How did Target's competitors respond to the 2025 boycott?
Executive summary
Competitors reacted unevenly to the 2025 boycott of Target after its DEI rollback: some publicly reaffirmed DEI commitments (Costco and, in reporting, Walmart was named alongside Target as scaling back DEI), while industry rivals such as Amazon and Walmart were repeatedly cited in coverage as competitors whose market positions complicated Target’s recovery [1] [2]. Reporting shows competitors like Walmart, Costco and Best Buy saw increased traffic while Target’s fell—leaving rivals to benefit commercially and occupy the “values” battlefield in some narratives [3] [4].
1. Rivals portrayed as both validators and competitors
News outlets repeatedly framed other big retailers as part of the broader corporate pivot on DEI: outlets reported Target “joined competitor Walmart and a number of other prominent American brands in scaling back their DEI initiatives,” which positioned Walmart as a peer in the rollback even as analysts and company statements later cited competition from Walmart and Amazon as pressure points contributing to Target’s decline [1] [2].
2. Some competitors leaned into pro‑DEI messaging and gained a reputational edge
Organizers and activists explicitly urged shoppers to favor retailers that reaffirmed diversity commitments; several reports note activists encouraged consumers to “shop at Costco, which reaffirmed its commitment to DEI last week,” signaling that at least some rivals used public DEI stances to contrast themselves with Target [1]. Independent foot‑traffic data showed Costco and Best Buy among chains that saw increased customer visits as Target’s traffic fell [3].
3. Commercial winners: traffic and market share shifts
Data from Placer.ai and reporting cited by TheStreet and other outlets documented a measurable decline in Target foot traffic—February fell about 9.5%—while peers experienced growth, with outlets naming Walmart, Costco and Best Buy as retailers that “experienced increased traffic” as Target lagged [3] [5]. Analysts and Target itself tied some of Target’s weaker results to stronger competition from Amazon and Walmart [2] [6].
4. Competitors largely avoided becoming the boycott’s primary target—yet were swept into later campaigns
Early boycott coverage focused on Target. But subsequent coalition campaigns broadened targets to include Amazon and Home Depot alongside Target for separate grievances, and some anti‑Trump groups called for holiday boycotts of Amazon, Home Depot and Target—demonstrating how competitors could quickly be drawn into activist pressure even if their initial roles differed [7] [8] [9].
5. Retailers’ public responses varied; some emphasized neutrality, others emphasized commitments
Target’s own filings and executive comments acknowledged reputational harm and linked sales weakness partly to the reaction to DEI updates; competitors’ statements varied from reaffirming inclusion to focusing on product, price and service. Reporting cites Costco’s public reaffirmation of DEI as a contrast to Target’s move, while Target framed its “realignment” as business strategy and later pointed to competitive pressures from Amazon and Walmart [1] [2] [3].
6. Activists and unions nudged competitors’ reputations and consumer choices
Organized campaigns—“Target Fast,” “Latino Freeze,” and later “We Ain’t Buying It”—explicitly urged consumers to shift where they spend and to punish firms seen as enabling anti‑DEI policy or the administration; these campaigns named other retailers and influenced media narratives about which companies were trustworthy on inclusion [5] [7] [10].
7. Analysts and business press offer competing takes on long‑term impact
Some analysts in Business Insider and Forbes argued that many boycotts are symbolic and historically fade, cautioning that consumer habits and convenience blunt long‑term economic impact; other outlets and later financial reporting showed sustained sales and stock pressure on Target, with competitors capturing some of the benefit—these are distinct but coexisting interpretations in the record [11] [12] [13].
8. What the available sources do not detail
Available sources do not mention detailed, company‑by‑company internal strategy memos showing how individual competitors explicitly targeted Target’s customers (not found in current reporting). They also do not provide comprehensive, audited market‑share shifts across all national chains for 2025 beyond cited foot‑traffic and company statements (not found in current reporting).
Limitations and takeaway: reporting is consistent that competitors—especially Costco, Walmart and Amazon—played dual roles as market rivals and narrative foils, with some benefiting from traffic gains while others were later swept into broader boycott campaigns; scholars and trade press dispute how much lasting economic harm boycotts deliver, and outlets present both views [3] [7] [12].