Marketers understand something that nobody else in business seems to get: Everything is marketing.
Operating procedures, constructing appearance, personnel policies, etc., all shape how the general public sees the corporate. Failing to have any of that in synch with brand values can blow up in your face.
Consider the cases of Target and Southwest Airlines. In the past yr, each firms made business decisions that I almost guarantee weren’t run past marketing. If that they had been, even probably the most junior marketer would have responded, “ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?”
Southwest built its success around being seen as a unique form of airline. For many years, passengers had a fresh chocolate chip cookie waiting on their seats, customer support was informal and helpful, there have been no separate classes of seats and seating was by friendly scrum. Flights were cheaper and baggage flew without spending a dime. Customer rewarded the corporate with their loyalty. Southwest achieved a standing that other brands would kill for: mass-market success with cult appeal.
In 2010, Southwest removed one among the things that made it special: The fresh chocolate chip cookie. That caused nostalgia, not unhappiness, amongst customers. The response was not nearly as understanding when, over the past yr, it:
- Instituted first-class seating.
- Ended the seating scrum (the fastest option to board passengers).
- Began charging for luggage.
The company also had the primary layoffs in its history, something not known to enhance customer support.
Dig deeper: How to market within the age of shock
From cult to commodity
Following those changes, Southwest reported a $149 million loss in the primary quarter of this yr. One data point isn’t enough to prove causation, but those policies were Southwest’s brand differentiator. It now behaves like all other airline.
I consider the luggage fees were the straw that broke the brand value’s back. “Your bags fly free” has been a part of Southwest’s marketing eternally, taking a worry away from customers. To be fair, all these policy changes were for sound business reasons, i.e., falling revenues.
Target, alternatively, well…
The dodo isn’t role model
Humorist Will Cuppy wrote, “[The dodo] seems to have been invented for the only real purpose of becoming extinct.” Likewise, Target’s decision to eliminate its DEI efforts was seemingly invented for the only real purpose of pissing off its customers.
Here’s what happened.
Long before coming to power, 100 or so very long days ago, President Trump made it clear he would go after America’s Public Enemy No. 1, a creature living rent-free within the heads of many on the political right: The Wokeness. According to the president, the creature lives off the range, equity and inclusion programs. As soon as Mr. Trump took office, corporations rushed to say that they had seen the error of their ways and would end the terrible reign of DEI.
On January 24, 2025, with no push from anyone, Target joined the herd of lemmings stampeding over this cliff. Also falling off a cliff: The retailer’s sales, foot traffic and stock price. On the day of its announcement, Target stock was $138; on April 29, 2025, it was $96.50.
In February, foot traffic in Target stores shrunk by 9% year-over-year. In March, it improved barely but was still down 6.5% YoY.
Why did sales drop?
Analysts blame boycotts for the drop in sales, but I consider a number of it’s on account of consumers who don’t know concerning the organized protests. For one thing, with the very notable exception of last yr’s campaign against Bud Light, boycotts are generally slow to boil.
The other reason is who shops at Target and why they accomplish that.
Dig deeper: Target’s DEI retreat: Inclusivity was never greater than a marketing stunt
The ironic “Tarjay” nickname (said in a pretend French accent) shows how some shoppers see Target. The retailer appeals to individuals who dislike Walmart’s generic feel but still want lower prices. A way of favor making up for the products costing somewhat more. Target is an aspirational brand to a lot of its shoppers, a step up from the aesthetic of The World’s Largest Retailer. Target’s audience either ranges farther up the socioeconomic ladder or desires to.
A grievance about Target on the Xennials’ subreddit illustrates my point.
“It’s not Target [that bothers me],” Redditor luxtabula wrote months before the 2024 election. “It’s the persona Target created that many bought into with none critical pondering. Target isn’t any different from Walmart … same pay scale, same union busting, same disregard for resources. … All of the bad things stuck to Walmart. But Target manages to dodge these fair criticisms with the grace of a Russian ballerina. … NYC won’t permit Walmart to establish shop. … But NYC has tons of Targets.”
There’s no middle ground with inclusivity
For years before the DEI decision, Target marketed itself as an inclusive place where you could feel good shopping.
During Black History Month, the retailer made a giant deal about featuring products from Black-owned firms. The company supported Pride month, sponsoring marches commemorating the Stonewall Riots and the fight for LBGTQ+ rights.
Target even got in trouble for selling Pride-related merchandise. In 2023, the corporate pulled that merchandise from many stores after complaints from right-wing groups. However, it remained available online. That managed to unite and irritate the Right and the pro-Pride community, who each perceived it as a lame attempt at appeasement.
With that history, it is straightforward to see how Target shoppers could view the DEI decision as brand treason. So far, the corporate’s attempts at damage control — meeting with Rev. Al Sharpton, promising to proceed featuring Black-owned firms — have fallen flat.
There have been no public efforts to fix the rift with LGBTQ+ shoppers and their allies. However, Target stays the platinum sponsor of the upcoming NYC Pride parade. Participants’ reactions to the corporate and anything with its logo could be one more PR disaster.
Trust is the product that matters
In the ultimate evaluation, all businesses sell the identical thing: Trust. Had Target’s senior management bothered to ask anyone in marketing how customers would react to the DEI decision, probably the most diplomatic answer would likely have been, “[EXPLETIVE DELETED!?!] ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR [MORE INSULTING EXPLETIVE DELETED] MIND?”
Jim Stengal, the P&G CMO who turned Swiffer right into a billion-dollar brand, once told me, “You can never know your customers too well.” Marketers know that. Now if only someone would tell the remainder of the C-suite.
Dig deeper: Pride Month is about authenticity, not ‘rainbow washing’
The post Marketers could have saved Target and Southwest from themselves appeared first on MarTech.
Read the complete article here
