The once mighty Target’s stock fell to $90.46 in April 2025, dropping 63% from its highest point in 2021, as shoppers began to boycott the company.DEI policy reversals and failed nostalgia plays exposed more structural weaknesses at its core.
Target was known for bringing style and affordability, but today it’s struggling to survive. Changing shopper habits, more online competition, and growing political polarization of its brand have all imperiled this retailer.
One 40-day boycott alone wiped out $12.4 billion in market value, but this crisis did not happen overnight. It only hastened a years-long decline. America’s “Tarzhay” years are not returning because the economic, cultural, and technological conditions that created them have permanently ruptured.
The DEI Reversal That Broke the Social Contract
In January 2025, Target disbanded its racial justice initiatives and diversity hiring goals. Activist clergy answered with a 40-day Lenten boycott. The result was a $27.27 drop in Target’s stock price. It was a public relations catastrophe and wrecked the company’s long-standing reputation as a progressive and inclusive employer.
Leaked internal reports reveal DEI initiatives drove 19% of millennial loyalty program signups from 2020 to 2024, with inclusive product lines generating $2.3 billion/year. By alienating socially conscious shoppers without winning over conservative converts, Target violated its core promise: being “for everyone.” The backlash shows that the sell-by date of woke capitalism has expired.
Nostalgia Won’t Save a Broken Business Model
In March of 2025, Target executives reached for nostalgia, invoking “Tarzhay” 18 times across earnings calls as they disclosed a $5 billion initiative to reimagine stores. Anxious to recreate early-2000s magic, they ignored brutal realities: 75% of under-35 shoppers increasingly go to Amazon or Walmart for staples, and only 12% consider Target “innovative.”
Shein and Temu leave Target in the dust by refreshing apparel collections 200 times faster and at 40% lower prices. Target was once famous for affordable chic, but now it’s unable to differentiate itself. When even nostalgia becomes algorithmically commoditized, affective investments in physical stores are costly strategic liabilities.
The Tariff Trap and Consumer Spending Collapse
Target 2024 sales declined 0.8% despite online sales increasing, as retaliatory tariffs on Chinese imports worth $300B resulted in higher prices for 47% of goods. Fed data show that low-income households—41% of Target’s base—reduced discretionary spending by 22% in Q1 2025 amidst inflation.
Its private-label drive as a counter to tariffs failed: Only 3 of 15 fresh food labels met sales goals, as shoppers avoided an $8 “premium” for store-brand cereal in recession times. When your core customers choose Dollar Tree over Cat & Jack kids’ jeans, the model fails.
Walmart and Amazon’s Precision Retailing Juggernaut
Target’s 1.5% Q4 2024 comp sales increase trailed Walmart’s 6.3% and Amazon’s 11.2%, following existential tech failures. Walmart’s inventory platform, fueled by AI, avoids out-of-stocks by 89% compared to Target’s 63%, and Amazon’s same-day delivery reaches 90% of ZIP codes compared to Target’s 65%.
Other than tech, competitors avoid cultural backlash: Walmart’s rural consumers are mainly unaware of DEI controversies, and Amazon’s algorithm avoids politics completely. On the other hand, Target’s attempt to please both sides in a very polarized universe opens it up to constant culture-war backlash. Its big-tent strategy turns the brand into a lightning rod, not a haven, for contemporary consumers.
Private-Label Fantasies Meet Inflation Realities
Target invests $4 billion in private food and beverage brands to boost its profit margins, but the move clashes directly with consumer austerity. 2025 statistics show that 68% of consumers value price over brand allegiance today, a death knell for Up & Up and Good & Gather.
Walmart’s Great Value brand trumps Target’s private labels 3:1 by remaining simple, not elaborate, and organic snacks. Even Target’s style edge disappeared. Parents drove a 14% drop in Cat & Jack sales in 2024 by choosing $5 Walmart imitations over $12 graphic tees. When inflation sets in, “cheap chic” is cheap.
Digital Growth Masks Systemic Rot
Target’s e-commerce sales rose 7.5% in 2024, but hid real problems. Its $1 billion marketplace is small compared to Amazon’s $480 billion third-party network. While Walmart uses AI-driven personalization to create 35% of its e-commerce sales, Target+ lacks the same technology.
Even more tellingly, 73% of in-store staff handle Target’s online orders, which links the company to its shrinking network of physical stores. As mall anchors vanish and city centers empty out, Target runs a hybrid model caught between online-only retailers and traditional stores, but it lacks clear direction or focus.
Leadership’s Magical Thinking on Store Economics
Target invests $4 billion in private food and drink brands to boost its profit margins. But inflation trashed the strategy. Since 68% of consumers in 2025 prioritize price over brand allegiance, Up & Up and Good & Gather were bound to fall behind. Walmart Great Value moved 3:1 more than Target private brands by clinging to essentials instead of premium snacks.
Apparel, once a growth driver, failed too—Cat & Jack sales dropped 14% in 2024 as parents opted for $5 Walmart t-shirts over Target’s $12 equivalents. Meanwhile, e-commerce growth hid underlying issues. Target’s 7.5% online increase was powerless to cover the fact that 73% of orders rely on in-store pickup, constraining the retailer to a shrinking physical presence.
Unlike Amazon scale or Walmart computer science, Target’s hybrid model is increasingly a strategy in limbo.
The Breakup of a Brand Bond
Target’s Q2 2024 price cuts briefly lifted millennial spirits, with “good value” perception up 24%. But the good vibes didn’t stick. By Q1 2025, 61% of millennials labeled Target “inauthentic” following its DEI policy flip-flops, and 44% had defected to other prime shoppers.
Millennials, who fueled Target’s boom years of the 2010s, now spurn its split personality—too corporate for liberals, too “woke” for conservatives. Gen Z never hopped on in the first place: only 9% named Target their top shopping destination, opting for thrift apps and TikTok-shop trends instead. With two flagship generations in flight, Target is not confronting a recovery, but an existential brand crisis.
When Growth Turns to Decline
Target’s crisis of 2025 is not a temporary slump but the convergence of concurrent failures: cultural decadence, tech ennui, and generational disillusionment. On top of these issues, the retailer’s debt-to-EBITDA ratio swelled to 4.1x in Q1 2025—three times Walmart’s—and pension obligations to 320,000 employees drain liquidity.
Even if Target closes 500 stores and becomes fully digital, Amazon’s logistical superiority and Shein’s light-speed fashion make differentiation unsustainable. Target achieves its “Tarzhay” magic at a unique time, when politics was not divided, before algorithm-driven shopping, and before the price rise .
We can’t repeat that history. Target isn’t just falling behind—it’s becoming outdated both economically and culturally. That historical success is unrepeatable. Target’s current struggles indicate it is becoming financially and culturally irrelevant.
Discover more DIY hacks and style inspo- Follow us to keep the glow-up coming to your feed!
Love content like this? Tap Follow at the top of the page to stay in the loop with the latest beauty trends, DIY tips, and style inspo. Don’t forget to share your thoughts in the comments — we love hearing from you!