There's a certain irony in that the very article that foretold doom about Target as punishment for its dropping DEI is the one that alerted me to the Kate Spade items available there that appear to have nearly all sold out in just a couple of weeks. Once again, theory is vanquished by reality and the bottom line as measured in sales and revenue.
This kind of article is what feeds into the negative impression so many people have about journalists like Andrew Adam Newman who cherry-pick things to fit their narrative frame rather than allowing the story to emerge from data. Instead of reaching out to the general public to more accurately predict what impact this particular collaboration between a famous designer and popular retailer will be, they shoehorn it into their own predetermined story that Target has dug its own grave by dropping DEI programs.
Newman has been using his platform at Retail Brew to harm on his anticipated demis of Target. One can only guess that he had some bad experience with the retailer and is now having his revenge in digital print.
What prompted me to write this blog was Newman's recent screed, Could the Kate Spade collab reverse the Target DEI doldrums? with the subtitle "Kate Spade remains pro-DEI, but is taking its lumps online for partnering with Target." Most of the article is made up of video snippets and quotes drawn from TikToks posted by women like Megan Farina (Honestly, never heard of her before reading this article) who said:
“Friendly reminder that we are still 100% boycotting Target ...You get rid of DEI, you think we’re gonna come back for Kate Spade?...No, but remember, stand strong. You don’t need the bag.”
Dear Megan, Andrew, and the rest of you who virtue-signal by dumping on Target:
Of course, you don't need the bag. No one needs the bag. No one needs the earrings or the cutesy home decor and party accessories either.
I understand that, which is one reason why I'm not buying any of that Kate Spade stuff (particularly not the designer trash bags). While you may wish to find comfort in that, Megan, I have to assure you that it's not because I'm boycotting the store from which I except to get my shipment of Cheerios and Good & Gather peanut butter soon.
The thing is that even if I wanted to buy the Kate Spade skirt, which I was seriously considering due to its reasonable price point and positive reviews, I can't. That's because it -- like quite a number of the Kate Space items offered for sales just this month -- is completely sold out.
That is what tells me your little boycott is a big failure, Megan. I know you are in denial about this, so allow me to clue you in Megan:
The overwhelming majority of people who shop at stores like Target care more about value than "values" that marketers, writers of agenda-driven reports, and self-styled influencers have claimed matters to consumers in advising brands how to position themselves. In other words, if they feel they're getting a bargain by purchasing an affordable bit of Kate Spade stuff, they'll grab it. The proof is in the sold-out status.
The proof of what is working and what isn't for a retailer is not something an influencer can determine by projecting what people should care about. It's found in the choices real people make with their wallets and what ends up in their real and virtual shopping carts.
One thing that bears a mention here is that quite a large number of people are now avoiding shopping at Target for a completely different reason than the one that Newman advances in his repeated articles. They don't like shopping in a store for things that are in locked cases and having to find someone who can open the case for them so that they can put the item in their real shopping carts.
A number of people have declared they're done shopping in stores that have locked up items. It's really not the fault of the stores, though. Shoplifting rates have skyrocketed, and stores have their hands tied when it comes to apprehending the culprits. that is really due to the political sway of certain states and cities that blame the police and store managers more than the criminals. Consequently, retailers now either elect to close stores altogether in such locations, or they lock up the items most often stolen. The latter seems to serve communities better than the former.
Here's one more layer of irony for you, Megan and Andrew. What will likely hurt Target far more than your boycott ever could is the tariff on imports that Trump seeks to impose.
Again it's because people want to treat themselves by buying stuff with low prices. American-made goods have generally been more expensive than things made cheaply abroad. While supporting domestic products is always good in terms of national well-being, that abstract value is not what really motivates most purchases any more than the idea of supporting a brand that pays lip service to the "values" du jour does.
P.S. added on April 28. I see that Retail Brew is still pushing its spin on Target suffering losses due to dropping DEI, posting this on April 25: Exclusive: Percentage who’d recommend Target dropped 11 points after it caved on DEI. Sounds dramatic, no?
But when you see the actual numbers which offer absolutely no context about the demographic polled or even how many people answered the question, you'd find the analysis a lot less credible, never mind impressive. The only link to the data that Retail Brew offers is to a Google doc that I copied below.
.
I strongly suspect that those number represent the total number of answers, which indicates to me that at most 100 people were polled, hardly a fitting sample size for a retailer with hundreds of millions of customers across the United States.
What's even more ironic here is that Retail Brew is desperately trying to claim that Caliber's data proves it is correct that moving away from DEI hurts a business reputation and its profitability. In fact, that is contrary to the findings that Caliber published this year in its report Do Changes to DEI Policies Affect Corporate Reputation in the US?
It includes the graph below, which shows that the impact of shifts in DEI policies do not necessarily hurt brands and sometimes may even have a positive impact on as far as consumer perception goes in the US.
Focusing on the US impact, Caliber finds:
Takeaways
- Trump’s position on DEI has not significantly converted opposition but has strengthened
- pre-existing views.
- A significant portion of Americans (37%) became more supportive of DEI following
- Trump’s policy changes, while only 12% moved in the opposite direction.
Q3. Impact on Consumer Behavior
We asked whether a company’s decision to reduce its DEI initiatives impacted
- Americans demonstrate the strongest response, with 35% more likely to buy from such companies—compared with 26% of British respondents and 20% of Germans.
- The polarization from earlier questions extends to consumer behavior, as 24% of Americans would reduce purchases from these companies.
So, yes, some people declared they would buy less from such brands, but the math of 35% saying they'd buy more vs. 24% saying they'd reduce makes it clear that there is net benefit of 11% to the businesses who drop DEI -- quite the opposite of what Retail Brew is trying to insinuate about Target.
Posts
be. Only one standing in your way is yourself.And Jan wrote:We should agree to disagree and give the current administration 2 full years to show American just what they will do for us. I may not have liked prior Presidents but I never wished harm on our working people. After 2 years, THEN speak up and change things with the Mid-Terms. However, I believe we will see our economy turn around over the next 6 months and no one will want to change anything! It's only been 5-6 weeks...... Wish for the BEST for our Country! We the People have spoken with our votes
What does the data show?
Everybody lies with visualizations