When Target announced on January 24 that it would scale back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) commitments, customers reacted swiftly, upset that a company that had so loudly touted its diversity initiatives appeared to be backtracking. For 10 consecutive weeks, foot traffic at Target stores has declined — down 9% year-over-year in February and 6.5% year-over-year in March, according to data from analytics firm Placer.ai. While Placer.ai notes a variety of factors were likely to blame, like weather and a drop in post-holiday spending, Rev. Jamal Bryant has driven another reason for a drop-off: a fast — from shopping. Bryant, the senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church near Atlanta, spearheaded a 40-day “fast” from shopping at the big-box store during Lent (March 5 to April 17). The Target Fast boycott had more than 200,000 participants, he said. Target is just one of the companies now walking a tightrope, balancing the demands of President Donald Trump to end diversity efforts with what customers might want from the corporations they do business with. “They hear me. The cash register hears me,” Bryant told CNN. “Power concedes nothing without a demand.” The pressure is particularly acute at companies like Target, that had previously championed diversity in hiring and in sourcing their products. Already, Bryant said, Target has ceded to one demand. After meeting with Target CEO Brian Cornell on Thursday, Bryant announced Sunday that Target agreed to honor its pledge to spend $2 billion with Black-owned businesses — a commitment initially made in 2021. But that’s not enough. Bryant called for the boycott to continue and hopes Cornell will attend a town hall on Tuesday to address community concerns. Target did not respond to CNN’s latest request for comment. The stakes are high for Target: Black Americans are expected to have a buying power of $2 trillion by 2026, up from $1.7 trillion in 2024, according to a report from The Nielsen Company. “We saw (Target) as a friend. They championed diversity,” Bryant told CNN. “So, we were in shock and awe when they reversed what is their stance and position.” A pressure campaign from all sides Just four days into Trump’s presidency, Target announced it was eliminating hiring goals for minority employees, ending an executive committee focused on racial justice and making other changes to its diversity initiatives. Target said it had a new strategy called “Belonging at the Bullseye,” which it first introduced last year, and the company remained committed to “creating a sense of belonging for our team, guests and communities.” Target also stressed the need for “staying in step with the evolving external landscape.” Target is one of dozens of Fortune 500 companies that have backtracked on DEI in response to conservative court decisions, pressure from right-wing activists and legal groups, and, more recently, the Trump administration’s threats to investigate what it characterizes as “illegal DEI,” including potential criminal cases against companies. Trump in particular has railed against diversity efforts, including signing an executive action on his first day in office entitled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing.” But no company has faced as fierce a blowback from DEI supporters as Target. Customers online have protested the decision, and Anne and Lucy Dayton, the daughters of one of Target’s co-founders, called the company’s actions “a betrayal.” Target is under more pressure than companies like Walmart, John Deere or Tractor Supply, because Target went further in its DEI efforts, and it has a more progressive base of customers than those competitors. Target was a leading advocate for DEI programs in the business world in the years after George Floyd was killed by a police officer in the company’s home city of Minneapolis in 2020. Target also spent years building a public reputation as a progressive employer on LGBTQ issues. Cornell defended the company’s diversity initiatives in 2023, attributing it to company growth in recent years and noting that the measures have helped Target add value, drive sales and build “greater engagement with both our teams and our guests.” The blowback to Target’s DEI moves represents a significant challenge to its business and highlights the risks of companies abruptly moving away from diversity initiatives that still enjoy support on the left. Boycotting a large business, hurting small ones Bryant has called on consumers to buy directly from Black-owned businesses and sell their Target stock, adding to the retailer’s struggles at a time when investors were concerned about global trade tensions and economic uncertainty. Target said in February that it continues to offer products from Black-owned and minority-owned businesses, adding that its Black History Month offerings were available in stores and online. But decreased spending at Target overall also means that minority-owned businesses on store shelves are earning far less. On Friday, Bryant’s church opened the “Bullseye Black Market,” a marketplace with over 100 Black-owned businesses — some of which are currently sold at Target. It was available to the public until Sunday, when Bryant said the boycott would continue. In partnership with other churches, marketplaces opened in Chicago, Dallas, Houston and New York. Chantel Powell, founder of Play Pits, a body care brand that has been on Target shelves since 2022, said store sales are down 30% from 2024. But there’s also been an increase in sales directly through her website, which she said shows “people are being more intentional about where they spend their dollars.” “It felt like Target was for us. It felt like Target believed in us, and it wasn’t because it was a trend,” she said. Target changing its DEI stance “felt like a rug pull,” said Carlton Mackey, founder of apparel brand Black Men Smile. In 2024, his products were part of Target’s Black History Month collection and sold in all 1,900 stores. Now, he says that he can’t stand in solidarity with the company because of the DEI pullback. The policy changes haven’t scared off everyone yet. Patrice Chappelle, co-founder of MelanBrand Skin, told CNN that she wanted to join Target’s Forward Founder program, which was previously for “historically under resourced founders.” Now she says her business has been “set back tremendously.” “I hope that one day when they turn things around, we can still get into Target, but I know right now it’s not gonna be any time soon,” she said.
Target rolled back DEI efforts. A boycott ensued – and traffic dropped
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Target Faces Backlash and Sales Decline Following DEI Commitment Rollback"
CNN
7.4
TruthLens AI Summary
Target's recent decision to scale back its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) commitments has led to significant backlash from customers and a notable decline in foot traffic at its stores. Following the announcement on January 24, the company experienced a 9% drop in year-over-year foot traffic in February and a 6.5% decline in March, according to Placer.ai. While various factors contributed to this decline, including seasonal spending behaviors and weather conditions, a notable boycott spearheaded by Rev. Jamal Bryant, senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, has also played a crucial role. This boycott, termed the 'Target Fast,' encouraged participants to abstain from shopping at Target during Lent, drawing over 200,000 individuals to join the cause. Bryant's efforts underscored a growing frustration within the Black community, as many felt betrayed by Target's retreat from its previously strong commitments to diversity and inclusion. Following discussions with Target's CEO Brian Cornell, the company agreed to reaffirm its pledge to spend $2 billion with Black-owned businesses, but Bryant insists that this is insufficient and has called for continued pressure on the retailer to address broader community concerns.
The situation has highlighted the precarious position Target finds itself in, navigating the conflicting demands of various stakeholders. The backlash from DEI supporters has been particularly intense, as Target had previously positioned itself as a leader in diversity initiatives, especially after the murder of George Floyd in 2020. The company's recent changes, which included the elimination of hiring goals for minority employees and a shift away from its DEI executive committee, have drawn criticism not only from the public but also from the descendants of Target's co-founders, who labeled the actions a betrayal. As Target grapples with declining sales and increasing pressure from both customers and investors, the ripple effects of its DEI policy reversal are being felt not only within its own operations but also among the minority-owned businesses that depend on its sales channels. The ongoing boycott and the establishment of alternative marketplaces for Black-owned businesses signal a significant shift in consumer behavior, indicating that many are now seeking to support businesses that align with their values and commitments to diversity.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article highlights Target's recent decision to roll back its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and the ensuing backlash from consumers, particularly led by community leaders like Rev. Jamal Bryant. This situation reflects the ongoing tension between corporate policies on social responsibility and the expectations of consumers, especially in a politically charged environment.
Consumer Reaction and Boycott Impact
Target's announcement on January 24 has led to a significant decline in store traffic, with foot traffic reportedly down 9% year-over-year in February and 6.5% in March. The boycott led by Rev. Jamal Bryant, encouraging a 40-day shopping fast, has garnered substantial participation, indicating strong community mobilization against Target's decision. This suggests that consumers are increasingly willing to leverage their purchasing power to influence corporate behavior, particularly regarding social justice issues.
Corporate Dilemmas
Target's challenges are emblematic of broader corporate dilemmas as they navigate conflicting pressures from political figures and consumer expectations. The article suggests that the company had previously positioned itself as a champion for diversity, making its retreat from DEI commitments particularly controversial. The engagement of a prominent community leader like Bryant underscores the potential for grassroots movements to impact corporate policies, especially when they align with broader societal values.
Economic and Social Implications
The potential buying power of Black Americans, projected to reach $2 trillion by 2026, highlights the economic significance of this demographic for companies like Target. The article implies that failing to align with the values of these consumers could result in long-term financial repercussions for the company. This suggests that businesses must carefully consider their social commitments, as deviations can lead to substantial economic consequences.
Media Influence and Perception
The framing of the news article appears to align with a narrative that emphasizes consumer activism and corporate accountability. By showcasing the community's response to Target's decision, the article seeks to bolster the perception that collective action can lead to tangible changes in corporate policies. This narrative can influence public sentiment and potentially mobilize further consumer actions against companies perceived to be regressing on social issues.
Trustworthiness and Manipulative Elements
While the article presents factual data regarding foot traffic and the participation in the boycott, it also emphasizes emotional appeals and community mobilization. The language used is persuasive, aiming to evoke a sense of urgency and moral obligation among readers. However, the balance between reporting and advocacy can sometimes blur lines, leading to questions about potential bias or manipulative intent. The overall trustworthiness of the article appears moderate; it provides data and quotes from credible sources but also seeks to promote a specific viewpoint.
In conclusion, the article serves to inform readers about the unfolding situation at Target while also framing it within the larger context of social responsibility and consumer activism. The implications for companies navigating similar challenges are significant, potentially prompting them to reassess their commitments to diversity and community engagement.