Or: How Power Uses Nonviolence
Love is the only way.
As of writing (Apr 7, 2025) Target stock has steadily fallen 32.8% since its recent DEI hullabaloo began on January 24th.¹
This story gives us two intertwined social science principles, a communications lesson, and a window into how powerful companies use an interesting twist on nonviolence principles.
What happened?
Over the past decade, Target wove social consciousness into its brand. During this time, “woke” was born, then “anti-woke” followed. In 2023, Target’s Pride Month display prompted a conservative-led boycott and a 5.4% quarterly earnings drop (its first such drop in six years). ²
On January 24th, 2025, Target rolled back DEI initiatives. A week later (unlike most other companies) they faced more boycotts (this time liberal-led) and a class action lawsuit related to its DEI wavering. TGT stock has been sliding since. ³ ⁴
Why is Target Singled Out?
While Victoria’s Secret, State Street, Paramount, Meta, Accenture, Amazon, the Smithsonian Institution, Google, McDonald’s, Goldman Sachs, Walmart, the FBI, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Warner Bros, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Amtrak, Disney, and more⁵ . . .
. . . all roll back DEI to “adapt to the times” . . .
. . . why does Target in particular become the (what’s the word…) object of attacks?
The first time I heard “woke” . . .
I was in college. It meant socially wise. Awake. Aware of the forces that be. A kind of hip-hop zen. It had power.
Soon “woke” became a joke.
On the left, some stood on it as an ideological soap box—a reason to stop listening and start attacking those they don’t agree with. Statues came down. Speakers were harassed on college campuses.
On the right, folks saw this behavior and pinned “woke” to ignorant aggression (not its original meaning).
These are broad strokes, and the full picture is more nuanced. Both sides had their reasons, but people on both sides (justified or not) became angry and aggressive.
I don’t love simplifying things to “left” and “right”, but it’s easier that way.
Two principles at play
The first one set the scene. The second one did the brand damage.
Principle 1 — Aggression creates backlash
When I say people became “angry and aggressive”, I’m talking about the weaponization of wokeness or anti-wokeness—distinct from healthy discourse. Healthy discourse resolves problems.
Verbal violence perpetuates them, just as physical violence perpetuates rivalries between gangs or social groups.
Just ask Gandhi’s assassin
After Mahatma Gandhi was fatally shot, as he was bleeding, he raised his hands in a prayer gesture to his killer. During the subsequent trial, Nathuram Godse said he killed Gandhi because, in the conflicts of newly independent India, nonviolence diminished his people’s ability to defend themselves.
Yet his act sparked more violence, especially against Brahmins (Godse’s people). At the same time, support surged for everything Gandhi stood for. ⁶
Godse’s violent act backfired against both his core intentions. The only win came from Gandhi’s nonviolence.
Principle 2 — Lack of conviction is weakness
If a US presidential primary candidate wavers on an issue, other candidates start a feeding frenzy to gain ground.
It’s not wavering, per se. It’s lack of conviction. Politicians can change their stances if they say (with conviction) it’s because, “I listen to the people of this country and I believe them.”
But if they make the exact same change clearly pandering for votes, they lose respect. They don’t really stand for anything but themselves.
So what happened to Target?
Principle one set the scene—aggression creates backlash
The pendulum swung toward progressive consciousness before and after George Floyd’s murder in 2020, then it swung back toward conservative values.
When Target, with its customer base spanning the sociopolitical spectrum, put “tuck friendly” swimwear in its Pride Month 2023 display, the move was perceived emotionally by many people as aggression—a threat to children. Boycott 1.
When it took down Pride Month displays, Target cited employee safety from threats, and it kept integrity.
But it kept going, this time to appease politicians. Target’s 2025 DEI rollbacks were perceived emotionally by many as aggression and betrayal—a threat to minority communities who previously felt seen and understood by the brand. Boycott 2.
Principle two pushed Target into deeper trouble—lack of conviction is weakness
Why has Target faced more brand damage than, say, Disney? Well—even though Disney caused a ruckus by imagining a Caribbean girl (mermaid or not) might be black—its core brand is about the magic of living your story. It can move in and out of DEI without jeopardizing that. Other big brands’ core identities are even further removed.
Target wove inclusion into its core identity, for example, with it’s “Design for All” philosophy in 2020.⁷ When they walked back DEI, it felt like betrayal—like having a fake friend. It looked like the brand had no real conviction—like everything it had stood for was rainbow-washing, profit-seeking bullshit.
What does this all mean?
In communications, everything comes back to storytelling.
We humans are wired to love heroes—from Jesus to Frodo to Katniss Everdeen—who (1) embody self conviction and (2) will sacrifice life itself for the greater good.
In brand story telling, you (the audience) are the hero and the brand is the mentor. You’re Luke Skywalker and the brand is Obi Wan.
Brands and nonviolent change leaders
The similarities
Brands and nonviolent changemakers both position themselves to (1) have total conviction in their values and (2) promote the greater good. (We’re not talking about companies’ actions, just their branding.)
Both principles float above cultural conflicts, and at least to the public eye, Target violated both.
The differences
Brands position themselves around agreeable, non-risky areas of the greater good (arts & culture, wholesomeness, technological progress, etc) and — perhaps more importantly — never against it.
They tap into the psychology of nonviolence with a likeable image that’s at least 50% defense. Meanwhile, their “offense” is a clever business model that entwines itself with realities like energy dependency, the healthcare system, FOMO, or our constant search for convenience.
Nonviolent changemakers tap that social psychology in a deeper way. It is 100% defense and 100% offense. Their convictions go to the core of who they are. Of course, people are flawed. Ego was probably, in part, a motivator for MLK and Gandhi—but so was the greater good.
The power of nonviolence
Selfless love burns every other argument to the ground. Paired with solid strategies, it can give rise to some of the most revered movements in human history.
It’s untouchable.
But it’s hard to get people to carry the torch. Whereas self-realized, selfless heroes are common in movies, real people like Mother Theresa are extremely rare.
Figures like Greta Thunberg or Al Gore, whose environmental advocacy I admire, speak with an adversarial anger against environmental destruction, yet anger (justified or not) does not float above culture wars. It perpetuates them. It rallies troops, but it doesn’t transform opposing opinions. It creates backlash. It opens you up to, and invites, attacks from the other side.
Meanwhile, major corporations use non-violence to position themselves, deflecting and absorbing controversies.
If their branding and business plan are stronger than the controversy, they’ll bounce back. They almost always do. Cambridge Analytica might be the exception, but they weren’t a household brand and that’s kind of a different story.
Remember Volkswagen? Target will be fine.
What do we do with this?
Imagine a company becomes one of the world’s biggest brands, holding convictions in a greater love all the way to its core. Its business model is powerful even without this conviction, yet when it feeds its success back into the world, it creates positive publicity, which creates more business. This continues in a feedback loop that changes the trajectory of humanity and life of Earth.
Imagine how powerful a communications strategy that would be.
Some may call this fairytale thinking, but all it takes is a simple shift in mindset. I actually don’t know why we never see it. (Patagonia’s the closest thing.) Guess I’m naive.
Want a simpler takeaway?
Just be smart. If you’re a professional changemaker or a corporate communicator, hold righteous anger in your hand, maybe tactically in your playbook, but don’t let it into your words and don’t let it into your heart.
Sources
Google. “Target stock in USD.” Accessed April 7, 2025. https://www.google.com/search?q=target+stock+in+USD
Sustainability Magazine. “Target Faces Legal Action Over DEI Initiatives.” February 10, 2025. https://sustainabilitymag.com/articles/target-faces-legal-action-over-dei-initiatives
Associated Press. “Target’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Efforts Under Fire.” January 30, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/target-diversity-equity-inclusion-minneapolis-civil-rights-850701b0126bd9417dd488c72f5f8a81
CNN Business. “Target Faces Boycott Over DEI Policy Reversal.” February 19, 2025. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/19/business/target-dei-boycott/index.html
History Today. “The Death of Mahatma Gandhi.” January 1, 2006. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/death-mahatma-gandhi
Forbes. “Victoria’s Secret Tweaks DEI Language—Here Are All the Companies Rolling Back DEI Programs.” March 5, 2025. https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/03/05/victorias-secret-tweaks-dei-language-to-inclusion-and-belonging-here-are-all-the-companies-rolling-back-dei-programs/
Target Corporation. “Design for All: The Film.” May 2020. https://corporate.target.com/news-features/article/2020/05/design-for-all-film
