The target is on Target again ...

Experience matters. It's why coaches are usually former players, and must work their way up as assistants before getting hired as a head coach. The classic violin player could teach jazz, but the jazz saxophonist would have perspective and insight that the violin player lacks. At a beginning level, may not make a difference. But at a more advanced level, the best teachers have experience.

As for Target, their Marketing Dept absolutely is going for a younger crowd. The poster is correct. Get them hooked at 18, and easier to retain them at 40. That should not be in question. The question is, was it a mistake or not.

History is replete with Marketing blunders from the largest of companies. See "New Coke" for example. Jury is still out on Target's decision. If there is short term pain but leads to long term gain, then it will be worth it. If it's just pain, then they failed.

Part of the problem is it's impossible to please everyone all of the time. Keep Pride cloths in the back of the bus...er I mean store, and yes they carry it, but how does this make LGBTQ+ members and their supporters feel? Display the clothes prominently, and we see the reaction.

My guess is Target is playing a long game while trying to minimize the short term losses. The younger crowd is definitely more welcoming of the LGBTQ+ crowd.

 

I give myself away? Are you going to parrot out the overused “racist” tag. LOL. I love it. A simple project for a learned man such as yourself: Define racism, then explain how, according to whatever you are citing, the inclusion of white history falls within your definition. Extra credit: explain how the exclusion of white history falls outside of your definition. Thanks bro.

 

you are off target on experience. We are talking about Historians, not football coaches or musicians. A football coach, without more, has no ability to write a book about the history of football.

Target is not marketing to teens. Period. First, teens don’t spend a lot of money in big box stores. Second, a Giant display of gay bathing suits up front isn’t bringing teens into a store. Target didn’t market the display with advertising so the only teens to see the display would already be in the store. Third, as I already posted, stores like Target sell too much variety to target teens. Teens don’t buy tuna. Now, if they take on a clothing line of an “in” designer- then yes, market that DESIGNER. But they aren’t doing that either.

 

I don't think so. My reference was more about experience and how that impacts one's perspective. Skill is a symptom of experience, not its essence. But I also couldn't disagree more that knowledge and skill have nothing to do with each other. Knowledge certainly impacts skill and to a certain extent, I imagine the reverse is true.

 

And you libbies complained recently that there weren’t any good conservative posters and there would never be any good ones.
I give you @UFLawyer.

 

I believe previous posters referred to a broad demographic, roughly 18-40, not just teens.
This being a desirable demographic, I believe Target does appeal to it.

 

My contention is the same, thanks.

 

This is a flawed argument. Your point about Native American history plays, but not in the way you are applying it. Yes, educational institutions should and do teach Native American history. In fact, there are degrees in NA studies, just as there are degrees in AA studies. Both are valid topics, but that doesn't mean that every topic should or even could be included. This is why there exist so many specialty courses, like Caribbean Music and Islamic History. Those foci are not racist.

 

In depth examinations of history sources grant consideration to credibility. UFLawyer seems to be suggesting that a) credibility be damned and b) empathy is not a factor in historical studies. Both are untrue.

 

If I claim to dislike Caribbean music, am I considered racist?

 

A person writing the history of football would talk to whom if someone wanted the next best experience to bring on the gridiron? Current and former players. Yes, a writer or an experienced teacher might be better at those skills, but the first hand knowledge can only be earned on the field. And who would you rather learn the history of football from? The best teacher with zero first hand sources and knowledge? Or am average teacher with access to any player or coach still living? Bottom line, experience matters.

And Target is absolutely targeting 16 - 39 year olds in their advertising. Always have. Seniors are in fixed income and set in their ways. 40 and older are becoming empty nesters, in general, and also set, but buying less. But late teens to around 39 and you have people starting to set their patterns, while either preparing to or having kids. And kids are expensive. Get a teen thinking Target is a go to at 18, and by the time they are 30 with 2 kids, and the ROI will be huge.

I've worked in Marketing for over 20 years. The biggest expense is always attracting new clients. Upselling and reselling are a lot easier and cheaper. But new ones? You have to work much harder. And who would Target rather have as a new client? An 18 year old just starting out as a new college student on his own or a 55 year old thinking about retirement? Lifetime value on the teen is astronomically larger.

 

There's a right wing council member in Jax who is well known as being secretly gay, despite being married and culture war dude. Or so I'm told by folks in the gay community.

 

I think you are skewing the original argument, which was that there would be no credible difference between a person having lived experience vs. one without. As a counter to that argument, examples were given where experience and expertise likely made a difference. That, in no way, suggested that experience serve as a precursor. There will be exceptions, but having intimate knowledge of a subject will generally make a difference.

 

I know what you are saying, that a black historian is better served by being black. That the EXPERIENCE of being black matters to the teaching of black history. I’m not confused, you just reiterated exactly as I interpreted. We were talking about historians (professors), not random Joe’s.

I just don’t agree with that at all, or at least I find it to be an overly broad statement. Do you think the person teaching the Mexican History course at UF is preferable to be taught by a “real live Mexican”? A course on Women’s Suffrage is preferable to have a woman professor because of her “experience” in being a woman? I just find that line of thinking to be absurd, almost insulting.


Maybe there are going to be discussions about present day issues in the broader program of black history. But if you are going back to slavery or civil war history and giving it a factual topical study, the color of one’s skin when learning or teaching that today is quite irrelevant. On the other hand I think lived experience is an obvious advantage to teach civil rights era topics or modern social justice issues (which may be as much under the topic of sociology as history, but I digress). Lived experience can impart some extra perspective and credibility which could indeed be useful to more recent history up through current events (not definitive, but useful). Maybe you are just not seeing the distinction I’m making.

 

You guys are making me laugh. You are focused on not losing this argument you are in, but you are arguing with yourself (I think). Let me see if I am right. Here is a hypothetical. Joe played football since she was 10. She was a high school linebacker and a star on the team. She got a scholarship offer to play football for Southwest Florida Donkeys, an up-and-coming division II team. Joe played 4 years for the Donkeys and got a degree in women’s studies with a C- average. Joe then spent the next 30 years of her life coaching football for her high school alma mater, then some small division III schools, where she eventually became a head coach of the Donkeys after 25 years. Of note, since graduating high school, she’s never read a single book. Does Joe have the skill set to write a book on the history of Football which would be recognized as scholarly by historians? There are no other variables or facts to consider. Yes or no?

 

So you’re saying that Target is targeting just about every shopper. OK, I can agree with that.

 

That’s a pretty big word salad that says little, is detached from reality and more importantly is erroneous. Try again, but try harder.

 

So well stated. Bravo.

 

I'm always suspicious of the most vocal right wing Christians. They're the ones least likely to practice what they preach. Self hatred is real