Target Corporation assumes feminism is dead; dismisses bloggers
Does the Target Corporation really think that no one cares about this?
Shaping Youth’s founder Amy Jussel found the image that Target was using for advertising just a *tad* disturbing:
After seeing a photo of the Times Square Billboard, Amy wrote about it on her blog. She also called the media people at Target Corporation, left her concern, her contact information, and a request for a call back. This is what she got:
Good Morning Amy,
Thank you for contacting Target; unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with non-traditional media outlets. This practice is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest.
Once again thank you for your interest, and have a nice day.
Emphasis mine. Needless to say, Amy doesn’t take this response very well.
My, my . . . how terribly, terribly naive from a corporate marketing standpoint.
. . . their arrogance and naivete is REALLY making me consider this ‘dismissal of citizen journalism’ . . .
Would Target have responded if the “non-traditional media outlet” was something closer to home? The Twin Cities Daily Planet? Minnesota Monitor? The Blotter?
And does Target really think that their “core guests” don’t read blogs? A quick Google blog search of the words “went to Target” came up with almost 120,000 hits. I guess that’s blog writers.
At least she received a response. I sent an email (a version of this blog post) to Target Corporate via their online form (there wasn’t an option for “Report Offensive Advertising Images”). I let them know where they could find the complete blog post.
I got nothing.
I was ready to let the whole thing go and move on. But then this morning, with my morning cup of coffee and the Sunday Star Tribune, there she was again. In my Weekly Target Ad. On the screen of a portable DVD player.
The Target Corporation needs to acknowledge that this image is offensive and discontinue using it immediately. Is this so much to ask?
I’m done. Now I can get back to the concerns that drive Parents for Ethical Marketing: Target Corporation’s ability to monitor lead content in the toys they sell. And why Target continues to promote Bratz dolls. And Target’s choice of gendered t-shirts (also from today’s Weekly Ad):
And have a nice day.
Target billboard image courtesy Bennett4Senate
Comments are closed.
January 13th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Lisa, you should link to the Adrants discussion of this for an update and a peek at the conversation there! btw, kudos to you for bringing this to light locally…
Mind you, I LOVE Target as a brand, but I’m still on that ’should I light the match’ fence vs. using my media hours productively toward positive examples of media messaging…(this is where I wish I had a clone or funnel focus to an advocacy arm to just say ’sic ‘em’…hmn…actually…the more I think about it, maybe we should tap into CCFC & Dads and Daughters?
They’re both strong candidates for action there…after all, they got Hasbro to see the big picture on marketing the stripper dolls to 6 year olds and precluded the pole dancing Pussycat Dolls toys…right? What d’ya think? I sure don’t have the bandwidth and people power to mess with every one of these, as they’re SO DANGED PREVALENT it would keep me going 24/7! sigh. Thoughts?
January 14th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
[...] Jussel at Shaping Youth actually called Target to find out if they would comment on the ad. Parents for Ethical Marketing notes what happened next: After seeing a photo of the Times Square Billboard, Amy wrote about it on [...]
January 14th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Wow—-talk about subliminal images. But hey, that “target” is all we women are good for, right? (groan) I was just in Times Square yesterday and glad I missed the billboard or it would have p-ed me off all day.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Wow…do you realize that you people are really overreacting? I’m sure the people at Target were thinking, “How can we make women look like sex objects today?” You need to get your priorities straight.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Would you still be outraged if this was a man?
January 15th, 2008 at 3:09 am
If this is as “innocent” as Target claims, then why not replace the spread eagle girl (with the hint of a camel’s toe) with a handsome, spread eagle man and the hint of a nice package protruding his tight white pants. Snow Angel never even comes to mind, in either scenario. This Snow Angle looks more like she’s in position for bondage than for moving snow.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:06 am
If this add bothers you, you are too easily offended. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Honestly, you people should be ashamed of yourselves for thinking that a women laying down making snow angels is offensive.
When is the last time you turned off “Sex in the City” and actually put on your snow gear and went outside and interacted with your kids?
Maybe it’s about time.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
This. Ad. Is. Not. Offensive.
Seriously – I was the angry young feminist, grew into the proactive adult feminist, and am very concerned about what images my baby daughter will be faced with in the media.
But to focus on this truly innocuous picture is a laughable waste of valuable time and energy.
It’s Minnesota. It snows. She is making a snow angel. To view more than that or to ascribe lewd intentions on the part of Target really says more about the viewer in this case.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
There is absolutely no way of assuming that this girl is in the middle of making a snow angel! Where did that come from, except from Target defensively proclaiming that is what she was doing! There is no snow. She has winter clothes on. Those are the only two facts. Why does it mean she is making a snow angel? I would never have paralleled this girl with a snow angel by simply looking at the photo. The man skating on the logo is self-explanatory…he has skates on. The subliminal attempts are blatant.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
“Where did that come from?” Are you serious? Target didn’t have to “tell” me that that is what is being depicted. I looked at it and…. voila! Saw a snow angel. And that’s all.
You are completely reaching here, and searching for something (anything!) to be offended by. This kind of stuff does real damage to the credibility of any SERIOUS critique of sexism in the media.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
It’s too bad that you people can’t use this type of energy at other more worldly important issues… sad & pathetic.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I’m still confused as to why this image would be found “blatantly sexist?” It seems as though no blogs or articles actually explain how this is offensive. All they state is the fact that this is offensive…
January 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Why is it offensive to me personally? Well…gee…Spread-eagle stance, V pointing to her vagina…Target logo on the V spot…normalization of objectification by a ‘family friendly’ retailer where I shop…A 12-year old daughter that I’d like to raise without media messages bombarding her with cues that her self-worth and purpose on the planet is tied to being a vessel for sex. etc. etc.
Now, that said, I will add this ad is MINUTIAE in the big picture of global context of sexualization imagery & objectification…so I agree, we should not give it too much weight.
I’d prefer to take the dialog in a different direction so that ‘mainstream media’ can grok the problem and the issue if it is that hard to discern. (otherwise it will continue to be trivialized via the ‘over-reaction’ arena which is where it’s living now…)
Here’s what I wrote on one of the new Mn. blogs linking to us, where we’ve been ‘under fire’ disrupting our operations over the last 48 hours as a nonprofit do-gooder trying to accentuate the positive.
“Hello, it’s Amy Jussel with Shaping Youth, of the S.F. Bay area here…(thank gawd I don’t live in the Twin Cities w/this absurd brouhaha; poor Lisa Ray in Mn., judging from the wacko-factor backlash I’m getting out here!) Guess this is getting the microlens because of the mildness of the ad in comparative context, but hey, they never offered ‘context’ because they wouldn’t return the freakin’ call to comment!
Frankly this is a ‘non-story’ for the positive social change work we’re doing here at ShapingYouth…we’ve covered blatant instances of ‘sexualized ad slop’ (media loves that line for some reason) so this one pales by comparison.
The only ‘news’ here is the normalization of objectification via a family firm, mega-retailer who then dissed ‘non-traditional media’ when I called to fact-check their motivation, and see if they were playing the ‘feign cluelessness but be as crass/clever as you can’ advertising card.
I wish the ‘mainstream media’ & blogosphere would either elevate the dialog to a much larger context of objectification/ambient advertising and the impact on pop culture, or bury it in the circular file of corporate idiocy and customer service blunders to learn from.
As it is, ‘tarzshay’ could easily inspire copycat corps to mirror the tactics of free press controversy as an ad strategy.
Out of thousands of our posted topics (using the power of media for positive change, Twitter fundraising to send orphans to college in 24 hours, Age of Conversation global social media raising $11K for children’s charity) worthy media literacy, ecology, nutrition, and global counter-marketing programs for kids, THIS is the blog post that’s pulled for ‘mainstream media’ attention?
What a shame. What a loss. What a lousy target. sigh.”
–Amy Jussel, Founder, Shaping Youth
January 16th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
[...] Parents for Ethical Marketing has a good write up about it. [...]