gid

January 07, 2005

target boycott

This year Leslie and I decided to boycott Target because of their banning The Salvation Army from collecting donation outside of their stores. Normally when you boycott a place it is pretty easy to do, but for Leslie and I it was no easy task. A few years back when we were remodeling our living room on Signal View Street We bought Roman Shades from target. They were the only store that had quality Roman shades for a fair price.

Now that we have moved we have absolutely NO curtains in our house. We need them badly because from time to time our neighbor's floodlight on the corner of their house shines right into our bedroom. The thing is that the light shines into our room and hits the mirror on top of our dresser then shines right back into our bed. On the nights that our neighbors leave their light on, I can wake up and look directly at Leslie and Elliot and see them without any problems. (If my neighbors across the street ever read this, then please understand that I am not upset. It just makes me realize that we need curtains.)

Okay back to Target.

Leslie and I looked everywhere for those curtains. But, every place that did have them had the real cheap kind or the really expensive kind, which cost $300 or more a piece. So, we were stuck with no curtains for the foreseeable future all because we refused to give Target the $400 that we would have paid if we bought it from them.

Side Note: Leslie ended up finding a place online that had the curtains we wanted. She bought them and we plan to get them up this weekend.

All of that is to say: Target missed their 4th quarter Wall Street estimate. I think this article pretty closely describes my feeling about the whole thing. I know it might be shallow to even think that my not giving Target $400 made any difference, but who knows.

Also, here is a quote from the article :

We will continue the boycott this year and in years following. This is not about being vindictive. It's about teaching proper moral and civic responsibility to corporations that make bad public policy decisions. This isn't personal, unless, of course, you're talking about the personal injury Target is doing to the poor who are helped by one of America?s oldest, most reputable and most effective charities.
Posted by gid at January 7, 2005 05:30 PM
Comments

Personally, I am glad that Target stopped the annoying bell man in front of their stores. That dude was always just driving me nuts. *dingle dingle dingle ling --- dingle dingle dingle ling* ARRRGGGG!!!! It was pure maddness I tell you, maddness! Maybe this makes me a bad guy but I do not care. I think that this does not make Target a bad guy either. If you were to tell me that Target had a new policy saying that they will not support any charities, then I would be behind you 100%. But denying them the opportunity to pick and choose which charities to support is wrong.

Lets look at some other facts about the situation. The article Ringers chime on without Target points out many interesting facts.

1) Target has had a rule banning charities from collecting donations outside of its stores for years.

2) Target has allowed the Salvation Army as an exception in the past but this year decided to enforce the policy out of fairness for other charities.

3) Target as a corporation donates over $2 million dollars a week to charities.

Interesting information... Let us dig a little deeper. The Target Foundation founded in 1946 became a founding member of the "Five Percent Club". Because of this Target gives five percent of federally taxable income to support community nonprofits. Think about that five percent of federally taxable income is given to charities. That explains why Target gives over $2 million dollars every single week.

Enjoy the boycott of Target for enforcing policy that makes the atmosphere of their stores much more enjoyable for all of their customers. Personally I like to go to a store and not feel like I am being pressured to give every single time I walk by the door. *dingle dingle dingle ling --- dingle dingle dingle ling*

Posted by: ben at January 9, 2005 10:26 PM

I can hardly believe you were "pressured" to give money to salvation army they have never put a hard close on me by ringing the bell,though I do think your comments are rather ludicrous the main reason I am boycotting them is that many people benefit from the donations collected during the holiday season and you yourself may need assistance one day and that would probably change your attitude.dingle, dingle ,dingle ,merry christmas!

Posted by: lupe at November 18, 2005 10:42 PM

Aside from their "corporate policy" the real reason Target stopped the Salvation Army from soliciting in front of their stores and the reason the Salvation Army has declined to apply for a grant from the Target Foundation is that Target includes a "non-discrimination" clause in their grant application. The Salvation Army does not offer medical benefits to gay couples...in other words, they "discriminate." Since Target is a major supporter of the gay/homosexual movement they would certainly find that the Salvation Army doesn't qualify under their "corporate policy." Since the Salvation Army is a religious, private organization they are well within their right to limit benefits to "straight" couples and Target is within their right to discriminate accordingly. However, between banning the Salvation Army from their stores, prohibiting their "team members" from saying "merry Christmas", targeting sexually in appropriate apparel to young teens and the marketing of sex toys in some stores I see many good reasons to boycott Target. I haven't shopped them for the past year and I'm glad their profit numbers are down...while they do give 5% back to local charities it's all for the purpose of generating positive PR and it does help them out on their taxes...If you really think that they care one hoot about you and your family you are grossly misinformed...continue to boycott Target...reducing their sales is the only way you are going to get their attention.

Posted by: Ted at November 25, 2005 12:52 PM

Ted-

Thanks for the facts of the situation. I just have one question.

How is it that when the Salvation Army limits benefits it is "within their right", but when Target limits activities at its stores you call it "discriminate"?

Posted by: Ben at November 30, 2005 09:57 AM

lupe,
I agree that if Ben was ever really in need and were to have been helped by the SA he would probably feel completely different about dingle dingle dingle when he heard it. Compassion for the sick and hurting would well up in his heart and he would start reaching for the coins in his pocket.

Posted by: gid at November 30, 2005 11:05 PM

lupe / gid -

I have been very blessed in my life to never need the help of the SA. But I do think it is quite low of both of you to assume that I have no compassion for the sick and hurting.

Quick question...

If the purpose of the bell is not to attempt to guilt people into giving money, then why do they ring it?

Posted by: Ben at November 30, 2005 11:50 PM

Ben, they ring the bell in the spirit of the Christmas season. I love to hear the ringing. While walking into a store with the cool weather outside, Christmas decoration, and the ringing of the bell it is a tradition.

Posted by: gid at December 1, 2005 07:00 AM

The ringing of the bell by the SA is only a tradition because they have been so successful in guilting people into giving money for so many years.

Posted by: Ben at December 1, 2005 10:49 AM

Ben, sorry it?s taken me so long to reply. Please don?t be so sensitive, you are arguing semantics?Target?s right to ?discriminate? and the Salvation Army?s ?right to choose? essentially mean the same thing?substantively, both organizations are choosing which groups or issues to support or promote, a.k.a. ?discrimination.? To me discrimination is not a bad, but a descriptive word. We all discriminate since we all have choices. When we choose one thing over another we discriminate out of necessity. In this case I?m choosing to discriminate between organizations?one who seems to value the traditional family, God and country vs. one who appears to pay lip service to the same, but whose actions seem to construct an alternative reality. I no longer feel that Target is a company that I wish to support and I intend to continue to take my business elsewhere. Target like every retailer can choose how they desire to conduct their business and the causes and/or issues they wish to support. Conversely, I have the right to discriminate between companies and to support those that are that are in sync with my values and beliefs?thank God that we still have the ?right? to discriminate in this country?since it was from my boycott of Heinz products during the last election cycle that I discovered just how good Hunt?s catsup can and I now discriminate against Heinz on a regular basis?LOL.

Posted by: Ted at December 21, 2005 11:00 PM

Salvation Army refused to sign a non-discrimination clause against gays and lesbians. Turn around is fair play.

Posted by: Frank Jump at June 11, 2008 09:01 PM
Post a comment









Please Enter Number:



Remember personal info?