How Target made itself look stupid
Every now and then, I come across some stories that make me cringe. Unfortunately, this is one such story. The New York Times is reporting today that Target made itself look like a fool because of the idiocy of its public relations arm.
According to the Times, a blog about the impact of marketing on children called Shaping Youth found issue with Target's latest ad campaign that showed a woman behind Target's logo. And while the site's founder Amy Jussel didn't necessarily find fault in the depiction of the woman, she was perturbed by Target's decision to place the bull's-eye directly over the woman's crotch.
Upon sending an email message to Target to get an explanation for the ad, the major retailer said that it was "unable to respond to [her] inquiry because Target does not participate with nontraditional media outlets."
Wow. What a bunch of clowns.
Of course, it didn't quite end there. Target went on to tell Jussel that "This practice is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest."
Wow. So let me get this straight -- Target only wants to work with media outlets that reach its core guests and forget about any and all media outlets that don't? As one of the world's largest retailers, can anyone find me one publication that doesn't speak to at least one of Target's guests?
But then again, the Target representative uses the term 'core' to qualify which guests the company is trying to speak to. Does anyone know who Target's core guests are? The way it reads, Target's core guests must be those people who are reading this column, enjoy the Wall Street Journal or can't get through a day without their daily dose of the Washington Post.
Maybe I haven't read the same metrics Target has, but I sincerely doubt the same people reading this column and those enjoying The New York Times are the exact same folks. And it the exact same people aren't reading all of these "traditional media outlets", how can Target split up their core group of guests from the riff-raff so easily?
If you ask me, Target's decision to ignore a blogger's request for a response is nothing more than a group of misguided fools attempting to stick to company policy even though it hurts the company in the process. Don't these robots have any common sense?
To make matters worse, whoever responded to Jussel obviously has no idea what a "core guest" is and I would venture to say that no one inside Target does either. Does anyone actually believe Target is asking its customers which publications they read when they leave the store? Regardless, I simply can't understand why the pre-requisite for becoming a Target core guest revolves around your reading tastes.
If nothing else, Target displayed just how stupid it really is. After all, what well run organization would actually respond to someone it doesn't do business with? Wouldn't it have made more sense to close their traps instead of telling the world that the company doesn't like to work with bloggers? I certainly think so.
Nice one, Target.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
The Target ad is tame. I mean she's lying, fully clothed, in winter clothes, on the center of their logo, which happens to be a target.
If some local/community newsletter/newspaper complained about the advertisement the response would have been the same from Target.
Maybe it says something that (apparently) the only one who found something offensive with this rated G advertisement is Jussel.
Target's response sounds like corporate-speak for: "Get a life and leave us alone." That she is a blogger is inconsequential.
As a former journalist/ad industry CD, Target?s ?talk to the hand? approach was indeed disappointing, since I purposely phoned to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, I DO question the appropriateness of this ad, and simply phoned them for some form of context, leaving a message w/all my contact info on their machine.
Since I'm their 'target market,' I was seeking an explanation or SOME form of ?what were you thinking here?? Period. It's baffling to think this concept cleared multiple layers and channels of approval process without detecting how it could be misconstrued; especially in the surround sound of environs made toxic by the torrent of other messages.
Anyway, thanks, Don...for level-headed, non-theatric reporting...And as for the ad being "G rated" that's in the eye of the beholder...As I said to the NYT, Target?s marketing department has to know (or be made aware) that whatever they do, say, or display comes into an environment made toxic by the torrent of other messages...So their responsibility is, at least do no harm?the Hippocratic oath if they?re going to purport being a ?family? store.
Yet it is still surprising that this story is on CNET. I suppose it is only because of the blogger angle.
One has to pick their battles and this one does not seem remotely like fighting. If you have it out for Target then go for it. I?m sure they are doing other evil things. Corporations only have responsibility to their shareholders and do not have a Hippocratic oath to uphold. That's the sad truth in America in 2008.
This Target ad is really quite neutral. There is a segment of the population that sees crosses, swastikas, and images of Jesus in all kinds of places that they were never consciously placed. That?s what this reminds me of. In a way, this Target advertisement is like a Rorschach test. Now we know what you are projecting. It?s just a little creepy that someone who is supposedly protecting children sees things through the lens of sexual perversion.
Yet it is still surprising that this story is on CNET. I suppose it is only because of the blogger angle.
One has to pick their battles and this one does not seem remotely like fighting. If you have it out for Target then go for it. I?m sure they are doing other evil things. Corporations only have responsibility to their shareholders and do not have a Hippocratic oath to uphold. That's the sad truth in America in 2008.
This Target ad is really quite neutral. There is a segment of the population that sees crosses, swastikas, and images of Jesus in all kinds of places that they were never consciously placed. That?s what this reminds me of. It?s like a Rorschach test. Now we know what you are projecting. It?s just a little creepy that someone who is supposedly protecting children sees things through the lens of perversion.
- by Dalkorian January 30, 2008 10:32 AM PST
- "... lighten up, these things are produced fast and someone wasn't paying attention."
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(7 Comments)Did I just read that?? Does Mjbackes really think that companies like Target don't realize that sex sells?
I'm not saying there's anything "wrong" with this ad per se, in fact I haven't even seen it. But to imply that an advertiser wouldn't realize how important placement can be is just being silly. They knew. It was intentional. It's supposed to subliminally make you think of sex. Sex sells. And they (Target) will NEVER admit it up front.
As for their reaction to this blogger, well, it's a big corporation. What did you expect?