Missing the Target
In February, Black faith leaders, led by the Rev. Dr. Jamal Harrison Bryant, called for a Target Fast, or boycott, during Lent in response to the presumed rollback of Target’s DEI commitments. The fast began on March 5 and continues through April 17. In theory, the Target Fast sounds like a great idea – a way for the Black community to use our collective buying power to demonstrate what we will or will not stand for. In practice, however, I think the fast is missing the target. On the one hand, I agree that we should do whatever we can to hold Target accountable for its so-called commitment to DEI. On the other hand, I have doubts about the long-term efficacy of a boycott, and I’m not sure whether or not it is Target we should be boycotting. For example, multiple Black vendors rely on Target to build their brands across its nearly 2,000 stores nationwide. There is no Black-owned general merchandise retailer that has that kind of reach or bandwidth. Still, I’m mindful that the company’s DEI rollback may put future partnerships in jeopardy – only time will tell.
I have heard Black faith leaders correlate the Target Fast to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, but I don’t know if we’re comparing apples to apples. The Montgomery Bus Boycott wasn’t reactive like the Target Fast. It was planned well before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat. Furthermore, the Montgomery Bus Boycott was originally a one-day boycott that ultimately lasted 13 months. So, I ask, have we considered the implications of a boycott? Can we sustain a boycott for over a year? I don’t know what the Black faith leaders have discussed in private, but I believe the Target Fast is missing the target for the reasons listed below:
The Target Fast is not strategic because it’s reactive.
The Target Fast is unsustainable because of the scale, accessibility, and affordability of Target versus Black-owned businesses.
The Target Fast is misguided because it misappropriates the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
Before I dive into my points, I want to review how we got here. First, I will discuss how George Floyd’s murder impelled corporate America to make pledges that they claimed would address systemic racism. Second, I will discuss Target’s rollout and rollback from DEI. Third, I will discuss the Black community’s response to Target’s DEI rollback and how it led to the Target Fast. Fourth, I will discuss some concerns that Tabitha Brown and Melissa Butler, prominent Black vendors at Target, shared that could result in unintended consequences.
Following George Floyd’s murder, America was seemingly on the verge of a makeover. The term “systemic racism” was making its way into the public lexicon, and more people were proclaiming “Black Lives Matter.” The country seemed open to addressing the nation’s painful past to lay ground for a fortuitous future. Fortune 1000 companies pledged $340 billion toward racial equity initiatives between May 2020 and October 2022, but there were indications that money alone wouldn’t solve the problem.
Malia Lazu, a Lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management, describes precisely the issue with companies making pledges to address systemic racism. Lazu stated in a public talk that:
There are many problems with pledges, first being that it was a reaction to a horrific event and not actually a response to systemic racism.
Her statement raised the question: “How will companies react when there is a backlash against DEI?” As you know, numerous companies have made a U-turn. Now, companies can blame the Supreme Court’s gutting of affirmative action or executive orders from President Trump for their DEI rollbacks. But at the end of the day, they have decided that Black people just aren’t worth the fight they claimed to be committed to fighting.
Target Corporation is one of many companies that claimed they were fighting the good fight. On June 5, 2020, Target announced a $10 million commitment and ongoing resources to advance social justice. Chairman and CEO Brian Cornell stated that “Target stands with Black families.” By the end of summer 2020, the company had established a Racial Equity Action and Change (REACH) committee to “drive lasting impact” for Black “team members” (employees) and “guests” (customers). Target also released a Workforce Diversity Report that aimed to increase the representation of Black team members across the company by 20 percent over three years. The company kept the ball rolling in 2021 because they planned to spend over $2 billion with Black-own businesses by 2025 and gave an update on their progress in 2022 to let the record show they were “serious” about addressing racial equity. They even added a fund to help Black businesses market their products.
But then, they had to rethink their approach. The Supreme Court overturned affirmative action in 2023, Donald Trump was elected president in 2024, and the federal government began its assault on DEI in 2025. On January 24, Executive Vice President and Chief Impact and Equity Officer Kiera Fernandez sent a memo to Target employees announcing a new initiative: “Belonging at the Bullseye.” You can read the memo for yourself, but it’s vague. However, the fact sheet makes it clear that the new initiative will officially end REACH and its diversity, equity, and inclusion goals. The company’s new initiative does not mention anything about racial equity, leaving Black people to believe that they don’t belong at the bullseye.
It is for this reason that activists called for a nationwide boycott of Target stores, which inspired Jamal Harrison Bryant to call on 100,000 conscientious Christians to participate in the Target Fast during Lent. Given Black people spend at minimum $12 million at Target daily, he believes they have the leverage to force the company to reestablish their prior DEI commitments to the Black community. Bryant directed people to join the fast by signing a pledge at Targetfast.org to receive a business directory of Black-owned businesses, courtesy of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. He noted that the directory will feature Target’s Black vendors to ensure their businesses do not become collateral damage.
However, some Black vendors, like Tabitha Brown and Melissa Butler, shared their concerns about the boycott. Brown posted a video expressing her disappointment in Target’s DEI rollback and empathized with those who planned to boycott the company. However, she outlined how a boycott could negatively impact Black vendors. Brown noted that “it’s a process when it comes to business,” meaning Black vendors cannot just pull their inventory from Target’s shelves. Even if they could, there are financial constraints with storing inventory and maintaining efficiency. She feared that a boycott could potentially sabotage Black vendors and give Target justification for terminating partnerships. Therefore, Brown implored Black people to “play the game” and not let emotions guide their actions.
Melissa Butler also posted a video, sharing her disappointment in Target’s DEI rollback, but at the same time, she wasn’t “surprised.” From her perspective, the pledges that poured in following George Floyd’s murder were a “farce” because the political climate forced the business community’s hand. She asserted that President Trump’s attack on DEI has only “emboldened” companies to retreat from racial equity initiatives because they never truly intended to address systemic racism. In addition, Butler revealed that many Black vendors that Target partnered with have underperformed. As a result, she has witnessed the termination of several contracts. While Butler was unsure about the long-term implications of Target’s DEI rollback, she echoed Brown’s sentiment that a boycott will indeed affect Black vendors.
Brown and Butler were attacked for their opinions and called sellouts, which baffles me. All they wanted to do was help people understand the nuances and implications of a reactive boycott. Brown and Butler never told people not to boycott Target. They only wanted people to “think” before they “act.” It’s essential to keep in mind that their success is what we’re fighting for. Engaging in activities that could prevent Black vendors from leveraging Target for their benefit is counterintuitive and misses the target. Let me explain.
The Target Fast is not strategic because it’s reactive.
Target’s “Belonging at the Bullseye” strategy has been interpreted as a DEI rollback, and I agree to an extent. If the company stops using terms such as DEI, how can we truly produce a workplace that values diversity, equity, and inclusion? Still, I’m open to giving Target the benefit of the doubt if, and only if, they’re working behind the scenes to build upon their racial equity initiatives. For example, their strategy lists the following points:
We recruit and retain team members who represent the communities we serve and fuel a culture where everyone has access to opportunity and growth, enabling our team to deliver business results.
We aim to create joyful experiences through an assortment of products and services that help all guests feel seen and celebrated, increasing relevance with consumers.
We build deep and lasting relationships with the communities we serve, driving impact, economic vitality and connection that fuels loyalty.
This language presents an opportunity for Target to address Black people’s concerns, but we’ll see if Black people belong at the bullseye. I know you may be rolling your eyes because these points are ambiguous. Yes, the company ended its REACH initiatives and diversity, equity, and inclusion goals, but Target could simply be shifting its language to navigate the current political climate. Hear me out. What if Black faith leaders or “Bryant & Company” decided not to be reactive and preemptively call for a boycott? What if they had instead, made note of Target’s decision, monitored their progress or lack thereof, compiled data, and published a report that showed that the company’s new strategy fails to recruit and retain, create joyful experiences, or build deep and lasting relationships with Black people? They would then be more justified in launching a boycott.
Black faith leaders should refrain from impetuous decisions and focus on laying the groundwork for an efficient strategy. When Tabitha Brown and Melissa Butler expressed their concerns about the prospect of a boycott, Bryant & Company no longer had any business calling for a Target Fast. I don’t know if they met with Black Target vendors to discuss their concerns, but it seems like Black faith leaders aren’t on the same page with key stakeholders. I will assume that either no dialogue occurred or a conversation was had, but the good Lord told them to proceed despite reservations. We need to make sure we’re listening to Black women and looking out for Black vendors by developing a plan with their buy-in. Launching a boycott that inadvertently disrupts their sales at Target could negatively impact Black vendors because they lack leverage. There is a reason why they need corporate partnerships. If Black vendors could earn the same profit margin from direct sales, they wouldn’t need to partner with Target, or any major retailer for that matter.
The Target Fast is unsustainable because of the scale, accessibility, and affordability of Target versus Black-owned businesses.
Participants who signed a pledge for the Target Fast received a digital business directory from the National Black Chamber of Commerce that lists numerous Black-owned businesses.
Bryant claimed that people will have access to Black-owned products that they normally purchase at Target, which sounds great. Nonetheless, I’m nervous about the boycott’s practicality because I foresee a few challenges with patronizing Black-owned businesses. If I’m being honest, all Black-owned businesses aren’t equal. I’m also curious to know at what price point these businesses are selling products. Given the economies of scale, Black-owned businesses must increase the price of their goods compared to large companies like Target. Are enough Black people willing to pay a premium for the cause? Also, if these businesses have a storefront, is it easily accessible? Or would participants who rely on public transportation have to catch multiple buses or trains to patronize the businesses? Do businesses have a delivery service? If these businesses are digital, would shipping and handling charges be cost-prohibitive? Will their products arrive in a reasonable amount of time?
I question whether these Black-owned businesses have the capacity to fulfill the demand. Over 95 percent of Black-owned businesses are sole proprietorships, meaning they have no employees, and only 2.4 percent of Black-owned businesses are employer-firm owners, meaning they employ more than one person. It’s a tall task to ask Black-owned businesses to sustain a boycott long enough to force Target’s hand. I fear that the company will wait us out for 40 days because they know that even a network of Black-owned businesses can’t truly compete over the long haul. All you have to do is scan the Black Enterprise Top 100 companies, and you’ll soon realize that when it comes to finding a substitute for the many products the Black community purchases from Target, we are at a huge disadvantage because our largest companies aren’t general merchandise retailers.
The Target Fast is misguided because it misappropriates the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
When Harrison announced the Target Fast, he referenced the Montgomery Bus Boycott, stating, “What we learned from the Montgomery Bus Boycott is that racist America doesn’t respond to speeches. They respond to dollars.” While I agree with that statement, I don’t think the Target Fast has the potential to make history like the Montgomery Bus Boycott, for the reasons stated above, but also because of how it’s being executed. There are two points we need to keep in mind when considering the Montgomery Bus Boycott. First, the boycott was local – it only focused on Montgomery, Alabama. It was because of the Boycott’s targeted efforts that its effectiveness reached a national audience and became a watershed moment for the Civil Rights Movement. In contrast, the Target Fast is attempting to jumpstart a national movement. We must crawl before we walk. We must jog before we run.
Second, the boycott was planned far in advance. Jo Ann Robinson, President of the Women’s Political Council, along with other women, were prepared for a boycott before Rosa Parks’ incident. If you don’t know who Robinson is, I suggest you read her memoir, The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Women Who Started It. It would be a good read for Women’s History Month. Anyway, she wrote a letter to the Mayor of Montgomery, W.A. Gayle, on May 21, 1954, threatening a boycott due to ill-treatment on the public buses. The boycott didn’t start until December 5, 1955; thus, it was already in the works for at least 18 months. Meanwhile, the Target Fast was put together haphazardly. All you must do is visit its website to know this isn’t it.
Conclusion
As of March 5, there were reportedly 110,000 people who had signed up for the Target Fast, but the Black vendors at Target aren’t featured prominently in the directory. Instead, they’re placed towards the end, starting on page 220. It pains me to say that Black faith leaders are missing the target, but it needs to be said. If we think boycotting general merchandise retailers that Black people rely heavily on is going to force the business community to the table, we’re fooling ourselves. OfColor, a Black-owned financial wellness startup, discussed the folklore surrounding Black people’s buying power. The organization published an article that discussed the myth of a dollar lasting six hours within the Black community. The saying goes, if Black people only spent money in their communities, all would be well, but the math ain’t mathing. The article states:
The truth is that economies of scale make the goods and services offered by businesses in our communities likely more expensive…relatively lower levels of wealth and income in our communities may sometimes make spending outside of our communities a survival necessity.
Nevertheless, Bryant is convinced that we can shift our “economic ecosystem” and “start investing in ourselves.” If it were that easy, we would already be doing it. This is our issue – we don’t currently have a Black-owned business, or even a network of businesses that presents a viable threat to Target and would motivate them to explicitly reinvest in the Black community. That is why we’re spending millions at the company daily and will continue to do so until we find a suitable alternative. Until then, Black faith leaders should go back to the drawing board, research, strategize, and execute so We the Black people can aim at targets we can actually hit.
~One Negro, 3/17/25