This decision comes despite a significant portion of its customer base consisting of people of color, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people with disabilities. By walking away from DEI, Target risks alienating its core demographics, potentially handing an advantage to competitors who maintain their inclusivity efforts.
The data supports this risk. Younger generations overwhelmingly prioritize brands that align with their values. A 2023 McKinsey study found that 45% of Gen Z consumers stopped purchasing from a brand whose values did not align with theirs. The potential short-term gains of stepping back from DEI—appeasing conservative stakeholders, aligning with the political climate, or avoiding backlash from opposition groups—might be outweighed by long-term reputational damage.
Representation risks
These changes don’t just affect policy, they shape who we see on our screens. There is a segment of Trump’s base that would like to see advertising reflect a more homogenous America, fewer diverse faces and LGBTQ+ narratives, and more “traditional” imagery. This year’s crop of Super Bowl ads attested to that. This presents a challenge for advertisers: How do brands balance this pressure while continuing to represent the reality of an increasingly diverse and socially conscious consumer base?
As a Black female agency owner, I’ve had to face the reality of these shifting tides. Recently, we’ve reconsidered how we position ourselves, stripping our materials of overt references to being Black- or female-owned. Instead, we’re doubling down on our unique value propositions—because we do have value that stands on its own.
This isn’t about distancing ourselves from our identity, it’s about ensuring that our work is judged on its own merits and not misinterpreted as needing a hand up. Our mission remains the same, but in the current climate, the best way to serve that mission is to continue thriving as a business. Because let’s not pretend that being Black and female hasn’t historically meant less access.
DEI was never about handing out unearned opportunities; it was about handing companies like mine the proverbial mic. And even when you get the mic, it doesn’t mean you won’t be drowned out by the friend of a friend of the client—often white, often male, and often with an offering far less special than yours. We all know the third-bid phenomenon: being invited to pitch not because you’re a serious contender, but because the client needs to check a box.
DEI was never foolproof, but it at least increased the number of at-bats for agencies like mine. The notion that unqualified companies were handed contracts due to DEI is a fallacy; what happened was that minority-owned businesses simply got more opportunities to prove their worth in an industry that has long favored entrenched, homogenous networks.
