The Deets

I don’t think Ben from BenCredible.com has ever seriously considered working for Target before, but that could drastically change once he hears this news:

Target to mount Segways for patrol

Target Corp. has purchased a fleet of Segway motorized scooters, making the retailer one of Segway’s largest customers.

The Minneapolis-based retailer (NYSE: TGT) will use the scooters, made by Bedford, N.H.-based Segway, for security patrols at over 150 Target and SuperTarget stores throughout the U.S., according to a press release. Terms were not disclosed.

That’s one heck of a sweet benefit. Rather than paying $75 to go on the Magical History Tour, Target would pay Ben to ride around on a Segway.

Ben, make sure to include a link to this video in your resume.

This Target story keeps moving along. Latest stop: the business section of the NY Times along with a second page for discussion.

That’s the first time the NY Times business section has used the word “crotch” in 2008. They used it only once in 2007 and 3 times in 2006.

Preface: I swear that I’ll stop writing about stupid things that Target does as soon as they stop doing stupid things. Perhaps I hold Target to a higher standard than other companies? At this point, I think it’s the misalignment between Target’s positioning as the do-gooder, family-friendly, cooler alternative to Wal-Mart that leads to issues when they misstep.

They also seem to be hyper-sensitive about their brand. They decide what’s cool. You buy it. No questions asked. They don’t seem ready to engage their customers unless you call paying kids to say nice things about Target engaging. While their brand is clearly phenomenal, things like this chip away at their mystique in a world where everyone - not just mainstream media - is a publisher.

On with the show:

Paul Schmelzer has a report over on Minnesota Monitor about a mother, Amy Jussel, who’s offended by a billboard put up by Target in Times Square. She happens to have a blog and asked Target to comment for her blog on why they chose to run this particular advertisement. However, they’ve chosen to snub her.

Here’s the billboard in question:

Here is her concern, as she posted on her site, Shaping Youth - a forum for media & marketing’s influence on kids:

Taking Aim at Target: Think That V is a CoinkyDink?

This ad may not be QUITE as blatant as some of the other spread-eagle ambient billboards we’ve featured or as viral as the onslaught of Axe videos making the rounds, but it’s subliminal to the point of guffaw.

That sounds like a reasonable judgment of a company that positions itself as family friendly.

As Paul summarized, Target told Ms. Jussel, a blogging media analyst, that they wouldn’t talk to her because she didn’t represent Target’s core audience. (Check the comments on Shaping Youth for more deets.) How strange is that?

Maybe Target doesn’t really understand the issue? I mean, why would a mother take offense at a billboard with a bullseye on a woman’s crotch?

Perhaps switching genders will help explain the issue. Here are two shots Target is welcome to use in future billboards, gratis:

Now I’m starting to understand why Ms. Jussel was offended. Heck, I’m offended when I look at myself spread out over the bullseye.

Update: Target considers changing blogger engagement policy?

Dear Target,

When you label food as being “real” or “genuine” it makes me wonder whether other food you serve isn’t “real” or “genuine.”

Should I be concerned?

I thought it was pretty safe to assume that the berries pictured were real, and that maple syrup - when it’s called maple syrup - is indeed maple syrup.

Were the oats really steel cut after being grown on a genuine farm?

BizJournals reports that Target agreed to pay half a million dollars to 4 people, but still “believes” that they didn’t racially discriminate against them. Strange, eh?

If they weren’t discriminating, why did they destroy documents?

Target pays $500K to settle EEOC suit

Under terms of the settlement, the AP said that Target would pay a total of $510,000 to four applicants that were denied jobs as assistant store managers in 2000 and 2001.

Target also agreed to revise its policies for retaining documents, and pledged to provide supervisors with training on employment discrimination and record-keeping, to report on its hiring decisions and to post a notice about the decree for employees in its stores and offices in the affected district.

The AP quoted Target as saying in a statement that “We do not believe that any member of Target engaged in discrimination. Target prohibits and does not tolerate discrimination based upon race or any other characteristic protected by law.”

Who thinks the Pioneer Press’ OnTarget blog will cover this story? It seems like there’s a holiday shopping angle worth considering. As a reminder, here’s the blog’s goal: “Keeping an eye on how this major retailer navigates the holiday shopping season.“

We’re heading into crunch time for holiday shopping with one of America’s largest retailers making news by settling in a racial discrimination lawsuit with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Will a settlement like this - with a corporate-speak refusal to come clean - help or hurt holiday sales?

PlanetDan has a great story about his poorly thought out Target shopping list.

No Smoking in the Fireworks Aisle, originally uploaded by edkohler.

I didn’t think you could smoke in ANY aisle at Target stores, so this seemed redundant.

Apparently, smoking is not a problem in the Tiki torch fuel section.