Lessons Learned From Target: How Your Corporation Can Avoid the PR Hot Seat
Also read: Target , gay rights , political contribution
The LGBT community
—and its allies—continue to have concerns over their relationship with Target after last summer's firestorm over the retailer's donations to a political-action group backing a candidate who opposes gay rights. What are the best diversity-management strategies for your company if you are caught in a PR turmoil involving diversity issues?
The most recent news in this saga was last week's decision by Lady Gaga to end a deal to sell her "Born
This Way" album exclusively at Target stores. In February, the singer told Billboard: "Part of my deal with
Target is that they have to start affiliating themselves with LGBT charity groups and begin to reform and make amends for the mistakes they've made in the past." Last week, she told The Advocate that had not occurred.
Target issued the following statement: "We were very surprised and disappointed by the statements made by Lady Gaga's organization related to her partnership with Target. Target remains committed to the LGBT community as demonstrated by our contributions to various LGBT organizations, our recently established
Policy Committee to review our political giving and our respectful, inclusive workplace environment."
While Target has created a policy committee of senior executives to guide political donations (with oversight from the CEO and the board of directors), some LGBT/allied groups are not satisfied, according to the
Washington Blade. A key leader of an LGBT group told DiversityInc that many in the LGBT community continue to avoid shopping at Target stores as a protest.
The controversy began last summer when Target donated $150,000 to MN Forward , a political-action group backing Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who opposes gay rights. Emmer subsequently lost the election.
The donation triggered a national backlash from LGBT-rights advocates and consumers outraged by the alliance between Target, long considered an LGBT-friendly company, and Emmer .
In 2009, Minneapolis-based Target received a 100 percent score on the Human Rights Campaign's
Corporate Equality Index . In 2010, Target was penalized by the HRC for "a large-scale public blemish to their recent records, namely, for failing to take any corrective action in response to significant community concerns."
Target is No. 44 on The 2011 DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity
®
list , down four spots from last year.
Although Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel issued public apologies for the MN Forward donation, the company said last summer it has decided not to address the issue either by withdrawing its donation or by funding pro-gay organizations. Federal Election Commission records show Target has continued to donate to several candidates opposing gay rights while also supporting a few candidates that support gay rights.
Target's self-inflicted PR quagmire offers up some valuable lessons for any company thinking of mobilizing a political-action committee with an eye to influencing elections, according to academic, marketing and

nonprofit experts. In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a 20-year ruling, saying corporations could dip freely into their coffers to support or oppose political candidates.
While such donations are perfectly legal, the Target case illustrates that companies that choose to throw campaign dollars at specific political candidates or causes could be entering a minefield if they are not careful.
"It boils down to authenticity
—are Target's actions in synch with its corporate value system and how it is communicated to the employees and the customers?" says Wesley Combs, president of Witeck-Combs
Communications, a public- and marketing-communications firm specializing in the LGBT market.
DiversityInc asked experts to weigh in on the subject. Here's their advice for companies that find themselves in the midst of a similar public-relations firestorm.
Dr. Ella LJ Edmondson Bell , Tuck School of Business professor, Dartmouth College, and founder of
ASCENT, the first management and leadership program committed to the professional development and career advancement of women

Get Your Head Out of the Sand
"I think when you are a company that is a retail organization serving various constituencies, you really have to do your homework beforehand so you are clear as to why you are supporting someone and can articulate your position … and you definitely don't stick your head in the sand. Get your head out of the sand is the No.
1 advice. [If the company waits] for things to cool off, it's only going to get nastier and uglier. People don't forget, and the reason they don't forget in this time and age is because of all the media technology. Instant recall is very easy nowadays and social media can impact who is coming into your stores. If you are going to engage in this, you should know this is going to become public with social media the way it is today. Nothing is private. Nothing is hidden anymore."

More Diversity Training
"Our political biases spill over into the choices we make at work, just like all the other biases we have, so I'd love to know who was involved [in making this decision] because those individuals need to do some work on the LGBT issue. They need some awareness training. They may have turned off a large segment of their employee base as well. They will need to do some internal work around relationships, trust, feeling a part of the organization for the LBGT employees, feeling like they belong."

Engage Your Employee-Resource Groups Beforehand
"Target also needs to use some of the people who are members of its [LGBT employee-resource groups] to help guide them in this minefield. They should have talked to them early on, but now is the time to talk to them and say, 'We've gotten into this; here is the reason why we got into this, and it wasn't our intention,' hopefully. They need to 'fess up. And the longer they wait for things to cool off, the more it looks like it was intentional and the more it looks like they don't give a darn."
Dr. Elliot S. Schreiber, clinical professor of marketing and executive director, Center for Corporate
Reputation Management, Bennett S. LeBow College of Business, Drexel University
"The most important stakeholder for any business is their employees. Target has had a very active GLBT program. Now, those employees feel that the program was more 'lip service' than reality. A company that truly supported GLBT rights would try to avoid such controversy, especially one in the fashion and retail business."
Schreiber's advice: "Publicly repudiate the position of Rep. Tom Emmer on gay rights while reinforcing their support of pro-business positions (e.g., cutting taxes, open trade regulations, etc.); pledge to all employees that the company will remain neutral on controversial issues but will continue to support pro-business agenda through the chamber and other business organizations; internally, bring government relations

together with corporate communications and brand management and make certain that they all understand the interlinking of stakeholders and the importance of balancing corporate decisions against stakeholder needs and interests."
"This will be a difficult road. Target chose to actively engage in public political activities through its association with MN Forward. It lent its brand and reputation —its most important asset—to an organization it had no control over. There is a small boycott of Target occurring. It will not be large, but it is becoming a
'cause celeb' in social media. Target needs to reach out to customers. It should reaffirm its right to engage in political debate but also apologize for upsetting so many people over this issue and reinforce its GLBT positions."
Dr. Eliza Byard, executive director, GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), a
DiversityInc partner organization
"My personal feeling is that if the corporation is going to engage in political funding, as the Supreme Court has said is its right, it should define its political-funding objectives and say how it will weigh candidates' positions on 'other' issues of concern to its customers and employees in making the decision to support candidates or [political-action committees]. That information should be available to customers as they make decisions about where to shop.
"If Target is to demonstrate it is not anti-LGBT, there are a range of fronts on which to do so: future candidate or issue-oriented giving; community-support funding where its main corporate centers are; defining its philanthropic objectives in LGBT-inclusive ways; clear and comprehensive support to its LGBT employees; outreach to LGBT customers (in advertising imagery; make anything available to legal spouses available to domestic partners; credit programs)."
Wesley Combs, president, Witeck-Combs Communications
"The most important asset a company has is its reputation, and Target's positive brand identity is quickly eroding with progressive consumers following its decision to donate to MN Forward. Research shows that
LGBT consumers' brand connection is influenced by strong corporate reputations. Consider these statistics from a January 2007 Harris Interactive/Witeck-Combs Communications poll: 77 percent of gay/lesbian adults say they were likely to consider brands that support nonprofits and/or causes that are important to them as a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person; 58 percent of gays/lesbians say they were 'more likely' to purchase everyday household products and services from companies that market directly to them compared to other competing companies.
"Target must rebuild the damage its actions have done to the bond of trust between the LGBT consumer and the company. [The company should] acknowledge that this decision has impacted their customers in ways they did not anticipate and agree to conduct a transparent review of the current policies related to political and advocacy contributions; create a policy that is in synch with Target's corporate value system; report back to their customers their decision and why it supports the company's overall commitment to diversity and inclusion.
"Anything short of this will tarnish Target's hard-earned reputation for valuing all of its customers equally."
Posted Monday Aug 23, 2010 by Guest;
If Target wants me, a successful, vocal Gay man, to come back with money in hand, I want TEN OF FIVE:
An ongoing, open-ended commitment to donate 10% of their inplace “5% of proceeds to communities” giving commitment. We comprise 10% of the community; we deserve 10% of Target’s community giving.
This does NOT mean political contributions, or retaliatory contribution to candidates I happen to support.
This needs to be TURE COMMUNITY GIVING. In addition: • Hire an in-house LGBT advocacy watchdog. •
Extend minimum co-pay pricing for antiviral and HIV medications, regardless of the patient’s insurance plan or coverage. • Make a donation totaling $150,000 to the Design Industry Foundation Fights AIDS, Project
RED, PFLAG, GLAAD or similar not-forprofit advocacy organizations. • Deny Target participation in Gay
Pride events. Even as a kid, I learned that if you don't eat your vegetables, you don't get dessert. If companies want to enter the political arena, they need to know there are lions in the coliseum. .
Posted Monday Aug 23, 2010 by Guest;

I am still not buying from Target. I remain horrified that Gregg Steinhafel remains unwilling to take the necessary steps to assure both customers and employees that we are more important to Target than the various causes supported by MNForward. At this point, I am not sure what it would take to get me back. The delay in acknowledging the gravity of this situation and that mistakes were made indicates to me that Gregg
Steinhafel just used us all to sell his brand and make him a rich man. Neither he nor Target are what we thought they were. I am getting awfully used to ordering products online, saving tax and getting free shipping, and all that gas I am saving from not having to drive! I can just sit on the couch and shop from the comfort of my home! .
Posted Monday Aug 23, 2010 by Guest;
There is one thing that I think is misleading. In your articles, you mention that Steinhafel gave a "public apology". Nowhere was it mentioned that he was saying it to his EMPLOYEES. It makes it sound like he was giving it in a press release to the GLBT community..
Target posted the letter to employees on its corporate website and gave it to the media. That’s about as
public as it gets. Barbara Frankel, senior vice president and executive editor of DiversityInc
Posted Thursday Aug 26, 2010 by Guest;
Ms. Frankel, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the CEO's attempt at apology. While it indeed was very public (although addressed to employees, not the public), it is NO apology. And unless I am mistaken, the text of that letter has in fact changed since media distribution. At one point, it did include
"genuinely sorry" but for the REACTION, not his ACTION..
Posted Friday Sep 3, 2010 by Guest;
"Vocal Gay Man": why should they have to target 10% to specifically gay organizations? Don't gays benefit equally with straights when they give money to the public schools, or to the local arts and recreation communities? Are you suggesting that they should donate the other 90% to things that only straight people like? In fact, one could argue that this $150,000 was just about the only amount of money they gave that was "targeted" specifically at something that would NOT benefit the GLBT community. You wouldn't be upset if they gave 10% directly to groups that only serve the GLBT community, so why can't they also give a little money to something that doesn't? There is no way a company could ever carve out their "charity" to correctly reward by the correct percentage every possible interest group. There are too many, and many are at odds with each other. For a non-gender example, how would they handle giving that was targeted both to pro-gun customers, AND the pro-gun-control customers? If they gave half to each, both sides would boycott over the half they gave to others. Personally, I think the best way a company can avoid this is to simply not give anytthing; lower their prices instead, and encourage their customers to give the money to the charity of
THEIR choice. But since companies believe overcharging customers and then giving that money away to charities the customer doesn't approve of is good business, I recommend that companies do politics by issue, not candidate. Pick the issues that are clearly business-oriented, and advertise. If a candidate is clearly a negative impact on the business, mention it in the ad. .
Posted Saturday Sep 4, 2010 by Guest;
By my math, 10% (of their in-place 5%, to be clear) as restitution for an affront to the GLBT community still leaves for 90% non-gay initiatives, no? You still "win" in the numbers... why is my request at all a threat?
You also incorrectly assume that the 10% I am asking for has no benefit to the heterosexual world. Incorrect.
(If I am expected to adopt your reasoning, you need to adopt mine, no?) And I ask for it in response to
Steinhafel's public comments that Target's support to the GLBT community "remains unwavering." Then, Mr.
Steinhafel, put a little money where your big mouth is. And I am suggesting TRUE CAUSES, not political candidates..
Posted Tuesday Mar 15, 2011 by Guest;
Sorry but I think all of this advice, while it is a good start, the best way is to fire the employee responsible for making a donation to that homophobic politician - make that public and then apologize again. If Target plans to uphold a positive image among the LGBQTA community, then that is the best way to go about it. No public apology at this point will seem sincere otherwise..
Posted Tuesday Mar 15, 2011 by Guest;
This seems like another case where business should stop buying the government. Government funded elections could possibly stop candidates from supporting the highest bidder and do what is right for the country. Buying votes is just wrong, no matter what the candidate supports. I can't shop at Walmart, Home
Depot, or Lowes because I hate their politics, now Target. Where am I supposed to shop. I'd say I need to shop for a new way to fund elections!.