Target discontinues three year DEI Goals

[storewanderer]

Bad move.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ain-t-ta ... 00834.html

What is the correct move for some companies isn't the correct move for all. For Target, this is the wrong move.

Once again Target fails to understand its customers, its people, or the areas it serves.

[pseudo3d]

Bad move.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ain-t-ta ... 00834.html

What is the correct move for some companies isn't the correct move for all. For Target, this is the wrong move.

Once again Target fails to understand its customers, its people, or the areas it serves.

Target has underperformed in recent years, and all those "diversity" projects haven't grown the business at all. All it does it turn people off, and a lot of these "ending DEI" projects are things that were affecting the bottom line, a bottom line that investors are looking closely at.

Remember the stuff with the Pride sales weren't really because there was some major customer backlash, it's that it straight up didn't sell in many of their markets in red counties, and blue counties were still probably overmerchandised. Because Pride stuff was more of a performative gesture and had higher-priced items they couldn't just mark them all down to half price and clear the inventory.

That extends to stuff like "a program designed to feature more products from Black- and minority-owned businesses in their stores" as the article mentions. Maybe it's buyers not finding a good product to sell but that indicates that those products weren't moving.

[storewanderer]

Bad move.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ain-t-ta ... 00834.html

What is the correct move for some companies isn't the correct move for all. For Target, this is the wrong move.

Once again Target fails to understand its customers, its people, or the areas it serves.

Target has underperformed in recent years, and all those "diversity" projects haven't grown the business at all. All it does it turn people off, and a lot of these "ending DEI" projects are things that were affecting the bottom line, a bottom line that investors are looking closely at.

Remember the stuff with the Pride sales weren't really because there was some major customer backlash, it's that it straight up didn't sell in many of their markets in red counties, and blue counties were still probably overmerchandised. Because Pride stuff was more of a performative gesture and had higher-priced items they couldn't just mark them all down to half price and clear the inventory.

That extends to stuff like "a program designed to feature more products from Black- and minority-owned businesses in their stores" as the article mentions. Maybe it's buyers not finding a good product to sell but that indicates that those products weren't moving.

I think it is all a distraction from a problem with operations that has hurt the business.

These diversity projects are supposed to make the customers feel good about shopping at Target.

How many major cities approved Target Stores in their downtowns after never approving any mass merchant, in part due to Target's tract record on diversity etc. seeming like a good "fit for their city?" Ironically those downtown stores seem like war zones with some of the highest theft and security in the chain and shorter store hours. I suspect Target would be better off without these stores and the "experience" of stores like San Francisco Central, Portland, and Seattle is so bad that it is a major image crusher for tourist customers, but closing them would look so bad they can't close them.

So this is the problem. Target has already upset many customers due to its position on these diversity projects. Backing away from these projects is not going to bring those customers back. Improving store operations might bring those customers back though... over time.

Now there is some segment of customers who is shopping Target who does feel good shopping there due to these diversity projects. There is a segment (and it may be pretty large) of employees who are loyal employees to Target due to these diversity programs. Pulling all this back is going to be hurtful to those parties. Will it cause them to step back from shopping Target too, immediately?

[pseudo3d]

Now there is some segment of customers who is shopping Target who does feel good shopping there due to these diversity projects. There is a segment (and it may be pretty large) of employees who are loyal employees to Target due to these diversity programs. Pulling all this back is going to be hurtful to those parties. Will it cause them to step back from shopping Target too, immediately?

I don't think this group is nearly as large as you say it is especially since most of these initiatives were created in the last ten years at most (if not in the last five). This isn't the stuff that cultivates a loyal shopping base that will keep on going long after others have fled.

[veteran+]

Bad move.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ain-t-ta ... 00834.html

What is the correct move for some companies isn't the correct move for all. For Target, this is the wrong move.

Once again Target fails to understand its customers, its people, or the areas it serves.

Target has underperformed in recent years, and all those "diversity" projects haven't grown the business at all. All it does it turn people off, and a lot of these "ending DEI" projects are things that were affecting the bottom line, a bottom line that investors are looking closely at.

Remember the stuff with the Pride sales weren't really because there was some major customer backlash, it's that it straight up didn't sell in many of their markets in red counties, and blue counties were still probably overmerchandised. Because Pride stuff was more of a performative gesture and had higher-priced items they couldn't just mark them all down to half price and clear the inventory.

That extends to stuff like "a program designed to feature more products from Black- and minority-owned businesses in their stores" as the article mentions. Maybe it's buyers not finding a good product to sell but that indicates that those products weren't moving.

Truly misinformed and biased words. I am addressing the words not you.

I suggest strongly that we avoid this topic.

[storewanderer]

Now there is some segment of customers who is shopping Target who does feel good shopping there due to these diversity projects. There is a segment (and it may be pretty large) of employees who are loyal employees to Target due to these diversity programs. Pulling all this back is going to be hurtful to those parties. Will it cause them to step back from shopping Target too, immediately?

I don't think this group is nearly as large as you say it is especially since most of these initiatives were created in the last ten years at most (if not in the last five). This isn't the stuff that cultivates a loyal shopping base that will keep on going long after others have fled.

Look at the Target customer base and look at the markets where Target runs stores. I think this group is large as far as being a part of Target's customer and employee base goes. "Large" in the sense of as a % of total population, no...

Also I am not entirely sure what impacts this will have on morale within the Target employee base and how that will further adversely impact operations. The Pride fiasco did nothing good for morale. It is one thing what people think as far as personal beliefs etc., but if you have some employees in your store who are really "into" Pride and they were motivated and excited to build the display, etc., then you tell them they have to take that whole display down and then go destroy all of the merchandise do you think they're going to be happy? From a retail management perspective if my team was motivated and enthusiastic about a display they had built, regardless of what my personal opinion on the topic was, I would be happy for them. And I would be very disappointed to give them the directive to go tear down the display and destroy the products (or tell some other staff to do that task, it would be equally bad that way). Now we have these initiatives and what happens now to the employees who were engaged/motivated by the initiatives? Many young/idealistic people are highly motivated by these initiatives even if they do not personally benefit and it engages them. I am not saying if this is good or bad but this is just how it is. Take the initiatives away and there are going to be bad effects in my opinion. Looking at the Target employee base and seeing many seem to fall into that idealistic mindset, this will be very bad for Target morale. Just my opinion.

For a retailer like Wal Mart that is more of a "get it done" culture where the employees seem to be cut from a different cloth I don't think there would be much impact to shutting these programs down.

[mjhale]

In my view, Target has always been trying to cultivate an image that seems on trend and on point. Like it or not, social issues that are part of the current trend filter into Target's marketing because of this. Certainly, many of their customers and employees are motivated by shopping with or working for a company that has an image of being supportive of these issues. Contrast with Walmart, who just wants to stack it up and fly it out the door. Where Walmart has initiatives to support things like minority product lines it seems to me that it is within the context of their overall merchandising program as opposed to being a prominent, high visibility feature. This approaches lessens the potential that a Walmart customer who would be offended by such merchandising would notice in the first place. Contrast with Target where high visibility initiates, while being popular with many of their customers and employees, are noticed more readily by those who are offended. This grows legs and turns into something like what happened with the Pride display. Whether it is true or not, a group feels like a certain way of living is being involuntarily being jammed down their throats. Yes, people should just quietly choose to shop elsewhere. However, in our current culture of outrage that doesn't happen quietly. I'm not saying that Target should be more like Walmart in terms of merchandising these sorts of initiatives. However, I do think that if Target wants to continue in this direction that they are going to have to be more aware of the "anti" side of things. It appears that for Target and other retailers, it is easier to dump the program than to deal with the optics of keeping them in place going forward.

[Romr123]

I participated (with my company==Big 3 automaker) 8-10 years ago (retired 6 years ago, so that provides temporal context) in a fair number of LGBT STEM recruiting events for undergrads and grad students.

Target was a big sponsor (still have some of the athletic shirts they were putting in the swag bags). They were looking for dozens of spots for new grads (typically bright science/engineering geeks) for both home office as well as store positions. Minneapolis was far more appealing than Bentonville (WM's presence there was strictly their Silicon Valley operations...small potatoes). There were companies there as widely diversified as Grainger and Newport News Shipbuilding...all looking to get high quality graduates.

They'll be back as the pipelines empty.... meanwhile the companies who have maintained their recruiting relationships will quietly be getting the best of these grads (lather rinse and repeat for AA, Hispanic, Asian, etc etc). Target, WM, et al will need to re-establish the relationships (both internal and external---the internal staff isn't gonna extend themselves when the corporation poisoned the well).

[pseudo3d]

Now there is some segment of customers who is shopping Target who does feel good shopping there due to these diversity projects. There is a segment (and it may be pretty large) of employees who are loyal employees to Target due to these diversity programs. Pulling all this back is going to be hurtful to those parties. Will it cause them to step back from shopping Target too, immediately?

I don't think this group is nearly as large as you say it is especially since most of these initiatives were created in the last ten years at most (if not in the last five). This isn't the stuff that cultivates a loyal shopping base that will keep on going long after others have fled.

Look at the Target customer base and look at the markets where Target runs stores. I think this group is large as far as being a part of Target's customer and employee base goes. "Large" in the sense of as a % of total population, no...

Also I am not entirely sure what impacts this will have on morale within the Target employee base and how that will further adversely impact operations. The Pride fiasco did nothing good for morale. It is one thing what people think as far as personal beliefs etc., but if you have some employees in your store who are really "into" Pride and they were motivated and excited to build the display, etc., then you tell them they have to take that whole display down and then go destroy all of the merchandise do you think they're going to be happy? From a retail management perspective if my team was motivated and enthusiastic about a display they had built, regardless of what my personal opinion on the topic was, I would be happy for them. And I would be very disappointed to give them the directive to go tear down the display and destroy the products (or tell some other staff to do that task, it would be equally bad that way). Now we have these initiatives and what happens now to the employees who were engaged/motivated by the initiatives? Many young/idealistic people are highly motivated by these initiatives even if they do not personally benefit and it engages them. I am not saying if this is good or bad but this is just how it is. Take the initiatives away and there are going to be bad effects in my opinion. Looking at the Target employee base and seeing many seem to fall into that idealistic mindset, this will be very bad for Target morale. Just my opinion.

For a retailer like Wal Mart that is more of a "get it done" culture where the employees seem to be cut from a different cloth I don't think there would be much impact to shutting these programs down.

There are going to be different neighborhoods and local store culture, so if the merchandise works in that area, it works in that area, and realistically those stores won't change.

If you've boxed yourself into the point where your employees are only really happy about building displays for product that doesn't move and initiatives that didn't exist five years ago while the store condition as a whole deteriorates, is the best move to double down on it? That doesn't sound viable long term at all.

[HCal]

I don't think this has anything to do with customers or employees. This is strictly a move to appease the Trump adminstration.

The federal government will soon be proposing several policies that impact Target. These may include applying tariffs on countries from which Target gets merchandise, changing corporate tax code, relaxing environmental standards, and so on. Target will want to have a voice in all of these discussions, and being on the administration's good side will give them more impact.