//giphy.com/embed/wd0gRKt0iIejK?html5=true
For many, seeing that red bullseye on the side of a building is a sign of comfort. You are about to walk into Target, the epitome of a middle class woman’s dream. I personally have fallen victim of the $100 shopping trip at Target. You go in for one thing and come out with 60 other things you don’t need. Their cute clothes and adorable fall decorations always catch my eye. And I mean come on people… THERE IS A DOLLAR SECTION. How could you resist the beautiful $1 items?
So what does Target have to do with IMC?
Well, I would say everything. Target has a typology that is completely cohesive and consistent, meaning their brand and messages match their audience and the audience responses.
According to their website, Target was created to, “differentiate itself from other retail stores by combining many of the best department store features — fashion, quality and service — with the low prices of a discounter.” Target was created for the same purpose as Wal-Mart, except with a higher quality and more well-known brands. At its creation in 1962 (which is 10 years after Wal-Mart’s creation), the store was fairly simple and local in Minnesota. However, soon after its creation, Target turned into a national icon and the bullseye started popping up in cities all over the country.
To talk about the appeals of the brand, middle and lower class families were in the market for affordability and quality. Target reached these appeals by providing low prices for higher quality brands, just as they promised in their original mission statement. This is one of the first stores to appeal to a market that typically wouldn’t be able to afford it.
Higher class families wanted organic and earth friendly products and Target stepped up to the plate and provided organic produce and meat, as well as their own line of organic, Earth-friendly apparel: Made-to-Matter Clothing.
In the 1990s, Target truly set itself apart in terms of quality. Not only did Target create its own brand: Archer Farms and Market Pantry, it also collaborated with many other well known brands to set the bar of quality at a higher level. Some of the most well known collaborations started with Sonia Kashuk, Cindy Crawford, Tom’s Shoes, and of course Lily Pulitzer. These brands are now available for those that can’t typically afford it, creating a high quality lifestyle for all economic situations. Target didn’t differentiate from the inclusion and created the term known as “cheap chic.”
Target also made strides in matching their community support with what customers want to see in a corporation. Being one of the first corporations to get involved with charities and selling products that give back, separate them as an organization that not only has high quality products, but also high quality employees and customers. Customers feel that they are making a difference when they are able to purchase Tom’s Shoes or a Market Pantry organic produce. Their website shares stories of their charitable donations and the employee efforts to give back to the community. Customers of Target want a corporation that gives back and Target stepped up to the plate and took on community giving in a way that is inclusive to the customers and employees.
While I may seem a bit biased toward Target, from an IMC standpoint, Target is doing everything right in its efforts to keep a cohesive typology. From the values that they support, to the products they put on the shelves, Target has created a high quality market for all.
IMC Hawks Blog 
After watching a segment aired by CBS’s 60 Minutes a few years ago, my inherent hate of Walmart’s unscrupulous business approach was confirmed. From eradicating community businesses small and large, the unethical practice of reaping the rewards solely for monetary gain without rewarding their employees or the community they encroach upon, is unacceptable. Rural communities are essentially forced to patronize their ~5,000 stores through Walmart’s grand scheme of selling low quality goods made in China. After years of attrition of once viable competition, Walmart’s continued success is being built on the foundation of buying bulk goods manufactured by forced prison labor or sweat shops. The added insult to the average citizen is the price mark up is indexed slightly less than a comparably well made American product. Their multi-faceted approach of greed for the sake of Sam Walton’s blood lineage and their select stock holders is slowly eroding essence that defines fair competition.
Their corporate design of monopolizing the retail market through attrition of the local ma and pop stores is only the tip of the iceberg that defines the Walmart business model. Paying their employees minimum wages and the avoidance to offer legitimate benefits is side stepped by refusing to hire full time employees. This practice by design maximizes Walmart’s overall profit margin. Subsequently, Walmart executives insist this cost cutting practice helps maintain low shelf pricing. Superficially, their hiring practices may seem to be well within the accepted norm for teenagers but, their increased profit margin by refusing full time pay and benefits to self sufficient adults comes at a cost to the tax payer. Since part time employees are living at poverty levels, Walmart workers meet the minimal qualifications that will grant them food stamps, Section 8 Housing, and Medicaid. The shifting of the cost to tax payer in order to maximize profit for a select few can be interpreted as a form of social injustice. Yet, the Walton lineage, CEO’s, and stock holders are raking in billions of dollars. The tab of federally subsidizing their part time, low hourly paid employees is unjustifiable to both the Walmart workers and the average American taxpayer. The added insult to the intelligence of a wise consumer is further exemplified by affording applications to newly hired employees for Federal and State aid during their training/orientation period. The business paragon that defines Walmart is the loophole Capitalism didn’t see coming.
This is so relatable. I couldn’t tell you how many times I’ve gone into Target planning on spending maybe $10 and spending $100. The way the store is set up just lets you flow from one section to another and another, even if you start out looking at paper towels you’ll be in the shoe section within 15 minutes. Their quality and prices are good but I think also their customer service gives them a good reputation.
I have never identified with a blog post so much in my life. I am a huge fan of Target and would choose it over most other stores any day. By appealing to people of all incomes, Target kind of cornered the market. Although Walmart is a huge competitor, they seem to only focus on the price. Target has the trifecta. Their friendly staff, clean facility, and high quality/low price goods make them one of the leading retailers in the country. I completely agree, and think Target could show the world a thing or two about what IMC really is.
I completely agree- Target has done everything right in order to keep a cohesive typology. Throughout my whole life I have chosen Target over other department stores for a multitude of reasons. It’s clean, convenient, the staff is always beyond helpful, and the products sold are worth buying, even if they cost a little more. I would much rather pay more for a product knowing it will be good quality coming from Target, than spending less at another store.
I’ve always lived pretty far from target and never fell victim to the hype until moving to Wilmington. My first roommate preferred it so much that she walked from our apartment on College Road to target multiple times a week! Since my time at UNCW I’ve pretty much given up Walmart altogether and visit Target at least twice a week to buy at least $50 worth of items I’ll never need. It helps that they generally have a starbucks too!!