A Boycott Against Target

AW Admin said:

Right next to me, but you gotta like ponies and mud.

I'm now going to deliberately find reasons to shop at Target.

They have an online store, even!

Click to expand...

Go to the physical stores, if you can. I find a lot of merchandise isn't always carried online so it's a surprise when I see it in person. And you can use their restrooms, if you so desire (me? I never use the men's rooms at my local Target stores without my trusty Flame-O-Rama 9000™ Flamethrower and Surface Sterilizer in hand.)

Celia Cyanide said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurahe...olicy-makes-it-a-boycott-target/#2293cbab1e50





I am a big supporter of boycotts. I think if people don't like what a company is doing, they should take their business elsewhere. I think it's fair, and people should only spend money where they feel comfortable.

Having said that, the comments against Target have me hopping mad. I try not to read internet comments, but it is all over Target's facebook page. One employee announced that she was proud to work for Target because they refused to discriminate, and someone sent her a private message that he was reporting her to the authorities for supporting child molesters. I was going to say something supportive on their page, but I don't want to deal with that crap.

I can't really form a coherent thought right now, I am so angry, but I am proud to have worked at Target, and my husband, who still works there, and I will continue to shop there whenever I can.

Click to expand...

target is gonna get some heat. And I suspect they calculated "pain vs gain" and worked from there, instead of really trying to do the right thing.

That said, twenty years ago, and maybe even five, no fucking way this would have happened. Now it is. Major companies are choosing to side with the rest of folks, instead of an increasingly militant and out-of-touch religious right.

'tis a good thing, despite the backlash

quicklime said:

target is gonna get some heat. And I suspect they calculated "pain vs gain" and worked from there, instead of really trying to do the right thing.

Click to expand...

?

robeiae said:

?

Click to expand...

??

StuToYou said:

??

Click to expand...

???

quicklime said:

target is gonna get some heat. And I suspect they calculated "pain vs gain" and worked from there, instead of really trying to do the right thing.

Click to expand...

I understand quicklime to be saying that in his opinion Target wasn't acting out of a genuine conviction that this was the right thing to do, but rather calculated the anticipated backlash versus the support they'd get, and acted out of more mercenary motives. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm misunderstanding him.

(I don't think there's any evidence one way or another about Target's motivations, nor do I particularly care. What matters in this case is what they do, not why they do it.)

I find that an odd assumption. They risked catching heat, either way. I don't see the calculation, at all.

Occam's Razor and all that, it seems far more likely that whomever made the decision at Target just decided it was the right thing to do, let the chips fall where they may. Because it's just a bathroom, at the end of the day.

robeiae said:

I find that an odd assumption. They risked catching heat, either way. I don't see the calculation, at all.

Occam's Razor and all that, it seems far more likely that whomever made the decision at Target just decided it was the right thing to do, let the chips fall where they may. Because it's just a bathroom, at the end of the day.

Click to expand...

I can see it being a calculus, and for good reason. Target makes money by pleasing enough people that they keep coming back. If they recognized that most people likely to shop at target agree that it's just a bathroom and responded to that in response to their shoppers' attitude, I see that as a good thing. It's a principled decision; the principle is keep your customers happy. Companies that don't do that don't last long.

If only our politicians could learn that one simple little lesson, we'd never have anything to talk about in P&CE. That's some serious democracy in action there, with the company anticipating how the customers will vote with their dollars.

robeiae said:

In this light, look at this piece: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/opinions/trump-transgender-bathrooms-opinion-cupp/index.html


It's a simple thing, really: people use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate for them to use. Trump actually is--imo--100% correct.

But after noting that Trump probably has the right of this, look what the author does: goes into complaint mode re Trump's position because it "was not informed by any deep philosophical contemplation of free societies or identity politics, nor by the limits of the Constitution or the role of the states."

The need to intellectualize this issue runs deep, when it's really just going to the bathroom.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure what Trump's view actually is. This is the fuller quote:

[Trump was asked about transgender bathroom policy during a town hall on the "Today" show on NBC, discussing in particular the contentious North Carolina measure and his own beliefs on the issue."Well look, North Carolina did something that was very strong, and they're paying a big price, and there's a lot of problems," he said. But he then agreed with a commentator's argument to "leave it the way it is."
"You leave it the way it is," Trump said. "There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate.


There has been so little trouble, and the problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic punishment that they're taking. So I would say that's probably the best way."



Leave what the way it is? It's not clear to me that Trump understands what the current 'it' is. The second part below does show a more relaxed position, although his analysis, such as it is, is debatable.

[Trump had been asked specifically earlier by host Matt Lauer: "If Caitlyn Jenner were to walk into Trump Tower, and wanted to use the bathroom, you would be fine with her using any bathroom she chooses?"
"That is correct," Trump said.
The real estate mogul also rejected the idea that buildings should provide a third bathroom for transgender people, saying that would be "discriminatory in a certain way" in addition to prohibitively expensive.]


However, the real scary - and I've said this before, the real scary POTUS hopeful is Cruz. (See below from the same article) Sadly, Trump's biggest sin is allowing Cruz to fly beneath his press hogging wings, and even be a protest vote. Still if (and most likely when ) Cruz gets the GOP Nom, hopefully those and other statement will come back to haunt him.

[But in a theater here in Western Maryland, Cruz cast the response as proof that Trump isn't committed to protecting religious rights.
The Texas senator has made protecting religious liberty central to his presidential bid, labeled Trump's comments as "a stark illustration" of why conservatives in the state, which votes next Tuesday, shouldn't trust him.
"He thought that men should be able to go into the girls' bathrooms if they want to," Cruz said here to building applause. "Grown adult men -- strangers -- should not be alone in a bathroom with little girls. And that's not conservative. That's not Republican or Democrat. That's basic common sense."
Cruz then turned it on Trump, who has promised audiences that he could tone down his brash demeanor and act more presidential.
"I guess he's showing us what that looked like," Cruz said. "I am waiting with anticipation for the new baseball caps: "Make PC Great Again.' "

Don said:

I can see it being a calculus, and for good reason. Target makes money by pleasing enough people that they keep coming back. If they recognized that most people likely to shop at target agree that it's just a bathroom and responded to that in response to their shoppers' attitude, I see that as a good thing. It's a principled decision; the principle is keep your customers happy. Companies that don't do that don't last long.

If only our politicians could learn that one simple little lesson, we'd never have anything to talk about in P&CE. That's some serious democracy in action there, with the company anticipating how the customers will vote with their dollars.

Click to expand...

I do think it's possible Target's actions came from a genuine impulse from employees -for sure.

But for it to become policy? In the public arena, knowing the possible backlash? I'm pretty sure the boardroom was fraught with tension that day. Thankfully, as Don points out, there 'some serious democracy in action there, with the company anticipating how the customers will vote with their dollars'.

It's an interesting form of people power, or a variety of the 'silent majority' concept at play.

Imagine shopping can now be a political action! (though there are other examples of this)

CassandraW said:

???

Click to expand...

????




Ok, nuff of that Stu.

On the issue of Target "catching heat" for their decision:

Target is a multi-million dollar business. Like any financially savvy business, they want to make money, not lose it. Therefore, they probably did do the due diligence to estimate how their public policy would affect their numbers. I'd like to think they did what they thought was right regardless of how those numbers came out, but they probably did the math just to know what to expect. For multi-million dollar businesses like Target, Walmart, Safeway, and so on, they survive on math. They are in business to make money, so they constantly run projections, surveys, data collection, and other practices to determine 1) what the public thinks and 2) how the public is likely to react based on a given decision.

Still, I'd like to think Target did the right thing regardless of how much they were going to gain or lose. From a "numbers perspective," "my people" (Evangelical Christians) constitute roughly 25% of the U.S. population (source). Obviously, there are those like myself who deviate from the norm on certain things, like this boycott business. Target will have assessed the demographics of the cities where they have stores and determined where they're going to be hit hardest.

Something tells me they ain't worried.

A friend of a friend posted on Facebook that this has actually been Target policy since about 1999.

And with all of these reasons for ultra-conservatives to boycott Target, it's a wonder they stay in business. :

cmhbob said:

A friend of a friend posted on Facebook that this has actually been Target policy since about 1999.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Looking at Target's actual announcement (which is in the OP to be fair) that's certainly possible. It says Target "reiterates" where it stands and never in fact describes this as a new or changed policy. Could it have been the policy for a decade+?

For those of you trying to keep track of which boycott this is...

cmhbob said:

For those of you trying to keep track of which boycott this is...

Click to expand...

They sure do deal with a lot of boycotts. It's almost like they've got a Target on their back.

Don said:

They sure do deal with a lot of boycotts. It's almost like they've got a Target on their back.

Click to expand...

Bullseye!

It seems like frequent boycotts are going to be counterproductive, especially when they're about such a range of issues. Long term consumer boycotts in general are problematic, because they rely on people knowing about them and sustaining interest long enough for it to matter. Also, not everyone has the luxury to boycott a given business. It's easy for me to never darken Wal-Mart's door, but I know people who don't like them any more than I do, but they feel like they have no choice, either because they can't afford to shop elsewhere, or because it's the only store in town that sells some things. This is particularly an issue in small towns that are far from their neighbors.

I've been keeping track of this whole boycott thing for a while and just figured I'd throw my two-cents in as this personally affects me.

I am a female that is transitioning to a male, I am also married and have been for almost two years now. When I go into a bathroom, I promise you, I'm not looking at you or trying to "undress you with my mind" I am simply trying to use the restroom and be about my way. I could care less about who I'm in the bathroom with as long as I don't feel as though I am in danger.

If these people want to stop shopping at Target just because they choose not to discriminate against race, sexual identity, gender, etc. then there are other stores. Target is always trying to make sure they keep as many people as possible happy without sacrificing their own policies, yet people still attack them. And I'm sure that even if a million people stop shopping there, Target will be alright. They will still have many loyal fans who will shop their religiously regardless of policies and will simply brush off the haters.

Situations like this are one of the reasons I no longer follow any sort of Christianity. I do understand that not every Christian falls into groups of bigots like this but the ones that do are the reason I can no longer take this religion seriously.

Celia Cyanide said:

Interesting, especially when you consider that if this has always been their policy, they didn't need to make an announcement about it. And yet they did, knowing full well they would catch heat.

Click to expand...

This is an issue in the news right now. They also knew full well that they would catch some consumer dollars over this, as well as heat. And heat has a lot less impact on the bottom line than dollars.They know which side of this debate is the largest and which groups are the most likely to spend their money at Target. That's their job.

I really don't understand why people want to make this about some principle other than pleasing the most customers possible. That's the real principle at work here, and it's one businesses should be celebrated for, not dismissed. It's proof that, unlike voting democracy, dollar democracy really works.

Oh, lightbulb. That's why it needs to be about some other thing, isn't it? My bad. Is bringing that up like farting in public or something?

Don said:

This is an issue in the news right now. They also knew full well that they would catch some consumer dollars over this, as well as heat. And heat has a lot less impact on the bottom line than dollars.They know which side of this debate is the largest and which groups are the most likely to spend their money at Target. That's their job.

I really don't understand why people want to make this about some principle other than pleasing the most customers possible. That's the real principle at work here, and it's one businesses should be celebrated for, not dismissed. It's proof that, unlike voting democracy, dollar democracy really works.

Oh, lightbulb. That's why it needs to be about some other thing, isn't it? My bad. Is bringing that up like farting in public or something?

Click to expand...

You know...I run a business. Not a giant corporation like Target, but a major regional player in my market...and I'm just as likely to do something because it's the right thing to do as opposed to just making more money. In the end the world isn't run by inhuman money-seeking entities, it's run by people. Sometimes, people do the right thing. It's not often enough, but it does happen.

Don said:

I really don't understand why people want to make this about some principle other than pleasing the most customers possible.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that the policy is as much about employees as it is customers. And if this has been the policy for some time now, then I don't see how it was based on pleasing customers.

The reiteration of the policy in a public statement? Sure, that can fit the PR bill. But at it's root, it's strikes me as a very common-sense policy that was instituted because it's just common sense. So I don't know if it is really even about principles, per se. On occasion, the right thing is just the sensible thing.

And considering the shit Target's taken over the last few years regarding QUILTBAG issues? Any backtracking they do regarding this is seriously inconsistent with recent policy.

Oxford council rebukes Target bathroom policy with new ordinance

The City Council on Tuesday made it illegal for anyone to use a public bathroom that doesn’t align with the gender they were born with.
The new law, approved unanimously by the council’s members, restricts a person’s use of public bathrooms and changing rooms to the facilities designated for use by those of the gender listed on his or her birth certificate. The law applies within both the city’s limits and police jurisdiction.
After members approved the new city ordinance, Council President Steven Waits read from a prepared statement.

Waits said he and the council sought the law “not out of concerns for the 0.3 percent of the population who identify as transgender,” but “to protect our women and children.”

Click to expand...

And how does, for example, forcing burly, bearded transgender men to use the ladies room make anyone safer? There are many issues with this ordinance and laws like it, but even if you bought into the idea that this was about safety, how would this help?

Even here in MA, we're having to fight hard to pass a transgender protections bill (Governor Baker finally gave some mild encouragement by saying he won't veto it if passed). There's momentum and a great deal of support, but I don't know if we're going to win.