Is the Target Boycott Really Effective?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this antagonism because they stopped selling tuck wear!!

Just think, if they’d stopped caving to right-wing hysteria then, their shares might be worth more now. Too bad for the CEO…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what companies are learning is to never try to appease the left. Target wouldn't be in this position if they'd stayed neutral.

Stores have a target audience(s). (Pun intended.) People who fall outside of that may still shop there. Target betrayed its primary audience. What’s so difficult to understand?

It's target audience is people looking to spend money. It's not a political organization. Liberals are not its target audience. Thanks for listening to my talk on capitalism.

Except…yes they were. Target positioned itself to be popular with liberals— contrasting itself to WalMart, paying marginally better, being overtly progressive, positioning itself in city centers.

If the people who care about those things stop shopping in your stores, well, it’s a long drive from the places people who don’t care about those things live and they don’t tend to have the same disposable income…

I'm telling you that this is a dumb business strategy, as Target has no doubt learned. They could have just continued to position themselves as a more upscale and fashionable Walmart and they would not have had this issue. Costco never did a fraction of the things that Target did to support the progressive movement, and which one of them is coming out on top? The moment you declare a business to have a political affiliation, you alienate half the population and then become entirely beholden to the other half, who will now have you by the balls. The left has Target by the balls and is hurting for it. The right hates it, the left finds its leftism insufficiently "authentic" and it's distracted from its central mission of supplying food and textiles.

Costco has long had the reputation that it treats its workers well, which is a core progressive value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what companies are learning is to never try to appease the left. Target wouldn't be in this position if they'd stayed neutral.

Stores have a target audience(s). (Pun intended.) People who fall outside of that may still shop there. Target betrayed its primary audience. What’s so difficult to understand?

It's target audience is people looking to spend money. It's not a political organization. Liberals are not its target audience. Thanks for listening to my talk on capitalism.

Except…yes they were. Target positioned itself to be popular with liberals— contrasting itself to WalMart, paying marginally better, being overtly progressive, positioning itself in city centers.

If the people who care about those things stop shopping in your stores, well, it’s a long drive from the places people who don’t care about those things live and they don’t tend to have the same disposable income…

I'm telling you that this is a dumb business strategy, as Target has no doubt learned. They could have just continued to position themselves as a more upscale and fashionable Walmart and they would not have had this issue. Costco never did a fraction of the things that Target did to support the progressive movement, and which one of them is coming out on top? The moment you declare a business to have a political affiliation, you alienate half the population and then become entirely beholden to the other half, who will now have you by the balls. The left has Target by the balls and is hurting for it. The right hates it, the left finds its leftism insufficiently "authentic" and it's distracted from its central mission of supplying food and textiles.

Costco has long had the reputation that it treats its workers well, which is a core progressive value.

Treating workers well isn't politically controversial. Target never celebrated pride month. Not once. They do not sell products primarily targeted at trans people or at one minority race. They sell products with broad appeal and do not participate publicly in any identity months. Target was basically the epicenter of pride month and its advertising was overtly identity-politics based to appeal to progressives.

Any way you cut it, Target deciding to lean so far to the left has been disastrous. Other companies are now seeing the truth of "go woke, go broke." Once the progressives have a company in their vice grip, they will squeeze them til they break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what companies are learning is to never try to appease the left. Target wouldn't be in this position if they'd stayed neutral.

Stores have a target audience(s). (Pun intended.) People who fall outside of that may still shop there. Target betrayed its primary audience. What’s so difficult to understand?

It's target audience is people looking to spend money. It's not a political organization. Liberals are not its target audience. Thanks for listening to my talk on capitalism.

Except…yes they were. Target positioned itself to be popular with liberals— contrasting itself to WalMart, paying marginally better, being overtly progressive, positioning itself in city centers.

If the people who care about those things stop shopping in your stores, well, it’s a long drive from the places people who don’t care about those things live and they don’t tend to have the same disposable income…

I'm telling you that this is a dumb business strategy, as Target has no doubt learned. They could have just continued to position themselves as a more upscale and fashionable Walmart and they would not have had this issue. Costco never did a fraction of the things that Target did to support the progressive movement, and which one of them is coming out on top? The moment you declare a business to have a political affiliation, you alienate half the population and then become entirely beholden to the other half, who will now have you by the balls. The left has Target by the balls and is hurting for it. The right hates it, the left finds its leftism insufficiently "authentic" and it's distracted from its central mission of supplying food and textiles.

Costco has long had the reputation that it treats its workers well, which is a core progressive value.

Treating workers well isn't politically controversial. Target never celebrated pride month. Not once. They do not sell products primarily targeted at trans people or at one minority race. They sell products with broad appeal and do not participate publicly in any identity months. Target was basically the epicenter of pride month and its advertising was overtly identity-politics based to appeal to progressives.

Any way you cut it, Target deciding to lean so far to the left has been disastrous. Other companies are now seeing the truth of "go woke, go broke." Once the progressives have a company in their vice grip, they will squeeze them til they break.

Meant to say that COSTCO never celebrated pride month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what companies are learning is to never try to appease the left. Target wouldn't be in this position if they'd stayed neutral.

Stores have a target audience(s). (Pun intended.) People who fall outside of that may still shop there. Target betrayed its primary audience. What’s so difficult to understand?

It's target audience is people looking to spend money. It's not a political organization. Liberals are not its target audience. Thanks for listening to my talk on capitalism.

Except…yes they were. Target positioned itself to be popular with liberals— contrasting itself to WalMart, paying marginally better, being overtly progressive, positioning itself in city centers.

If the people who care about those things stop shopping in your stores, well, it’s a long drive from the places people who don’t care about those things live and they don’t tend to have the same disposable income…

I'm telling you that this is a dumb business strategy, as Target has no doubt learned. They could have just continued to position themselves as a more upscale and fashionable Walmart and they would not have had this issue. Costco never did a fraction of the things that Target did to support the progressive movement, and which one of them is coming out on top? The moment you declare a business to have a political affiliation, you alienate half the population and then become entirely beholden to the other half, who will now have you by the balls. The left has Target by the balls and is hurting for it. The right hates it, the left finds its leftism insufficiently "authentic" and it's distracted from its central mission of supplying food and textiles.

Costco has long had the reputation that it treats its workers well, which is a core progressive value.

Treating workers well isn't politically controversial. Target never celebrated pride month. Not once. They do not sell products primarily targeted at trans people or at one minority race. They sell products with broad appeal and do not participate publicly in any identity months. Target was basically the epicenter of pride month and its advertising was overtly identity-politics based to appeal to progressives.

Any way you cut it, Target deciding to lean so far to the left has been disastrous. Other companies are now seeing the truth of "go woke, go broke." Once the progressives have a company in their vice grip, they will squeeze them til they break.

If treating workers well isn’t controversial, why do we let the Walmarts and Amazons of the world treat their workers like crap?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what companies are learning is to never try to appease the left. Target wouldn't be in this position if they'd stayed neutral.

Stores have a target audience(s). (Pun intended.) People who fall outside of that may still shop there. Target betrayed its primary audience. What’s so difficult to understand?

It's target audience is people looking to spend money. It's not a political organization. Liberals are not its target audience. Thanks for listening to my talk on capitalism.

Except…yes they were. Target positioned itself to be popular with liberals— contrasting itself to WalMart, paying marginally better, being overtly progressive, positioning itself in city centers.

If the people who care about those things stop shopping in your stores, well, it’s a long drive from the places people who don’t care about those things live and they don’t tend to have the same disposable income…

I'm telling you that this is a dumb business strategy, as Target has no doubt learned. They could have just continued to position themselves as a more upscale and fashionable Walmart and they would not have had this issue. Costco never did a fraction of the things that Target did to support the progressive movement, and which one of them is coming out on top? The moment you declare a business to have a political affiliation, you alienate half the population and then become entirely beholden to the other half, who will now have you by the balls. The left has Target by the balls and is hurting for it. The right hates it, the left finds its leftism insufficiently "authentic" and it's distracted from its central mission of supplying food and textiles.

Costco has long had the reputation that it treats its workers well, which is a core progressive value.

Treating workers well isn't politically controversial. Target never celebrated pride month. Not once. They do not sell products primarily targeted at trans people or at one minority race. They sell products with broad appeal and do not participate publicly in any identity months. Target was basically the epicenter of pride month and its advertising was overtly identity-politics based to appeal to progressives.

Any way you cut it, Target deciding to lean so far to the left has been disastrous. Other companies are now seeing the truth of "go woke, go broke." Once the progressives have a company in their vice grip, they will squeeze them til they break.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha did you write that with a straight face?!??

Costco shareholders held a vote on a proposal to eliminate DEIA initiatives. By more than 98% they destroyed it. It doesn’t get much more progressive than that in 2025.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what companies are learning is to never try to appease the left. Target wouldn't be in this position if they'd stayed neutral.

Stores have a target audience(s). (Pun intended.) People who fall outside of that may still shop there. Target betrayed its primary audience. What’s so difficult to understand?

It's target audience is people looking to spend money. It's not a political organization. Liberals are not its target audience. Thanks for listening to my talk on capitalism.

Except…yes they were. Target positioned itself to be popular with liberals— contrasting itself to WalMart, paying marginally better, being overtly progressive, positioning itself in city centers.

If the people who care about those things stop shopping in your stores, well, it’s a long drive from the places people who don’t care about those things live and they don’t tend to have the same disposable income…

I'm telling you that this is a dumb business strategy, as Target has no doubt learned. They could have just continued to position themselves as a more upscale and fashionable Walmart and they would not have had this issue. Costco never did a fraction of the things that Target did to support the progressive movement, and which one of them is coming out on top? The moment you declare a business to have a political affiliation, you alienate half the population and then become entirely beholden to the other half, who will now have you by the balls. The left has Target by the balls and is hurting for it. The right hates it, the left finds its leftism insufficiently "authentic" and it's distracted from its central mission of supplying food and textiles.

Costco has long had the reputation that it treats its workers well, which is a core progressive value.

Treating workers well isn't politically controversial. Target never celebrated pride month. Not once. They do not sell products primarily targeted at trans people or at one minority race. They sell products with broad appeal and do not participate publicly in any identity months. Target was basically the epicenter of pride month and its advertising was overtly identity-politics based to appeal to progressives.

Any way you cut it, Target deciding to lean so far to the left has been disastrous. Other companies are now seeing the truth of "go woke, go broke." Once the progressives have a company in their vice grip, they will squeeze them til they break.

If treating workers well isn’t controversial, why do we let the Walmarts and Amazons of the world treat their workers like crap?

Because we like cheap stuff. But if you ask any American, "hey should workers be treated well?" they will all say yes. Hence, it's not controversial. What's controversial is the higher prices that result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what companies are learning is to never try to appease the left. Target wouldn't be in this position if they'd stayed neutral.

Stores have a target audience(s). (Pun intended.) People who fall outside of that may still shop there. Target betrayed its primary audience. What’s so difficult to understand?

It's target audience is people looking to spend money. It's not a political organization. Liberals are not its target audience. Thanks for listening to my talk on capitalism.

Except…yes they were. Target positioned itself to be popular with liberals— contrasting itself to WalMart, paying marginally better, being overtly progressive, positioning itself in city centers.

If the people who care about those things stop shopping in your stores, well, it’s a long drive from the places people who don’t care about those things live and they don’t tend to have the same disposable income…

I'm telling you that this is a dumb business strategy, as Target has no doubt learned. They could have just continued to position themselves as a more upscale and fashionable Walmart and they would not have had this issue. Costco never did a fraction of the things that Target did to support the progressive movement, and which one of them is coming out on top? The moment you declare a business to have a political affiliation, you alienate half the population and then become entirely beholden to the other half, who will now have you by the balls. The left has Target by the balls and is hurting for it. The right hates it, the left finds its leftism insufficiently "authentic" and it's distracted from its central mission of supplying food and textiles.

Costco has long had the reputation that it treats its workers well, which is a core progressive value.

Treating workers well isn't politically controversial. Target never celebrated pride month. Not once. They do not sell products primarily targeted at trans people or at one minority race. They sell products with broad appeal and do not participate publicly in any identity months. Target was basically the epicenter of pride month and its advertising was overtly identity-politics based to appeal to progressives.

Any way you cut it, Target deciding to lean so far to the left has been disastrous. Other companies are now seeing the truth of "go woke, go broke." Once the progressives have a company in their vice grip, they will squeeze them til they break.

If treating workers well isn’t controversial, why do we let the Walmarts and Amazons of the world treat their workers like crap?

Because we like cheap stuff. But if you ask any American, "hey should workers be treated well?" they will all say yes. Hence, it's not controversial. What's controversial is the higher prices that result.

Please, be serious.

The right is laying veterans off, mass-firing/rehiring, went through this whole DOGE insanity, had Elon Musk spreading lies about workers standing in the Oval Office. Meanwhile, Tesla famously treats its workers like garbage. And the MAGA crowd frothed at the mouth and ate it up until they started getting fired too.

So no, it’s no longer the case that treating workers well isn’t politically controversial.

[Anonymous]

DC Urban Moms and Dads:

Economic boycotts work!

This is why the Israeli lobby is trampling on the first amendenment rights by forcing US states (yes you read that right—states) to punish Americans with not awarding them state buisness or employment if they don’t sign a loyalty pledge to Israel disavowing economic boycotts state of Israel.

See:
- Texas HB 89 & HB 793: Bans state contracts/investments with companies boycotting Israel.

- Florida SB 86: Prohibits state contracts with companies boycotting Israel.

- New York Executive Order 157: Orders divestment from entities supporting BDS against Israel.

-Illinois SB 1761: Requires pension systems to divest from companies boycotting Israel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what companies are learning is to never try to appease the left. Target wouldn't be in this position if they'd stayed neutral.

Stores have a target audience(s). (Pun intended.) People who fall outside of that may still shop there. Target betrayed its primary audience. What’s so difficult to understand?

It's target audience is people looking to spend money. It's not a political organization. Liberals are not its target audience. Thanks for listening to my talk on capitalism.

Except…yes they were. Target positioned itself to be popular with liberals— contrasting itself to WalMart, paying marginally better, being overtly progressive, positioning itself in city centers.

If the people who care about those things stop shopping in your stores, well, it’s a long drive from the places people who don’t care about those things live and they don’t tend to have the same disposable income…

I'm telling you that this is a dumb business strategy, as Target has no doubt learned. They could have just continued to position themselves as a more upscale and fashionable Walmart and they would not have had this issue. Costco never did a fraction of the things that Target did to support the progressive movement, and which one of them is coming out on top? The moment you declare a business to have a political affiliation, you alienate half the population and then become entirely beholden to the other half, who will now have you by the balls. The left has Target by the balls and is hurting for it. The right hates it, the left finds its leftism insufficiently "authentic" and it's distracted from its central mission of supplying food and textiles.

Costco has long had the reputation that it treats its workers well, which is a core progressive value.

Treating workers well isn't politically controversial. Target never celebrated pride month. Not once. They do not sell products primarily targeted at trans people or at one minority race. They sell products with broad appeal and do not participate publicly in any identity months. Target was basically the epicenter of pride month and its advertising was overtly identity-politics based to appeal to progressives.

Any way you cut it, Target deciding to lean so far to the left has been disastrous. Other companies are now seeing the truth of "go woke, go broke." Once the progressives have a company in their vice grip, they will squeeze them til they break.

If treating workers well isn’t controversial, why do we let the Walmarts and Amazons of the world treat their workers like crap?

Because we like cheap stuff. But if you ask any American, "hey should workers be treated well?" they will all say yes. Hence, it's not controversial. What's controversial is the higher prices that result.

Please, be serious.

The right is laying veterans off, mass-firing/rehiring, went through this whole DOGE insanity, had Elon Musk spreading lies about workers standing in the Oval Office. Meanwhile, Tesla famously treats its workers like garbage. And the MAGA crowd frothed at the mouth and ate it up until they started getting fired too.

So no, it’s no longer the case that treating workers well isn’t politically controversial.

This is not relevant to consumer behavior. There's no group of consumers refusing to patronize a store because their PTO is too generous. You need to differentiate between politics and business in order to understand consumer behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Target experience has been an interesting moment for corporate America. The lesson is never, ever chase politics as a strategy for growth. Target went all in with the progressive priorities of 2022. And now they are reaping the whirlwind from the invariable blowback.

The CEO and the Board at Target are idiots. They had a good brand - reasonably good products at a reasonably good price point. That works everywhere. But they chose to change their business based on a sliver of time in American politics. Idiots. Now everyone hates Target.

Corporations need to be much better about their CEOs and boards and senior management. Because when you get things wrong, it's very costly. The problems with Target are self-inflicted.

That didn’t hurt them. Reversing those policies just to appease Trump is what did it. Target’s most loyal customers were disgusted by that.

This. They stopped DEI and screwed over small black businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what companies are learning is to never try to appease the left. Target wouldn't be in this position if they'd stayed neutral.

Stores have a target audience(s). (Pun intended.) People who fall outside of that may still shop there. Target betrayed its primary audience. What’s so difficult to understand?

It's target audience is people looking to spend money. It's not a political organization. Liberals are not its target audience. Thanks for listening to my talk on capitalism.

Except…yes they were. Target positioned itself to be popular with liberals— contrasting itself to WalMart, paying marginally better, being overtly progressive, positioning itself in city centers.

If the people who care about those things stop shopping in your stores, well, it’s a long drive from the places people who don’t care about those things live and they don’t tend to have the same disposable income…

I'm telling you that this is a dumb business strategy, as Target has no doubt learned. They could have just continued to position themselves as a more upscale and fashionable Walmart and they would not have had this issue. Costco never did a fraction of the things that Target did to support the progressive movement, and which one of them is coming out on top? The moment you declare a business to have a political affiliation, you alienate half the population and then become entirely beholden to the other half, who will now have you by the balls. The left has Target by the balls and is hurting for it. The right hates it, the left finds its leftism insufficiently "authentic" and it's distracted from its central mission of supplying food and textiles.

Costco has long had the reputation that it treats its workers well, which is a core progressive value.

Treating workers well isn't politically controversial. Target never celebrated pride month. Not once. They do not sell products primarily targeted at trans people or at one minority race. They sell products with broad appeal and do not participate publicly in any identity months. Target was basically the epicenter of pride month and its advertising was overtly identity-politics based to appeal to progressives.

Any way you cut it, Target deciding to lean so far to the left has been disastrous. Other companies are now seeing the truth of "go woke, go broke." Once the progressives have a company in their vice grip, they will squeeze them til they break.

If treating workers well isn’t controversial, why do we let the Walmarts and Amazons of the world treat their workers like crap?

Because we like cheap stuff. But if you ask any American, "hey should workers be treated well?" they will all say yes. Hence, it's not controversial. What's controversial is the higher prices that result.

Please, be serious.

The right is laying veterans off, mass-firing/rehiring, went through this whole DOGE insanity, had Elon Musk spreading lies about workers standing in the Oval Office. Meanwhile, Tesla famously treats its workers like garbage. And the MAGA crowd frothed at the mouth and ate it up until they started getting fired too.

So no, it’s no longer the case that treating workers well isn’t politically controversial.

This is not relevant to consumer behavior. There's no group of consumers refusing to patronize a store because their PTO is too generous. You need to differentiate between politics and business in order to understand consumer behavior.

It’s extremely relevant if you have any knowledge of the labor movement in the U.S.

Are you old enough to remember “look for the union label?” That was a political statement about not buying from people who exploited workers. Right to work laws were passed specifically for the purpose of letting people attack generous benefits and decent salaries.

When people started being outraged at wal marts poverty wages and the taxpayer subsidy they received, who touted their great employee benefits? Target.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what companies are learning is to never try to appease the left. Target wouldn't be in this position if they'd stayed neutral.

Stores have a target audience(s). (Pun intended.) People who fall outside of that may still shop there. Target betrayed its primary audience. What’s so difficult to understand?

It's target audience is people looking to spend money. It's not a political organization. Liberals are not its target audience. Thanks for listening to my talk on capitalism.

Except…yes they were. Target positioned itself to be popular with liberals— contrasting itself to WalMart, paying marginally better, being overtly progressive, positioning itself in city centers.

If the people who care about those things stop shopping in your stores, well, it’s a long drive from the places people who don’t care about those things live and they don’t tend to have the same disposable income…

I'm telling you that this is a dumb business strategy, as Target has no doubt learned. They could have just continued to position themselves as a more upscale and fashionable Walmart and they would not have had this issue. Costco never did a fraction of the things that Target did to support the progressive movement, and which one of them is coming out on top? The moment you declare a business to have a political affiliation, you alienate half the population and then become entirely beholden to the other half, who will now have you by the balls. The left has Target by the balls and is hurting for it. The right hates it, the left finds its leftism insufficiently "authentic" and it's distracted from its central mission of supplying food and textiles.

Costco has long had the reputation that it treats its workers well, which is a core progressive value.

Treating workers well isn't politically controversial. Target never celebrated pride month. Not once. They do not sell products primarily targeted at trans people or at one minority race. They sell products with broad appeal and do not participate publicly in any identity months. Target was basically the epicenter of pride month and its advertising was overtly identity-politics based to appeal to progressives.

Any way you cut it, Target deciding to lean so far to the left has been disastrous. Other companies are now seeing the truth of "go woke, go broke." Once the progressives have a company in their vice grip, they will squeeze them til they break.

If treating workers well isn’t controversial, why do we let the Walmarts and Amazons of the world treat their workers like crap?

Because we like cheap stuff. But if you ask any American, "hey should workers be treated well?" they will all say yes. Hence, it's not controversial. What's controversial is the higher prices that result.

Please, be serious.

The right is laying veterans off, mass-firing/rehiring, went through this whole DOGE insanity, had Elon Musk spreading lies about workers standing in the Oval Office. Meanwhile, Tesla famously treats its workers like garbage. And the MAGA crowd frothed at the mouth and ate it up until they started getting fired too.

So no, it’s no longer the case that treating workers well isn’t politically controversial.

This is not relevant to consumer behavior. There's no group of consumers refusing to patronize a store because their PTO is too generous. You need to differentiate between politics and business in order to understand consumer behavior.

It’s extremely relevant if you have any knowledge of the labor movement in the U.S.

Are you old enough to remember “look for the union label?” That was a political statement about not buying from people who exploited workers. Right to work laws were passed specifically for the purpose of letting people attack generous benefits and decent salaries.

When people started being outraged at wal marts poverty wages and the taxpayer subsidy they received, who touted their great employee benefits? Target.

Ok. I'll play your game. What businesses are conservatives boycotting for being too kind to their employees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what companies are learning is to never try to appease the left. Target wouldn't be in this position if they'd stayed neutral.

Stores have a target audience(s). (Pun intended.) People who fall outside of that may still shop there. Target betrayed its primary audience. What’s so difficult to understand?

It's target audience is people looking to spend money. It's not a political organization. Liberals are not its target audience. Thanks for listening to my talk on capitalism.

Except…yes they were. Target positioned itself to be popular with liberals— contrasting itself to WalMart, paying marginally better, being overtly progressive, positioning itself in city centers.

If the people who care about those things stop shopping in your stores, well, it’s a long drive from the places people who don’t care about those things live and they don’t tend to have the same disposable income…

I'm telling you that this is a dumb business strategy, as Target has no doubt learned. They could have just continued to position themselves as a more upscale and fashionable Walmart and they would not have had this issue. Costco never did a fraction of the things that Target did to support the progressive movement, and which one of them is coming out on top? The moment you declare a business to have a political affiliation, you alienate half the population and then become entirely beholden to the other half, who will now have you by the balls. The left has Target by the balls and is hurting for it. The right hates it, the left finds its leftism insufficiently "authentic" and it's distracted from its central mission of supplying food and textiles.

Costco has long had the reputation that it treats its workers well, which is a core progressive value.

Treating workers well isn't politically controversial. Target never celebrated pride month. Not once. They do not sell products primarily targeted at trans people or at one minority race. They sell products with broad appeal and do not participate publicly in any identity months. Target was basically the epicenter of pride month and its advertising was overtly identity-politics based to appeal to progressives.

Any way you cut it, Target deciding to lean so far to the left has been disastrous. Other companies are now seeing the truth of "go woke, go broke." Once the progressives have a company in their vice grip, they will squeeze them til they break.

If treating workers well isn’t controversial, why do we let the Walmarts and Amazons of the world treat their workers like crap?

Because we like cheap stuff. But if you ask any American, "hey should workers be treated well?" they will all say yes. Hence, it's not controversial. What's controversial is the higher prices that result.

Please, be serious.

The right is laying veterans off, mass-firing/rehiring, went through this whole DOGE insanity, had Elon Musk spreading lies about workers standing in the Oval Office. Meanwhile, Tesla famously treats its workers like garbage. And the MAGA crowd frothed at the mouth and ate it up until they started getting fired too.

So no, it’s no longer the case that treating workers well isn’t politically controversial.

This is not relevant to consumer behavior. There's no group of consumers refusing to patronize a store because their PTO is too generous. You need to differentiate between politics and business in order to understand consumer behavior.

It’s extremely relevant if you have any knowledge of the labor movement in the U.S.

Are you old enough to remember “look for the union label?” That was a political statement about not buying from people who exploited workers. Right to work laws were passed specifically for the purpose of letting people attack generous benefits and decent salaries.

When people started being outraged at wal marts poverty wages and the taxpayer subsidy they received, who touted their great employee benefits? Target.

Ok. I'll play your game. What businesses are conservatives boycotting for being too kind to their employees?

Are you really looking for a business that says “we treat our employees like trash” or do you want to discuss consumer behavior?

Flocking to Wal*Mart knowing they pay their workers peanuts and rely on government benefits to make up the shortfall— while subbing the then- “woke” target— is all about trying to punish businesses that treat workers fairly so that exploitative businesses have an easier market.

I was not aware this was news to anyone but I guess some people believe what they hear on Fox.

[Anonymous]

Beyond dropping DEI, Target had recently made several agreements with black owned businesses and of course, there was a loophole so when they got pressure from MAGA folks, the dropped DEI, and along with it all the purchase orders to several blacked owned small businesses. One of them was a woman who I believe made jewelry and had already purchased all the materials and was then left if all these materials and no buyer. I don't know the exact clause they were able to get around for Target to be able to drop these vendors but they did for several costing them so much money. I feel terrible for them so this is not only about dropping DEI, they caused severe financial damage to many small blacked owned businesses. That is unforgivable.