There are several issues that need to be addressed regarding the New York Times article about Target refusing to respond to a complaint from a blogger because the organization was using a non-traditional media outlet. The complaint was regarding an advertisement (depicted below) that appeared to be "targeting" a woman's crotch, according to the blogger that filed the complaint. First we must determine whether this was a legitimate complaint by the blogger, then we must evaluate Target's ability to respond to the complaint, and finally we must gain a better understanding of Target's rationale for their response to the blogger.



Intention

The advertising agency that created the ad claims that their idea was to create a woman making a snow angel. They used the target in the background to communicate their brand logo. The woman was fully clothed with winter clothing, and there are no signs of promiscuity in the ad.

Interpretation

Obviously the blogger that filed a complaint with Target did not share the same interpretation of the ad as Target. She expressed her concern over the logo targeting the woman's crotch, and therefore encouraging sexual promiscuity and depicting her as a helpless sexual object, laying on the ground with her legs spread wide open. Based on the blogger's response, this ad is just screaming "come have sex with me."

The Response

The Target public relations director made a poor decision by coming up with a quick fix to keep from addressing the concern this particular blogger had about their ad. There was no denying that the blogger's interpretation was a legitimate one. This was by no means Target's intention with the ad, but as with almost anything, there's usually more than one way to interpret it. The PR director refused to respond to blog entries because blogs are non-traditional media outlets. With a response like this, Target could buy some extra time to figure out how to respond to such a complaint. I believe Target should have thought the issue through and come up with a better response instead of trying to buy more time by giving a poor response. I often get inquiries for events that people hire my entertainment company for, and some of the inquiries require extra time to plan and come up with specific pricing. I end up putting off these inquiries, and the more time I take to respond, the less likely I am to convert that prospect's lead into a sale. I have learned firsthand to respond to emails and phone calls in a timely fashion to protect both the business' image and profits.

The Outcome

Target probably never imagined that this poor response would make it into the New York Times as an attack against bloggers. What started out as a controversial advertisement has turned into a completely new issue. I believe the New York Times has blown this story out of proportion, and convinced their readers that this one response represents Target's views on blogging. This was an honest mistake made by one of Target's employees and the company is being treated unfairly for that one employee's poor response.

Posted in Posted by Umang Patel at 11:14 PM