174 Comments:
I don't much care whether Target 'participate(s) (in) non-traditional media outlets' or not. However complaining about that Target ad is pretty whack in my book.
Then agian my saying 'whack' is whack in my book too.
»» Submitted by JC65 at 4:19 PM on January 14
Especially since it's spelled "wack."
Wack bloggas...I don't even like to be around 'em
Give 'em dap or pound 'em
See 'em out they houndin' dawg
Singin' they got blogs for me to get down on
Singin' they hot when that blog don't even sound warm
There's actually a person out there who took the time to bitch to Target about that ad and then got pissed because a huge corporation doesn't care to answer questions from some blogger? Yeah, Amy, you go ahead and bring Target to its knees...
»» Submitted by »»» jtd at 4:30 PM on January 14
Ahhhh...so that's what they mean by Big Box Retail!
»» Submitted by grote at 4:32 PM on January 14
Yawn. Won't somebody think of the children. Blah blah blah.
Even if I were outraged(rather than turned on) by that ad, her use of superfluous exclamation points and question marks is downright silly.
»» Submitted by »»» joyride at 4:37 PM on January 14
Walgreen's is the new Target.
»» Submitted by It's true at 4:38 PM on January 14
this reminds me of when Terry Rakolta tried to bring down "Married with Children" 18 years ago...except she was able to actually make some wave$
»» Submitted by grote at 4:40 PM on January 14
I'd accept Target's behavior more easily if it was coming from a company that's more low or high end than our beloved middle class retail chain.
A trashy company acts trashy? Fine.
A high end company acts snobbish? Of course.
But you can't be both trashy and snobby while appealing to families.
This may not be their intent, but that's my take on their actions since they chose not to discuss things with someone who cares.
bloggers, in instances such as these, are canaries in a coalmine. the story will now get picked up by a larger "traditional" media source. if this woman's aim is truly to bring more attention to the cause, then her blogging will prove an effective means for being heard and heading in that direction.
it's the bloggers who feel the need to be "credited" for "breaking" a story like this that are kidding themselves and barking up the wrong tree.
»» Submitted by grote at 5:06 PM on January 14
Wanna be a -- blogger, shot caller
Twenty page blog -- on the aggregat-r
A blogger gettin laid tonight
Swisher rolled tight, gotta spray my ice
Information superHIIIGHWAY, making money the Google ADS WAY
But that's got to be the BLOG-ER WAYY!
The blogger way, blogger way, YEAH-AHHHH
»» Submitted by the real adam at 5:09 PM on January 14
grote, it seems like this would be a difficult story to tell without giving credit to the blogger who broke it. How would you do it?
I'm with Ed on this one (obviously)---If it were my intent to stage a blog war, I would've called in some serious markers, since I'm one of the co-authors of the Age of Conversation book (103 bloggers uniting for a cause) and am IN the media!!! (An industry creative director/copywriter and journalist for 25+ years, with "mainstream" media ties to boot!)
I'm simply responding as a parent...AND as the founder of a nonpartisan, centrist, consortium of industry pros, parents, academics, and corporations that feel "this is not ok." We cover the GOOD (see positive picks) the BAD (vapid values/endless coinage-consumption) and the UGLY (damaging drek) and I think if you hung out for awhile, you'd see this is not an 'extreme' POV by any means...this is mainstream parenting, and the voice of 'the massive middle'...
Ed hits the mark above on the mixed messaging front. I'd expect it from Axe. Victoria's Secret. Even the provocative vampy new Equinox fitness campaign...but Target? What's next, Toys R Us? geezus.
I'd send a reporter to Times Square with a cameraman, and would stop people on the street, ala Jay-Walking, and ask them if they found the picture offensive. After a dozen or so "no...what's wrong with you...are you some kind of Midwestern prude?" type responses, I would realize that this is a complete non-story, and I would fire myself for financial malfeasance. I would then go on a drinking binge and leave my wife for the girl in the ad.
but that's just me.
»» Submitted by grote at 5:14 PM on January 14
Ahhhh...so that's what they mean by Big Box Retail!
funniest thing i've read all day. grote wins again.
»» Submitted by »»» PwrGeek at 5:16 PM on January 14
A better plan, grote, might be to ask parents, already seeing a media barrage aimed at their daughters and sons, how they respond to the ad.
»» Submitted by but, at 5:35 PM on January 14
Snow angels = dirty?
»» Submitted by geezus at 5:36 PM on January 14
Seriously, if this woman is afraid of that billboard, then she better shield her eyes from every pornish pop-up that dots 1-94. I mean, for chrissakes, even the Pillsbury dough boy eludes to "experimenting" in the bedroom. (It's a god-awful commercial because no one wants to hear it from the maker of Pop n Fresh).
I have a huge beef with Target, but the real issue with them, I think, is their faux-philanthropy campaign they've used as a branding tool to differentiate themselves from Wal-Mart. Talk about "manipulation of young girls." Here's the real issue: Young girls are being manipulated into being consumers. Who cares if folks in Indonesia are being exploited for that darling Tee! You must have it!
On top of that, if THAT ad is part of a conspiracy to turn young women into promiscuous robots, perhaps we should fear the plot by the Bible writers to turn women into "submissive" property. I mean, I'm just sayin'.
»» Submitted by »»» MollyP at 5:54 PM on January 14
"Unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with non-traditional media outlets."
High 5 for Target.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 5:59 PM on January 14
For a person who seems to share Target's distain for "non-traditional media," you hang around here a lot, Rat.
Or is that just "what's good for Target is good for America?"
I can't tell. Please do. Why a high 5 for Target?
»» Submitted by »»» justpbob at 6:37 PM on January 14
For a person who seems to share Target's distain for "non-traditional media," you hang around here a lot, Rat.
That's a curious observation, but I think there's a place and everything in its place.
Or is that just "what's good for Target is good for America?"
That's kinda simplistic, but if you don't think that part of what makes the country thrive is the ability of companies to carry out legal business, maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
I can't tell. Please do. Why a high 5 for Target?
Maybe a high 5 is a little too strong. But if Amy was simply "responding as a parent" I'm thinking Target would give her some consideration. But she's not, as far as I can tell. Target knows where the comments will end up, and how inevitably they'll be twisted as is the wont of bloggers.
For that reason, I don't blame them, She put them in a no-win situation.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 7:21 PM on January 14
Putting aside the bullseye and vaggie V-configuration of that girl's legs, isn't the issue that our dear philanthropic hometown corporate hero won't deign to talk to a lowly customer who, it's assumed, doesn't fit their target demographic? That's the offensive part. I mean, couldn't some PR schmuck take 5 seconds to jot down a few lines on an email saying, "We're sorry you're offended by the billboard, but I assure you our intention wasn't to objectify women"? Bad corporate hero!
»» Submitted by Vagy Vee at 7:33 PM on January 14
Oh my, bloggers sure seem to think highly of themselves.
»» Submitted by just sayin' at 7:33 PM on January 14
Case in Point, The Deets
Target Snubs Offended Parent Who Blogs
So she's not just a concerned mother, but evidently one with an organization and a title, namely
Founder
Executive Director,
Shaping Youth
»» Submitted by The Rat at 7:33 PM on January 14
Oh my, Target sure seems to think highly of itself.
»» Submitted by sayin' huh? at 7:34 PM on January 14
won't deign to talk to a lowly customer who,
The point is, she's not just a lowly customer. See previous comment.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 7:36 PM on January 14
I applaud Target. There's no reason a major company needs to waste its time responding to shit-stirring crazies with an Internet connection.
»» Submitted by just sayin' at 7:36 PM on January 14
I don't think she's crazy. Nothing wrong with being concerned, but you should objectively look at both sides of this.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 7:38 PM on January 14
A better plan, grote, might be to ask parents, already seeing a media barrage aimed at their daughters and sons, how they respond to the ad.
as a member of that demographic, I reply that that particular ad is hardly offensive.
»» Submitted by grote at 7:49 PM on January 14
Some people get up every morning and look for something to get offended about.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 7:53 PM on January 14
Some people get up every morning and look for something to get offended about.
I'm offended by that, The Rat.
»» Submitted by just wakin' up at 8:06 PM on January 14
grote is a genius, as he accurately predicted that the mainstream media would do a story on this tonight. The winner of that honor is me.
Wow. If you want to make a point, you've got to focus a little bit or you're going to lose even the people who agree with you.
"Hooters girl in training" = appalling.
Any child's article of clothing with the word "pimp" on it = beyond the pale
The "Little flirt" T-shirt I saw on a preschooler this morning = wrongheaded
But a skinny girl making snow angels? She's as sexless as a kid herself!
»» Submitted by also a parent at 8:12 PM on January 14
Vagy Vee nails it. Even if you assume that the woman writing the letter to Target was c-r-a-z-y like talking on a bluetooth without a bluetooth crazy, had she gone into a store and express her concern she would have received a response similar to what Vagy Vee suggests: "Sorry you were offended. That wasn't our intention."
But instead, someone hiding behind a computer decided they were too important to act like a human to one of their customers. I wonder if Amy's response from Target came signed by an actual human or unsigned from their media department?
One a related note, the rudest people on MNSpeak are the people who don't use their real names and/or have links to their blogs. The more human people are online, the more humane they seem to act.
While posting under the same name builds an online personality and reputation over time, it still seems to provide a license to be a jerk that wouldn't be used by the same person posting under their own name. With that in mind, I way criticisms accordingly. :-)
So has she stopped shopping at Target?
Isn't this comment from Amy's "V" post also risque?
"Targets one of my fave big box retailers, but sadly&this brings a whole new meaning to the phrase."
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 8:18 PM on January 14
One a related note, the rudest people on MNSpeak are the people who don't use their real names and/or have links to their blogs.
People have been singled out on this board, and they have be targeted personally.
Anonymity is an option, and Max respects it, even you might not.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 8:20 PM on January 14
Has Jason DeRusha ever come up with a story idea that wasn't based on stuff he read on the internets?
Good question.
»» Submitted by just sayin' at 8:20 PM on January 14
The ad is completely inconsistent from a brand perspective. Clearly the Target logo is over the woman's crotch. (Let me put that more clearly for my friends at Target: there's a Time Square ad campaign where a Target trademark is over a woman's spread crotch. Let's noodle that, brand police.)
Let's also consider the canned response to said campaign:
"We don't communicate with non-traditional media."
This can't be serious if Target is holistic in its understanding of its consumers' media ingestion. The existing response is a completely non-holistic one. It assumes that Target's consumers segment themselves by media types. "We have traditional media customers, and non-traditional media customers."
Really?
Let's get a Target response on here. Their canned response just can't be the right response, at all. It just seems that there's going to be a mea culpa on this one.
»» Submitted by »»» aeklund at 8:21 PM on January 14
This can't be serious if Target is holistic in its understanding of its consumers' media ingestion. The existing response is a completely non-holistic one. It assumes that Target's consumers segment themselves by media types.
Is this English?
»» Submitted by The Rat at 8:26 PM on January 14
The Rat, I respect anonymity. But I don't respect anonymous rudeness when the same comments wouldn't come from someone posting under their own name. Anonymity is a privilege that shouldn't be abused.
FWIW, I'm not singling anyone out with that statement. It's just a vibe I get on MNspeak that I think I've come to understand.
So, Mr. Deets, maybe you can address my point:
Target Snubs Offended Parent Who Blogs
I realize you linked to her site, but didn't you think it was important enough to mention in the body of the text, that she is a "founder and executive director" of some outfit called Shaping Youth. Not just an offended mother. I guess she's offended anyway.
Is it an organization? Or is that important to you? Or is taking a swipe at Target more important to you?
»» Submitted by The Rat at 8:37 PM on January 14
Sorry...I used holistic twice in a paragraph, which renders me equally suspect.
»» Submitted by »»» aeklund at 8:39 PM on January 14
I just thought it was kinda dumb to deny participating with non-traditional media after the whole stupid thing they did with that fake Facebook group or whatever it was. Like either you do web 2.0 or you don't, morons. Either way, it's too bad I'm happy with my current job, cause the big red box needs to get somebody in its PR department with a clue. Talk about creating your own headache. Seesh.
»» Submitted by kwatthashadhiswine at 8:42 PM on January 14
The Rat, I think companies should treat their customers like human beings whether or not they happen to be publishers. Obviously, there is something to be said for giving higher priority to a call from 60 Minutes (or even DeRusha) than a typical blogger, but this situation - as I see it - is about Target snubbing a parent / customer who raised a legitimate concern.
Since Target seems to have known she was a blogger, and a blogger who specifically covers youth & media, it's all the more strange that they chose to snub her.
(I just deleted a bunch of emotional crap I was about to unleash upon Rat, but I'm a professional...and would rather go "holistic" upon his/her anonymous, non-critical-thinking ass.)
Use your brain, Rat, which you're so fond of expressing. The word "holistic" in this sense assumes that Target understands that its consumers don't always just mindlessly walk into a store...that sometimes they might go online and experience the Target brand.
Capice?
< sarcasm>BTW, really glad you love the Target. < /sarcasm> My VISA expresses my love unconditionally.
»» Submitted by »»» aeklund at 8:50 PM on January 14
Just sayin', that's actually a moronic question.
And when I talked to a Target spokesperson they shared the following: "Never our intention to offend any of our guests or the public."
"We've only received one guest contact on the ad."
"It's simply an advertisement with a woman making a snow angel, laying on our bullseye."
Is it offensive, I asked, they responded, "Absolutely not."
In re: the whole talking to bloggers thing, they confirmed that as policy, they do not engage with bloggers and/or trade publications.
((Kevin I think they had hired an outside company to do that Facebook thing. Should they hire an outside person to engage with bloggers? That's a good question.))
jason, I'm still not sure this is a good strategy for Target because it assumes a non-impact from bloggers or online pundits. We know that not to be the case. Having a blanket statement that "we don't communicate with non-traditional media types" is really short sighted. Again, it assumes that "non-traditional" means TV, radio, and print.
(And for Rat's case, "non-impact" means that "it doesn't matter.")
I really am not beefing with Target -- I just find it unbelievable that online public relations is somehow not important considering how so many brands have been scalded by bad online publicity that blossom's into "mainstream media."
»» Submitted by »»» aeklund at 9:01 PM on January 14
I'm with you 100% Andrew. I think it's insane. I'm simply sharing what they told me.
I can see where they could get buried with all the blogs that want an official comment. But where do you draw the line? Is Minnesota Monitor a blog? MinnPost? Would you respond to a blog of a traditional organization? It's tricky.
Had they responded to her personally, this would not have been an issue. A lot of us don't see the ad the way the blogger in question saw the ad, and don't think it's much of an issue.
But, instead of responding, to say that they have a policy against responding to bloggers?
Well, in the blogging world, that's a paddling.
(aeklund hot button alert)
No, Jason. They shouldn't outsource a blogger liaison because that assumes that bloggers don't have influence. I'm not so naive to assume that bloggers have the reach as mainstream journalists, etc., but I do know well that mainstream journalists use bloggers as sources. The question really is about influence. As an occasional blogger, I know that I personally have very little reach or influence -- but there are gigantic bloggers who have thousands of RSS subscribers who can push entire markets with a single post. A good friend of mine is the senior retail analyst at Piper. He talks, markets listen. A single comment has HUGE influence.
So, once again, to say carte blanch that Target "doesn't communicate with non-traditional media" just can't be correct. I'm assuming what they're really saying is that "we don't communicate with non-influential media people." And, that, btw, is completely defensible and a good use of time and resources.
»» Submitted by »»» aeklund at 9:10 PM on January 14
Jason...when you agreed with me 100%, I agree with you. I only take exception to the outsourcing of blog relationships.
I'll always agree with someone who agrees with me 100%. ;)
»» Submitted by »»» aeklund at 9:12 PM on January 14
Some people get up every morning and look for something to get offended about.
and here is Rat being self-referential again.
»» Submitted by grote at 9:18 PM on January 14
than a typical blogger, but this situation - as I see it - is about Target snubbing a parent / customer who raised a legitimate concern.
No, Ed. If she was any mother on this block with small kids, I think Target would respond. But she's not and she seems to have not enquired in that capacity. She's Founder and Executive Director of Shaping Youth.
But she can't have it both ways. She's one or the other.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 9:22 PM on January 14
But she can't have it both ways. She's one or the other.
How do you figure?
I also wasn't suggesting they outsource those relationships. More addressing Kevin's comment that Target engaged online in the past. Target did, via a 3rd party (which incidentally became a bit of a mess.)
Even if Target needs one more person to engage with blogs in their media/PR department, I'd think that would be 60k well spent.
How do you figure?
One capacity suggests a personal concern, the other suggests a professional one.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 9:28 PM on January 14
From what I can tell her outrage is manufactured; that's what she does on her site.
"Ed hits the mark above on the mixed messaging front. I'd expect it from Axe. Victoria's Secret."
Really? Because she takes them to task too.
It's not like she's forming a picket line at Target, posting an online petition, or even saying she's done shopping in Target's dismissive halls.
Look at the bright side; Deets did get some funny photoshops out of the situation.
Hey Ed, did you get those sexy socks at Target?
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 9:30 PM on January 14
While posting under the same name builds an online personality and reputation over time, it still seems to provide a license to be a jerk that wouldn't be used by the same person posting under their own name.
O RLY?
»» Submitted by anonymous jerk at 9:30 PM on January 14
Even if Target needs one more person to engage with blogs in their media/PR department, I'd think that would be 60k well spent.
Jason, I agree with you 100%. :) We're even.
»» Submitted by »»» aeklund at 9:31 PM on January 14
One capacity suggests a personal concern, the other suggests a professional one.
There's no reason to assume she can't have both.
Derailing conversation...
Will someone find me a better evening download than this?
I'm 17 all over again...
»» Submitted by »»» aeklund at 9:41 PM on January 14
The Rat, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Target decided to snub her, which created a story of its own. Now, at least 7 blogs have picked up on the story along with our local FOX and CBS affiliate TV stations.
Apparently Target prefers to be Trend Backward when dealing with PR issues?
Max, your "...that's a paddling comment" made me giggle. That's probably my favorite line from that show ever. Brings a little tear to me eye.
»» Submitted by »»» tara_r at 9:41 PM on January 14
I just thought it was kinda dumb to deny participating with non-traditional media after the whole stupid thing they did with that fake Facebook group or whatever it was. Like either you do web 2.0 or you don't, morons.
That was what was bugging me the most about it. Thank you, Jason, for clarifying it a bit, but it's still an incongruent message.
Should Target have responded to her? Yes, because she's a customer. Target needs to get with the times and realize that this is how customers are engaging them and customers are going to continue to do so. Should they have had a better answer than the non-answer they had? Yes.
»» Submitted by »»» ericam at 9:49 PM on January 14
"Truth is, I could bring em to their knees with a phone call to all of my mainstream press contacts&"
Wow!
I would say the ad might be a little "off brand" in comparison to the stuff we see in MN, but this is in NYC "fashion capital of the world". It may have been a test, it's definitely not the most provocative Target ad that I have seen.
(especially because the time it took to give the non-answer was identical to the time it would have taken to give a real answer)
Oh good god. Kudos to Target for ignoring this nonsense.
»» Submitted by mike s at 9:58 PM on January 14
andrew...I caught on to the Replacements way late...haven't really grasped their chronology. but I can tell you exactly where I was when that concert took place.
»» Submitted by grote at 10:05 PM on January 14
(especially because the time it took to give the non-answer was identical to the time it would have taken to give a real answer)
Perhaps, but the time legal put into crafting the canned response?
Priceless.
»» Submitted by »»» JACC at 10:06 PM on January 14
I will say, that Target was extremely responsive to my traditional media call and e-mail... answering me back very quickly. And they couldn't have been nicer about it.
I shared their response here, so I guess, mission accomplished in their strategy.
But she can't have it both ways. She's one or the other.
That's what I thought when I first saw the ad.
Jason - you're right, i had forgot that was an outsourced job. But
Even if Target needs one more person to engage with blogs in their media/PR department, I'd think that would be 60k well spent. Really? A guy can pull 60 large for that in the private sector?
Maybe I don't like my job so much after all. D*mn.
»» Submitted by kevin is ready for bed at 10:22 PM on January 14
If anyone wants a good look at the image in person, you can see it on 11th street on the side of Target's Corporate Headquarters.
In re: the whole talking to bloggers thing, they confirmed that as policy, they do not engage with bloggers and/or trade publications.
They don't engage with trade publications? Like if Advertising Age called about this, they'd respond with the same kind of bullshit canned response? Or if Retail World Today (or whatever) wanted to do a feature on them they would give it? Jason, come on, where was the follow up on that?
»» Submitted by »»» PwrGeek at 10:27 PM on January 14
On a related note, the rudest people on MNSpeak are the people who don't use their real names and/or have links to their blogs. The more human people are online, the more humane they seem to act.
Furreal? This argument again? MnSpeak allows anonymous postings. So bitching about people who don't want to register is pointless -- if it's not your bag, don't visit this site. But seriously, let's retire this "argument." It doesn't advance the conversation in any way. And it annoys the crap out of me.
»» Submitted by Again? at 10:28 PM on January 14
I'd trust Target to influence my (future) kids over that lady.
The ad? She's making a snow angel. That's what snow angels look like, unless you have an angry mom who makes you make snow tadpoles instead, I guess.
Kevin, the people dealing with DeRusha make good money. The people who deal with pissy emails from customers (even sent to specific departments) are probably customer service reps who make $9/hour and have their pee breaks timed by management.
»» Submitted by yepnope at 10:30 PM on January 14
yepnope, do they get longer if they have to drop a deuce?
»» Submitted by »»» PwrGeek at 10:33 PM on January 14
I sure hope so. For everyone's sake.
Nice spot on the trade magazine thing- that is really bizarre.
»» Submitted by yepnope at 10:36 PM on January 14
Interesting in what is considered "non-traditional" media as online advertising was considered non-traditional not so long ago. Ahhh, the good ole' days.
And I love those Equinox commercials. If moving to Chicago or NYC to join an Equinox club gets a rockin' bod guy to come do back bends at my dinner table - I'm so there.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 10:46 PM on January 14
I wonder if they take "non-traditional" retailers seriously?
PwrGeek, as much as it appears that I'm a paid journalist reporting for MnSpeak, the trade newspaper issue was not of concern for my purposes today.
I just thought people here would find it interesting. I assume they have a PR blanket policy that keeps them out of the pages of Grocery Today. It lets them focus on local hometown newspapers and TV stations, read by customers. I presume they make exceptions to the blanket policy.
Nice, Mr. Kohler! What's really funny about the non-traditional retailer that you chose is that not too long ago Target partnered with Amazon.com.
And really, so what if the e-mail was from a parent or as a blogger. Whether it's "policy" or not to work with non-traditional media, a simple nice response would have gone a long way. Even if she was the only consumer to respond to the billboard, it would have taken just as much time to send a nice e-mail response as it did the blow-off one.
It's just disappointing that Target turned a non-story into a story. The missteps they have made in the last year seem so silly.
.... If only they would bring back the survey.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 11:26 PM on January 14
Wow. This thread is one of the livelier after-hours threads we've ever had. Nice.
More from DeRusha.
Mollyp: "On top of that, if THAT ad is part of a conspiracy to turn young women into promiscuous robots..."
You had me at "promiscuous robots".
There is a school of thought that says that now all talking about an edgy Target marketing campaign and how daring and controversial it is, then the campaign has served its purpose and has incrementally added some value to the idea of Target as a daring brand, a la French Connection UK.
Although whether Target can afford to piss off the more stolid consumers whose daughters they are marketing to is an exercise for their number crunchers.
In my view, the whole Facebook idiocy was a bad misstep, and Target's later actions seemed to confirm that impression. But this campaign seems a lot more calculated and that picture left a lot of wiggleroom while still sending an unmistakable message. After all, they could have just as easily claimed the pic was supposed to look like a peace sign.
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 7:59 AM on January 15
I didn't see anything suggestive about that picture. The clothing is anything but alluring. It looks like a girl playing in the snow.
»» Submitted by The Rat at 8:06 AM on January 15
Well, exactly. But, as you know, the complaint is that the center of the target also just happens to be focused on her groin.
I'm sure that's not entirely coincidence but it certainly leaves a lot of room for interpretation. The rest of the controversy occurred because of Target's alleged treatment of a blogger, which is interesting to me because it is the first case I can think of where blowing off a blogger has given a company so much publicity for its campaign. If that was deliberate, it was quite brilliant.
Besides, most people won't remember that the chatter began because a blogger got ignored, they'll remember the controversy over the ad.
Probably a net win for Target, if their sums are right, and they can afford to piss off The Base of non-youth-consumers.
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 8:16 AM on January 15
So, lemme get this straight...she's offended by a totally clad woman (in mittens, scarf, and a hat, no less) making a snow angel on a Target symbol? And then she's miffed that a multimillion dollar company doesn't take her gripe seriously?
What's next, is she going to claim that the Welch's Grape Juice commercials exploit children?
She's probably one of those moms that doesn't let her daughter wear makeup or watch movies rated PG-13 or higher.
»» Submitted by »»» aliecat at 8:18 AM on January 15
Target's alleged treatment of a blogger,
The Founder and Executive Director of Youth Somethingorother.
I don't have enough interest in this anymore to look it up,
»» Submitted by The Rat at 8:21 AM on January 15
So? I'll have you know I'm the charter member and El Presidente Hasta Muerte of the International Consumer Research Symposium. Web page to come.
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 8:32 AM on January 15
I've decided I'm going to the be Founder and Director of something or another. That title doesn't mean anything. She is a single person with an axe to grind. Nothing more nothing less. I hope the next Target debacle isn't about someone not being able to return a sweater without a receipt.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 8:35 AM on January 15
It would be disquietingly amusing if it came out later that she was actually contracted to Target.
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 8:37 AM on January 15
So? I'll have you know I'm the charter member and El Presidente Hasta Muerte of the International Consumer Research Symposium. Web page to come.
As Vyvyan from The Young Ones would say, "Viva El Pesidente!"
»» Submitted by SpellsGood at 8:42 AM on January 15
Max, will you put Jason on the payroll so he can focus on us?
»» Submitted by »»» PwrGeek at 8:47 AM on January 15
Oliver, your conspiracy theories are gorgeous. :)
»» Submitted by »»» aeklund at 8:54 AM on January 15
The other thing that seems a little hinky...did she actually call or write Target or did she just send them an email linking to her site? Can anyone glean from various cut and copy crap in the post how Target was contacted?
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 9:04 AM on January 15
But, as you know, the complaint is that the center of the target also just happens to be focused on her groin.
I'm sure that's not entirely coincidence but it certainly leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
I should ask my friend, who is a graphic designer, but I'd bet on coincidence. The ad seems to follow a fairly basic graphic design layout.
The bullseye logo is going to be the central element of the ad. Other elements are naturally going to revolve around that, and so you end up with a model centrally positioned on the key element. Notice that the hands and feet are fairly symmetrically positioned on the bullseye as well.
I suppose that a couple of interns might have chuckled at it when they saw it. Probably the same guys that would say "heh, you said duty."
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 9:16 AM on January 15
In college, I had a professor who would point to this ad and inform us that many ads are filled with hidden sexual messages. Then he would show us a bunch with phallic symbols and the like. (He swung more in that direction...) I too think it was completely unintentional. I do not find it the least bit offensive.
Having said that, Target could have responded better.
If any of you have ever worked in management over at T-Town you'd see that this is quite normal. They will be spending the next several weeks in many, many :30 minute Fast, Fun and Friendly meetings discussing this and how they should react. They will then hire someone to tell them what to do.
»» Submitted by Saloth Sar at 9:22 AM on January 15
Aeklund: "Oliver, your conspiracy theories are gorgeous. :)"
And like all really good conspiracy theories, the lack of direct evidence is proof of the conspiracy. After all, anyone smart and Machiavellian enough to pull off something like that would have covered their tracks very well, so we'll never hear about it.
Mnblrmkr: "
I suppose that a couple of interns might have chuckled at it when they saw it." Possibly. But lots of graphic designers are subtle people who enjoy playing with layered concepts and themes. These will sometimes include an inside joke that's serves as a knowing nod-and-a-wink, but done in such a way that no one will lose their job over it.
That's how things like this Time Magazine cover happen.
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 9:31 AM on January 15
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 9:32 AM on January 15
I'd hate to think what she would think of this image.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 9:36 AM on January 15
I can testify to trying to push the envelope in my work all the time. The only thing to get nixed was a topless woman on the beach shown from the back. I do like the imagery of the Time cover. Good design gets a reaction and Target's Times Square billboard did just that from some persnickety mom with too much time on her hands. It's a woman wearing full winter attire, if she was wearing a 2-piece bikini and pointing suggestively at her 'region' it would be different.
»» Submitted by »»» sornie at 9:36 AM on January 15
Mpls Simpleton: How could anyone object to such a well-proportioned young man?
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 9:37 AM on January 15
Okay someone's going to have to clue me in on the Time mag thing.
»» Submitted by kevin at 9:41 AM on January 15
*cracks knuckles*
You've never heard of "goatse"?
It will be my pleasure to clue you in. But I wouldn't do it from a work computer if I were you.
Step 1) When you're at home, go to Google images and do a search on "goatse". Make sure you've switched off 'safesearch'.
Step 2) Revel.
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 9:43 AM on January 15
or search for ascii goatse for a safer pic hehe.
That woman should be glad she didn't visit Times Square before Guillani.
»» Submitted by Christine at 9:47 AM on January 15
No, no, no.
Kevin should feel free to google and visit it all he wants from work.
»» Submitted by »»» mnblrmkr at 9:47 AM on January 15
IMHO someone who claims the ad is sexual (subliminal or otherwise) has some real problems and issues of their own. Maybe a borderline Ashcroft complex (see: covering up the nekkid DOJ statute)?
Upon seeing the image for the first time, my most immediate thought was "snow angels," too.
Some people call me prude
I think that Target's lewd
I blogged about the Red & White
They told me to get screwed
»» Submitted by The Controversial One at 9:56 AM on January 15
Something about Target seems almost as evil as Wal-Mart (but not quite) I just can't put my finger its bullseye of evil.
»» Submitted by »»» Bixby at 9:58 AM on January 15
In reading all of the different blogs it seems like this Chick contacted Target and tried to get a response by saying she was the founder and exec director of some blog. If she had called as Amy Jussel she would have received a much different response but since she thought she had to try to throw her blog weight around they slapped her down.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 10:00 AM on January 15
OH good god I've heard of goatse. It would have taken a million years for me to connect thsoe two dots, and that's saying something, because if my mind is one place, it's in the gutter, but I'm always the last one to see these sublminable images.
»» Submitted by kevin at 10:03 AM on January 15
People complaining about this ad is one of the reasons America sucks. She should now go forth with her second God given American right (whining being the first) and sue Target for a bazillion dollars. Yay!
The other thing that seems a little hinky...did she actually call or write Target or did she just send them an email linking to her site? Can anyone glean from various cut and copy crap in the post how Target was contacted?
I emailed Jussel yesterday before writing the MNMON piece; she used the contact form on Target's website, then followed up with a phonecall to Target HQ. My very polite call to Target media relations didn't get a reply yesterday; but my email this morning to the Target rep Jason mentioned in the WCCO piece did. I'll talk to her this afternoon.
I guess the real issue here is how corporations are going to deal with directed advertising in the future where every ad you put out can immediately be seen across the world.
It is common to send targeted advertising to people based on their preferences. Is an ad like this in NYC or MSP going to be used in Little Rock? Probably not. Should people in Little Rock be offended by an ad that was not intended for them to see?
Doesn't this lead to the dumbing down of everything to the lowest common denominator? If Betsy in Little Rock is offended shouldn't we all be? Isn't that worse than a corporation not licking the henie of one person who never actually saw the ad in person?
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 10:14 AM on January 15
My very polite call to Target media relations didn't get a reply yesterday;
Is every person with a blog media?
So you intentionally tried to bypass the typical way to contact Target? Would a typical shopper call media relations if they had an issue? No. They would call the guest services line.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 10:17 AM on January 15
Um, as Jason says, this ad from Times Square is also on the side of Target's corporate offices.
But you raise a good point: distributive technologies put such messages everywhere. If Target really doesn't respond to "nontraditional media" -- still not sure what that means: is their definition based on corporate ownership, reach, medium or demographic? -- they seem ill-equipped to deal with the realities that come along with such technologies...
Mpls Simpleton: "Is every person with a blog media?"
Potentially.
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 10:19 AM on January 15
Mpls Simpleton: I'm a member of the media, and I called Target Media Relations. That's how it's supposed to be done in my line of work.
Potentially.
Scary! An army of people with no need to fact check, little to no potential liability and unlimited access to 10 of 10's people.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 10:22 AM on January 15
I still don't understand why Target is being vilified for not immediately responding to every freelancer trying to dig for information. Seems like traditional media didn't have the same issues.
I guess bloggers and freelance writers still have a long way to go before they are respected.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 10:25 AM on January 15
I think we need a new tag. Blogger Whining about Lack of Respect
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 10:31 AM on January 15
Mpls Simpleton: You're right, in that much depends on what the blogger is bitching about, and their tenacity/verve. The initial size of the audience doesn't really matter if they know what they're about.
You might want to read about the Houston Doubletree hotel if you want to see how these things can get badly out of hand. That little chain started from an email list of four people.
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 10:33 AM on January 15
if she was wearing a 2-piece bikini and pointing suggestively at her 'region' it would be different.
heh...region...heh heh...
»» Submitted by »»» aliecat at 10:34 AM on January 15
I guess bloggers and freelance writers still have a long way to go before they are respected.
If I was in corporate communications (oh wait, I kind of am), I wouldn't respond to every blogger either; however, I wouldn't make a blanket statement that my company doesn't communicate with non-traditional media, especially considering that non-traditional media dollars just bypassed radio in terms of ad spending.
»» Submitted by »»» aeklund at 10:35 AM on January 15
That Houston Double Tree situation is the exact thing that is so insidious about the blogging. One person has a problem that may or may not be an isolated incident. They create something that is quite funny and viral and the truth is lost along the way.
What I see in the near future is no one believing anything they read in a blog thus destroying the potential wealth of personal reporting by the few bloggers that actually have any journalistic integrity. Let's remember that a perception of an issue is not the same as an actual issue or at least shouldn't be.
It seems most blogs are really more about the ego of the blogger than the truth.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 10:43 AM on January 15
It seems most blogs are really more about the ego of the blogger than the truth.
this is just a microcosm of the direction that our look-at-me society is headed as a whole. Life in the age of media oversaturation.
»» Submitted by grote at 10:49 AM on January 15
Also, that blogging mom is a fucking idiot and I wish there was a bullseye on her face so that more people could punch her in it. I mean...
»» Submitted by »»» Bixby at 10:54 AM on January 15
It is common to send targeted advertising to people based on their preferences. Is an ad like this in NYC or MSP going to be used in Little Rock? Probably not. Should people in Little Rock be offended by an ad that was not intended for them to see?
This isn't "targeted" advertising as it's in more places than just NYC. But, I've seen that billboard and it's in Times Square - tourist central - well, next to MOA, of course. It's meant for the world to see.
Anyway, whether you agree with the blogger/mom or not, it has really become about the fact that Target did respond and responded in such a "you're nothing to us" kind of way.
It's one thing to piss off your customer, but to piss on a customer who knows how to spread the word quickly? Prolly not a good way to "keep it like a secret."
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 10:54 AM on January 15
Mpls Simpleton: I understand what you're saying and technically, those guys were in the wrong. But they were angry consumers and they found a clever outlet for their revenge, which was quite disproportionate in its PR damage to the nature of the perceived slight in the first place.
As for overall credibility, it's just another commodity these days. Bill O'Reilly will swear blind that he's non-partisan, and hundreds of thousands of people listen to what he says. Niche media and the Internet has made post-modernists of us all.
Truthfully, there wasn't all that much the Double Tree could do about that, other than to have made sure their night staff were better trained in customer care.
On the plus side, I find it vaguely refreshing that an individual can legally bring it to a big company in such a personal and potentially damaging way. Unfortunately for the head office, there wasn't much they could do once this was being circulated (whereas a blogger could at least publish a retraction or a follow up explaining that the issue had been dealt with).
It's a matter of realizing one's responsibilities and picking one's battles. But they should teach that Double Tree example in every modern marketing and customer relations business course.
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 10:58 AM on January 15
I think there is some deceit by this woman. She contacted Target as a one person organization trying to complain and when she didn't get an immediate response she was pissed and posted saying that as a consumer she was treated badly.
The truth or any semblance will never be known.
Let's see the email she sent to Target.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 11:12 AM on January 15
The woman is damned either way. If she had contacted Target as a mom and everyone found out later that she's also a watchdog blogger, everyone would be bitchin' that she didn't "disclose" who she really is.
I'm so glad I don't have kids who are influenced by the world at large, that I don't have a blog, and that bacon is still a top 3 on the fave list.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 11:22 AM on January 15
Mpls Simpleton, do you work at Target?
Everyone else, might Bixby's psychotic comment be considered over-the-line?
»» Submitted by Huh? at 11:24 AM on January 15
might Bixby's psychotic comment be considered over-the-line?
She thinks she's a comic, so it's ok apparently.
»» Submitted by ha ha at 11:27 AM on January 15
Over the line or moronic?
»» Submitted by »»» roadking at 11:28 AM on January 15
The woman is damned either way. If she had contacted Target as a mom and everyone found out later that she's also a watchdog blogger, everyone would be bitchin' that she didn't "disclose" who she really is.
This is a classic strawman argument. Who are these everypeople that would be upset?
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 11:34 AM on January 15
It's people like the nit-picking blogging mommy who is so overly sure that because she sees some deeply veiled sexuality in a billboard in the center of America's biggest city that it will surely corrupt each and every child because, hell, if her mind immediately jumps to sexual connotations from a billboard then surely a child's mind would do the same. Or maybe she (mommy) is a closet pervert who is unable to accept that she has sexual thoughts. Or maybe, and this is a long shot, she is a human whose mind has sexual thoughts and has too much time on her hands to overanalyze a damn billboard but with spare time, a person's mind is bound to look deep into subject matter. It is what it is -- a billboard.
»» Submitted by »»» sornie at 11:35 AM on January 15
Wow, check out the anonawuss answering its own questions.
That's not fucking shithouse nuts at all!
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 11:41 AM on January 15
Actually, they're different anonywusses.
Well, simpleton, you got me there.
Ok, not EVERYONE.
»» Submitted by »»» Cat at 11:43 AM on January 15
Based on past activity, you can scarcely blame for me thinking ill of a good segment of our anonymous poster(s).
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 11:45 AM on January 15
Oh, I don't.
And max I have stated in multiple posts. Do away with the 8 character registration name cap and I will register today. You always ignore the question so I do not register. No one has ever given a reasonable explanation why it was capped at 8 characters.
And Max I have been around here longer than you.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 11:47 AM on January 15
I have no control over that. I just provide content and moderation.
And I'm pretty sure that Tuecer wasn't referring to you in his complaint against anonywusses.
Cat, I wasn't picking on the absoluteness of your statement but I don't think you could find anyone that would be upset if a singular person contacted Target and then reveiled later they were a one person blog.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 11:51 AM on January 15
I misspelled teucer. What's the rule again? U before e except after t?
Ye Olde Teucher, Esquire.
»» Submitted by »»» justpbob at 11:55 AM on January 15
No, I didn't mean you Mpls Simpleton (unless you're ever prone to posting under a different handle just to bitch people out).
Max: The rules are, there are no rules. In fact, that's not even a rule, more of a guideline.
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 11:58 AM on January 15
There are enough moronic things (myself included on occasion) said on here just pointing them out would take a life time. Who has time to bitch people out?
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 12:09 PM on January 15
I do find it interesting that the Parents for Ethical Marketing seem to have an issue with gender specific t-shirts for kids.
And Targets choice of gendered t-shirts (also from todays Weekly Ad):
Doesn't this show the crackpot status of groups like this?
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 12:14 PM on January 15
"This is a classic strawman argument. "
Not really.
»» Submitted by »»» kurtis at 12:21 PM on January 15
Damn I work so hard to not mix up my fallacies.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 12:22 PM on January 15
I think this woman's 15 minutes of flame are up.
»» Submitted by grote at 12:24 PM on January 15
There has to be a fallacy of discrediting arguments by pointing out that they are fallacies.
I'm guilty of that one myself.
I guess I should have paid more attention in my logic class. I did get a B and even had to leave the room to vomit during the final, (hung over not stress). I guess 20 years is a long time to try to remember that crap.
»» Submitted by Mpls Simpleton at 12:33 PM on January 15
i can't believe people get this upset over a billboard. if you are one of these people, you should really re-think your life. there is better thing to be getting upset over. people never cease to amaze me.
»» Submitted by HAHA at 1:20 PM on January 15
I'm currently reading The Omnivore's Dilemma
So right now I'm upset over the disgusting industrial food production system in this country. Seems more important than some spread-legged tart.
»» Submitted by »»» adam at 1:37 PM on January 15
So right now I'm upset over the disgusting industrial food production system in this country.
Bite me, adam.
»» Submitted by Corn Guy at 1:40 PM on January 15
kevin: "OH good god I've heard of goatse."
It's not enough to only have heard of goatse.
"No one can be told what Goatse is. You must see it for yourself."
»» Submitted by »»» teucer at 1:43 PM on January 15
Nah, I'll let wikipedia tell me, thank God.
»» Submitted by Lunch! at 1:48 PM on January 15
Whatever, Corn Dude!
Read the book, everyone! Don't believe Monsanto/ConAgra's lies!
These vast, monoculture swaths of genetically modified, petroleum fertilized corn will be the death (or at least very fat ass) of us! Resist!
»» Submitted by »»» adam at 2:03 PM on January 15
I just finished "A World Without Us" by St. Louis Park native Alan Weisman. See interview with Weisman in MinnPost.
»» Submitted by »»» justpbob at 2:08 PM on January 15
Justbob, how was that book? I have been wanting to read it, and I just finished listening to him lecture on NPR earlier today. Very fascinating.
»» Submitted by »»» tara_r at 2:28 PM on January 15
IMO, he losses his focus in some parts, and misses some answering some questions altogether -- but some neat stuff in there, just the same.
»» Submitted by »»» justpbob at 2:36 PM on January 15
some answering some?
I need ethanol!
»» Submitted by »»» justpbob at 2:41 PM on January 15
There's a book called "Evolution" that tells a fictionalized story from the ancestors of humans about 100 million years ago through our descendents 500 million years from now. "A World Without Us" sounds a lot like the last third or so of the book.
»» Submitted by Elizabeth at 3:22 PM on January 15
Everyone who disses ethanol and biodiesel should read the chapter on oil refineries, and what would happen if suddenly no one was around to keep them from exploding into a toxic nightmare that would poision the air, soil and water for generations.
»» Submitted by »»» justpbob at 3:37 PM on January 15
Hey BOb, this isn't a thread about ethanol.
I would suggest everyone look at today's source section cover in the STrib. It's a photo of a dog, with it's junk hanging out. And the head is the black guy from American Idol. Racism!
»» Submitted by just sayin' at 3:55 PM on January 15
Actually, we were talking about books, a subject I suspect you know little about. Well, except the coloring kind...
Hey, just saying!
»» Submitted by »»» justpbob at 4:07 PM on January 15
I did notice the unneutered dog on the cover of the Source...gross...what would the Humane Society think???
»» Submitted by »»» aliecat at 4:08 PM on January 15
Great follow-up on the angle of Target not communicating with bloggers at Minn Mon. Well done, Paul.
Thanks. I should've had that kind of info in the first piece, but y'know...
»»» = registered user. click on it to see the user's profile.
8 Trackbacks:
E-Media Tidbits - Zell Nixes Tribune's Internet Filters: Poynter online. E-Media Tidbits. Friday, January 25, 2008. Posted by Peter M. Zollman 2:17:23 PM Zell Nixes Tribune's Internet Filters Almost without comment. (What more can be said?) ...
E-Media Tidbits - The Independent's New Site: The Real Change Isn ...: Poynter online. E-Media Tidbits. Thursday, January 24, 2008. Posted by Paul Bradshaw 12:18:44 PM The Independent's New Site: The Real Change Isn't Technical UK daily The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk) has relaunched its site ...
E-Media Tidbits - Getting Smart About News Podcasts: Poynter online. E-Media Tidbits. Wednesday, January 23, 2008. Posted by Amy Gahran 4:34:45 PM Getting Smart About News Podcasts Like many net users, I get a lot of my news via podcasts. I've sampled several news podcasts and have ...
E-Media Tidbits - Mini-Tidbits: Cribbing from Blogs? More...: Poynter online. E-Media Tidbits. Tuesday, January 22, 2008. Posted by Amy Gahran 1:00:37 PM Mini-Tidbits: Cribbing from Blogs? More... Yahoo Mass Layoff Plan Confirmed, Exact Number TBD ...
E-Media Tidbits - And Now, the Blogger in Chief: Poynter online. E-Media Tidbits. Monday, January 21, 2008. Posted by Steve Klein 12:35:01 PM And Now, the Blogger in Chief Since I first looked (http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=135626) at the new White House blog, ...
E-Media Tidbits - Why Is Baidu Beating Google in China?: Poynter online. E-Media Tidbits. Friday, January 18, 2008. Posted by Fons Tuinstra 11:50:50 AM Why Is Baidu Beating Google in China? Why does the search engine Baidu (http://www.baidu.com) have three times Google's market share in China ...
E-Media Tidbits - Are Bloggers Media Or Not? (37th ed. and Counting): Poynter online. E-Media Tidbits. Thursday, January 17, 2008. Posted by Maryn McKenna 11:19:42 AM Are Bloggers Media Or Not? (37th ed. and Counting) If you've opened a magazine or entered a big-city public space in the US in the past few ...
UPDATE: Target ads, television news, and why I should get a life: A vast majority of the comments to my two posts on the Target ad came as a reaction to the WCCO-TV story aired last night. Seems the majority of TV-watching commenters do not see anything offensive about the image. ...
|
|
|
