture in the Hilton Head/Sea Islands area, both pre- and post-WBTS. The Gullah and Geechee history there is fascinating and was starting to pull in a fair amount of cultural tourism, until the boycott hit them between the eyes and their "socially conscious" clientele bailed out on them to please the NAACP.
In the bigger cities--Columbia, Charleston, Greenville/Spartanburg, etc.--the impact was mainly limited to a few conventions skipping the state, the NCAA refusing to allow college post-season events to be hosted at some venues (like Greenville's Bi-Lo Center or Columbia's new Colonial Center), and the wonderfully hypocritical Democrats refusing to actually STAY in South Carolina when they were campaigning there in 2004. They would either stay in hotels in Georgia or North Carolina and drive across the state line every day (even avoiding buying gas and food in SC as much as possible), or stay in private homes inside SC. All to please their massahs in the NAACP.
}:-)4