About a month ago, I wrote a post about Target that elicited lots of interest. The thrust of that entry was that Target has declared itself to be a design-focused brand. Its marketing and advertising focused on its hip design-consciousness, despite my claim that its merchandise doesn't live up to its story. My commenters pointed out that the things Target is doing well (store design, lighting, signage) sufficiently differentiates if from "the Marts" in a direction that customers experience as "designed."
And this is exactly what marketing is supposed to do: create expectations that shape what customers will experience when they encounter the product. Commenters repeatedly said things like, "Target has made design affordable for the masses" despite the overwhelming degree of SKU overlap between Target and its competitors.
The simple fact is: those "facts" don't matter.
Target = Design is now firmly implanted in the customer's mind. That expectation means the store looks like it contains more "designer" items than it "actually" does. SKU counts, be damned! In the same way that SUV's are "safe" and organic foods are "healthy," Target is a souce for "designer merchandise."
But not everyone agrees. Allison wrote,
I shop both Target and K-Mart. I agree Target feels more spacious. But a lot of people are missing out due to bigotry and insecurity, it seems, by not being open to K-Mart as well. I collect domestic textiles: my dining room table currently has a $12.99 tablecloth on it, from K-Mart. (It's not Martha Stewart, but her dishtowels, in particular, are collectibles.) It's a gorgeous paisley. Target has nothing to compare. Williams-Sonoma has a more boring paisley for 5 times the price.
There will always be shoppers like Allison who are able to see products in an "objective" manner. They are few and far between. And, like Damon Runyon once said, "The race may not always be to the swift nor the victory to the strong, but that's how you bet."
Comments