As pride month looms around the corner in the US, it’s the predicament of the seventh largest retailer Target (officially Target Corporation) that has become the latest siren call in a series of Brand martyrs on the altar of inclusivity.
Target, the widely known retailer, is also well known for fashionable clothing. In keeping up with its call to inclusivity, it presented the Pride 2023 collection in its stores. The anti-LGBTQ protestors pressured Target to withdraw its Pride 2023 collections from the stores, and Target obliged.
Oddly, even pride-themed kids’ T-shirts (yes, kids’ T’s!) were among the ‘pride merchandise’ on sale at Target, which received the protestors’ wrath. A protester is seen announcing on TikTok: “This right here..these are baby clothes. They say that grooming isn’t happening. Then why are there Pride Babyonesies? Trans people will always exist.”
The latest backlash surrounding Target is played out just as the recent Bud Light-Mulvaney episode and the Nike episode are quietly fading into the background.
Bud Light lost its market share by 17%-30% due to the controversy. Its competitors Coors Light and Miller Lite promptly raked in the disenchanted Bud Light customers. Fox Business reported that shares of Coors Light and Miller Lite went up 3.5% and 3.1% respectively. Overall, Bud Light lost $16B in market value.
As for the Target controversy, it has already cost the company US $ 10 Bn, all within ten days.
Marketers -and Communicators- who worked on the Target promotions appear to have been keen to propagate their message of inclusivity in the US market. After all, being inclusive is the way forward for today’s brands -and the Pride month arriving at their doorsteps, what better time than the present to highlight Target’s inclusivity positioning?
The possible miscalculation by Target’s promoters and comms seems to cut across two attributes: The raging anti-LGBTQ trends and the likely misreading of the makeup of Target’s own consumer substratum.
Firstly, the anti-LGBTQ outbursts are evident at the epicenter of inclusivity: More than 410 anti-LGBTQ bills were introduced in state legislatures across the US in January-April 2023. The American Civil Liberties Union says “It’s a new record.” Meanwhile, a Kaiser Family Foundation/Washington Post survey showed that every 1 in 4 transgender adults said they have been physically attacked. It is clear that an anti-LGBTQ wave has been in the making.
It cannot be said that Target was blind to this trend. In fact, Target was already following the US national conversation around inclusivity. Way back in 2016, Target issued a statement titled “Continuing to Stand for Inclusivity”.
“Recent debate around proposed laws in several states has reignited a national
conversation around inclusivity. So earlier this week, we reiterated with our team
members where Target stands and how our beliefs are brought to life in how we serve our guests. Inclusivity is a core belief at Target. It’s something we celebrate. Consistent with this belief, Target supports the federal Equality Act, which provides protections to LGBT individuals and opposes action that enables discrimination..” (corporate.target.com)
On its part, Target is no stranger to boycotts on gender-related identity habitats. In 2016 when Target launched its new gender-neutral policy offering customers and employees the freedom to use the bathroom or fitting room as they chose (“that best aligns with their gender identity”), controversy erupted with 1.4 million signatures collected online against Target.
Communiqué PR, the Seattle-based PR firm, in its writeup “How Target is Successfully Dodging a PR Nightmare” lists three factors that contributed to Target’s successful response: Staying True to Company Values (Target stands up for what it believes in), Not Feeding the Fire (being nearly silent in its response to public backlash) and Considering the Outcomes (standing firm but also being diplomatic in responses).
Possible misreading of Target’s own consumer substratum is the second attribute.
“…the typical Target shopper is a suburban mother between 35 and 44 years of age. The typical Target customer also has some college education and a household income of $80,000.” (The Motley Fool)
“..Target’s average customer is a woman who is 39 years old, white, married, with a household income of $80,000 (Business Insider).
“Although most of Target’s customer base is white or Caucasian, the retail store has noticed a continuous rise in Hispanic customers over the past few years. female shoppers comprise between 60% and 64% of Target’s customer base. ”
(querysprout.com)
“Target’s primary customer base is women between the ages of 18 and 44..”
(talkradionews.com)
Target’s customers are primarily married women (in the younger age group). They are educated, often professional, and supportive of sustainability.
A consumer substratum centric on married women/housewives in a higher income frame is a high-pitch shoutout to the conservative consumer segment, possibly more conservative on the spectrum than the average conservative woman. Despite Target’s timely policy on inclusivity, is a married women/housewives segment the ideal pocket that would welcome the promotion of LGBTQ clothes for kids, that too, immediately next to their favorite (non-LGBTQ)
fashion line? Is it even a segment to promote adult LGBTQ clothes? Not even close.
(DISCLAIMER: This article does not intend to pass any judgments on either the LGBTQ camp or the anti-LGBTQ camp).
