Scotti Schon
Media Briefing
Jennifer Martinez
Retail Reporter
Los Angeles Times
Date: March 3, 2011
Time: 2-3:15 p.m.
Location: Target headquarters main office
Briefing Opportunity:
To pre-brief Jennifer Martinez, retail reporter at the Los Angeles Times, concerning Target’s
commitment to customers and providing quality products in 2011.
Key Points to Reinforce:



Target is expanding dramatically and is looking toward increased international presence,
especially in Canada.
Target is committed to providing quality products to all of its customers.
Target appeals to the largest consumer base and is dedicated to becoming a standalone
retailer.
Recommended Briefing Approach:
During the briefing, comment on Jennifer’s previous articles to indicate that Target is hoping to
create a positive relationship with her as a reporter. Provide positive feedback on her coverage
of net neutrality, investing and donations involving Target. From Aug. 13-Aug. 20, 2010, Jennifer
wrote three negatively- toned stories concerning the above subjects. Keep in mind throughout
the briefing that Jennifer serves the public. She aims for truth and accountability from major
businesses/corporations. She may ask very pointed questions about finances, which political
candidates Target is supporting, or why the public should trust Target.
Anticipate bold questions from Jennifer. Her stories focus on human rights corporations,
minority groups and how Target’s decisions will influence the public. The goal in the briefing
process is to speak openly and honestly with Jennifer and to provide positive details and a
demonstration of Target’s dedication to the public. Focus on the goals for 2011 and avoid
discussing past political donations and support of previous candidates. As a major business and
retail critic for the Los Angeles Times, Jennifer’s support is essential in 2011.
Reporter Background
Jennifer has extensive experience in news writing and reporting and has written for the Los
Angeles Times since August 2010, on the national news desk. Jennifer co-writes many of her
stories with Tom Hamburger, also of the Los Angeles Times. Currently Jennifer may be in the
process of relocating or working more as a free-lance writer. In recent months, Jennifer’s articles
have appeared in the Chicago Tribune and Star Tribune. Having written for several prominent
newspapers, Jennifer is a well-recognized reporter throughout the United States. She writes
public interest stories focused on the rights of activist groups, recent Internet scandals and
corporate supported politicians. Jennifer’s stories have been negative and skeptical toward
Target. She is interested in revealing truthful information about the company. During 2010
she wrote several stories about Target’s stance on political candidates, donations of funds and
investor backlash. Jennifer assumes the role of a corporate watchdog and she writes as a
spokesperson for consumers. She writes short to medium length articles based on personal
accounts from customers; the general public is often quoted. However, Jennifer does not often
quote Target directly or fully. Clarify with her as the interview continues and make a point of
telling her you would like to be quoted. As the interview progresses, be prepared to offer
personal examples that demonstrate how low prices are maintained for consumers or public
service examples where Target has recently been involved.
Summary of Recent Stories/Coverage
The Los Angeles Times coverage of recent news concerning Target has tended to be negative or
neutral. During the month of February 2011, Target has been mentioned or discussed
approximately five times. The Los Angeles Times coverage of Target is consistent and concerns
financial status and the current standings in the stock market. Below is a list of Jennifer’s articles
listed in bold. The list also includes a sample of other authors’ work that recently concerns
Target.
Target stores get an earful from gay rights group; The retailer made a donation that backed a
candidate against same-sex marriage
Aug. 13, 2010 Negative
Activists keeping Target in sights
Aug. 17, 2010 Negative
Target faces investor backlash; Large shareholders demand the retailer revamp its political
contribution process
Aug. 20, 2010 Negative
Humbled and attacked on all sides, Wal-Mart plots comeback from missteps that hurt sales
Feb. 6, 2011 Neutral
Target reportedly agrees to pay California $22.5M to settle improper waste disposal claims
Feb. 4, 2011 Negative
Retailers report surprisingly solid January sales
Feb. 3, 2011 Negative
See attachments for examples of written materials.
Scotti Schon
Media Briefing
Jennifer Martinez
Retail Reporter
Los Angeles Times
Los Angeles Times
August 13, 2010 Friday
Home Edition
THE NATION;
Target stores get an earful from gay rights group; The retailer made a donation that backed a
candidate against same-sex marriage.
BYLINE: Tom Hamburger, Jennifer Martinez
SECTION: MAIN NEWS; National Desk; Part A; Pg. 8
LENGTH: 806 words
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
The bull's-eye is still on Target's back.
Last week, faced with waves of protests, retailer Target Corp. apologized for its $150,000 donation to an
organization backing a Republican candidate with a long record of opposing gay rights.
But the controversy has not gone away. Though the public demonstrations have died down, the company is
in closed-door discussions with the largest gay activist organization in the country, Human Rights
Campaign, which is demanding that the company make an equivalent or greater donation to groups
supporting gay rights candidates.
The group has found a potential lever: the threat to come out against the construction of two new Target
stores in San Francisco, where gay rights groups have exceptional political influence.
As the talks with Target continue, activists on both sides of the political spectrum are trying to gauge
whether the case will have a chilling effect on corporate participation in campaigns. A recent Supreme
Court decision gave companies and unions explicit authority to spend funds on elections.
Some analysts think Target's experience may make companies more reluctant to get involved, but many
others -- including prominent business lobbyists -- say the more likely result is that more corporations will
seek out ways to contribute anonymously.
The Target controversy was sparked when the Minnesota-based company decided to donate to a business
organization, MN Forward, that backed GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, a vocal opponent of gay
marriage. When the contribution was made public, Target faced immediate complaints from employees and
calls for a national boycott by liberal groups.
One Minnesota woman got so mad that she made a video of herself cutting up her Target charge card. The
video was broadcast on MSNBC and was seen by hundreds of thousands on YouTube.
Two members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors had a stormy meeting with Target officials. The
supervisors raised their voices when a company executive explained that it was "a business decision" to
contribute to the group supporting Emmer.
"We were very upset," said Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who said he asked the Target executive to convey his
dismay to corporate headquarters. "You can't take two dates to the prom," said Dufty, who is gay. "You
can't brand your company as one that values [gay and lesbian rights] and then make contributions to
candidates who spend every waking breath to make us second-class citizens."
Target's chief executive, Gregg Steinhafel, apologized and pledged that future contributions would be
closely reviewed by Target's board.
Steinhafel said the contribution from the corporate treasury was intended to support Emmer's stance on
economic issues. Ads run by the group were focused on budget policy, not social issues.
"I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely
sorry," Steinhafel wrote to Target employees.
Behind the scenes, however, the controversy has not subsided.
In daily telephone calls, Fred Sainz, vice president of Human Rights Campaign, said he was talking with
top Target executives about "making it right."
"Among the bullets in our gun is their continued relationship with the LGBT [lesbian-gay-bisexualtransgender] community," Sainz said. "Gay and lesbian customers are among Target's most loyal customer
base." The company is seen by many in the gay community as "the progressive alternative" to Walmart.
Human Rights Campaign has also targeted Best Buy Co., another company that donated to MN Forward.
Best Buy spokeswoman Sue Busch Nehring said the donation "was focused solely on jobs and an improved
economy....We've learned from this and we will review the process we use to make political contributions
to avoid any future confusion."
A conservative group, ResistNet.com, urged conservatives to support Target while it is under attack.
"Target is just exercising their freedom under the recent Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations to
speak out during elections. Bravo, Target, for standing up against tyranny in this current administration!"
according to its website.
It is not only corporations that have new freedom to spend and collect funds. A labor-backed group was on
the air last week with ads describing past drunk driving incidents involving Emmer.
Dirk Van Dongen, the head of the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors, said he thought the Target
controversy would have little effect on corporate political contributions, noting that businesses can give
anonymously to trade associations and other nonprofit campaign efforts.
He anticipated strong participation by business this election year because of a widespread impression that
Washington's power structure has produced an anti-business, anti-growth climate.
tom.hamburger@latimes.com
jennifer.martinez@latimes.com
Scotti Schon
Media Briefing
Jennifer Martinez
Retail Reporter
Los Angeles Times
Los Angeles Times
August 17, 2010 Tuesday
Home Edition
THE NATION;
Activists keeping Target in sights
BYLINE: Tom Hamburger, Jennifer Martinez
SECTION: MAIN NEWS; National Desk; Part A; Pg. 7
LENGTH: 425 words
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
After the breakdown of its talks with Target Corp., the nation's leading gay rights organization said
Monday that it would continue to protest against the company over a donation used to support a Republican
gubernatorial candidate with a history of opposing gay rights.
Officials with the Human Rights Campaign said the giant retailer had effectively rejected the group's
proposals that Target donate to gay rights organizations to offset the earlier donation.
Target's handling of the confrontation has been closely watched because it is the first case in this election
cycle of a company hit by national protests over a campaign donation.
The topic is especially sensitive this year because of a Supreme Court decision that allows corporate
organizations and unions to use their funds in election campaigns.
"If their initial contribution was a slap in the face, their refusal to make it right is a punch in the gut," said
Joe Solmonese, the group's president.
Target said it was "best to wait" given the controversy stirred by its donation, which prompted Facebook
calls for a boycott and scattered protests outside stores. An anti-boycott site also popped up on Facebook
from conservatives supporting Target.
"We believe that it is impossible to avoid turning any further actions into a political issue and will use the
benefit of time to make thoughtful, careful decisions on how best to move forward," the company said in a
statement.
Target Chief Executive Gregg Steinhafel has told employees that sending a $150,000 donation to the new
political group MN Forward was a business decision. The group used Target's funds to help underwrite ads
backing Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who opposes gay marriage and other
legislative initiatives sought by gay rights groups.
In response, San Francisco officials threatened to block the construction of two Target stores in the city,
where gay advocates have long had strong influence.
Republicans and several organizations on the right have complained that Target was the victim of "liberal
thuggery."
Republicans and several organizations on the right have complained that Target was the victim of "liberal
thuggery."
Conservative observers think the unwanted attention Target has received will put a chill on donation plans.
Human Rights Campaign said it had reached two tentative agreements with Target but the retailer backed
out. The group said it planned to give $150,000 to organizations that supported candidates in favor of gay
rights.
Best Buy Co. has also given to MN Forward. Human Rights Campaign said it was negotiating with Best
Buy.
tom.hamburger@latimes.com
jennifer.martinez@latimes.com
Los Angeles Times
August 20, 2010 Friday
Home Edition
Target faces investor backlash;
Large shareholders demand the retailer revamp its political contribution process.
BYLINE: Jennifer Martinez and Tom Hamburger
SECTION: MAIN NEWS; National Desk; Part A; Pg. 1
LENGTH: 1140 words
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
After weeks of public protest over its financial support of an organization that backed a GOP gubernatorial
candidate opposed to gay rights, Target Corp. now faces a new form of pressure: demands from
institutional shareholders that it revamp its donation process to avoid the chance of additional backfires.
The shareholder action follows the disclosure last month that Target had sent corporate funds to an
organization backing the Minnesota gubernatorial candidate. Such donations are allowed under a recent
Supreme Court decision that lets companies and unions contribute directly to independent election
campaigns.
Critics of the decision, including President Obama, feared the ruling would allow big-business dollars to
disproportionately affect campaigns across the country. But the Target case suggests that customer and
shareholder pressure is emerging as an unexpected factor that could rein in at least some of that corporate
spending.
"Imprudent donations can potentially have a major negative impact on company reputations and business if
they don't carefully and fully assess a candidate's positions," said Tim Smith, a senior vice president at
Walden Asset Management, one of three asset management firms that this week filed a resolution asking
the retail giant to overhaul its campaign donation policies. He cautioned that funding ballot initiatives, as
many corporations have done, "can similarly backfire."
Scotti Schon
Media Briefing
Jennifer Martinez
Retail Reporter
Los Angeles Times
The three management firms sponsoring the resolution -- Calvert Asset Management, Trillium Asset
Management and Walden -- together hold $57.5 million of Target stock. Other institutional investors,
including the giant New York state pension fund and union investment managers, are considering cosigning the resolution, which calls on Target's independent directors to review the criteria and risks in
making donations to organizations active in political campaigns.
"Target should have carefully considered the implications that direct political contributions can have
toward shareholder value," said Ola Fadahunsi, spokesman for New York Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli,
the pension fund's sole trustee. "It's troubling to think that they can fund controversial candidates without
properly assessing the risks and rewards involved."
The New York state pension fund currently holds 3.8 million shares in Target, with a market value of $283
million.
Target was among several Minnesota firms that gave large donations to MN Forward, a new tax-exempt
committee running ads backing GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. Another leading retailer, Best
Buy Co., also gave to the committee and has received the same shareholder resolution as Target.
Target spokeswoman Jessica Carlson declined to comment on the resolution. She pointed to a statement
this month from Chief Executive Gregg Steinhafel, who promised to "begin a strategic review and analysis
of our decision-making process for financial contributions in the public policy arena."
The investors' resolution calls for a far more rigorous and specific review by independent board members
and for disclosure of the company's contributions policy.
A spokeswoman for Best Buy, Sue Busch Nehring, said the company would review the resolution. She
previously said Best Buy had "learned from this" and would review its political donations process.
Target said it made a $150,000 donation to MN Forward because the group promised to back candidates
promoting a better business climate. "The intent of our political contribution to MN Forward was to support
economic growth and job creation," Steinhafel said in an e-mail to employees.
The first advertisement aired by MN Forward touted Emmer, who favors lower taxes and other probusiness positions but also has a strong record of opposition to gay rights legislation. Since the controversy
exploded, MN Forward, which collected well more than $1 million in corporate donations, has made
contributions to a handful of Minnesota Democratic candidates.
Besides seeking a review of political contributions, the institutional shareholders also are asking the
retailers to consider how contributions will affect the company's public image, business sales and
profitability, and whether a candidate espouses policies that conflict with the company's values.
Bill de Blasio, a board member of another large pension fund, the New York City Employee Retirement
System, said Thursday that he would ask other members of his board to support the resolution. The
retirement board holds nearly 1 million Target shares.
Some analysts said the resolution might not affect corporate behavior, particularly since the protesting
investors hold only a small fraction of the company's 700 million shares outstanding. Yet Best Buy and
Target are also particularly vulnerable to public reaction since they are retailers in a highly competitive
market.
The Conference Board, an influential business association, is preparing to publish a guide advising
companies and their directors to be cautious in the new era of campaign contribution.
Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability and one of the guide's authors, said
corporate executives were tracking the Target situation closely and looking for ways to avoid similar public
relations problems.
Added Shelley Alpern, director of shareholder advocacy for Trillium Management: "A good corporate
political contribution policy should prevent the kind of debacle Target and Best Buy walked into.
"We expect companies to evaluate candidates based upon the range of their positions -- not simply one area
-- and assess whether they are in alignment with their core values. But these companies' policies are clearly
lacking that," Alpern said.
In a news release announcing the resolution, Trillium also disclosed that one client with a relatively small
holding in Target had asked that its ownership of the stock be immediately liquidated. Officials from the
Equity Foundation of Portland, Ore., said they were divesting because they were "troubled" by Target's
political contribution.
Target also is facing calls for a boycott from MoveOn.org and has received stinging criticism from gay
rights advocates, who once lauded the company for its approach to gay and lesbian issues.
Though some corporate executives and activists think the Target case may be a cautionary tale for
businesses, Tara Malloy of the Washington-based Campaign Legal Center believes it will not necessarily
hinder businesses from pouring money into campaigns.
Energy companies and defense contractors that have less interaction with the public won't be subject to the
same kind of pressure as retailers.
Besides, she said, "the Target case may just be an example of a corporation doing it wrong." Other donors
may take pains to make their contributions anonymous, she said.
jennifer.martinez@latimes.com
tom.hamburger@latimes.com