Did the Target Boycott Work, or Did It Hamper Black Brands from National Distribution?

The recent boycott against Target, initiated in response to its rollback of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, has raised critical questions about the effectiveness of economic protest and its unintended consequences. While the boycott was meant to hold Target accountable for ending programs that disproportionately benefited marginalized communities, the reality of its impact remains complex. Did the boycott successfully push Target to reconsider its policies, or did it backfire by leading to the removal of Black-owned brands from national distribution?

Additionally, research has shown that white women benefited the most from DEI initiatives, primarily due to corporate diversity hiring policies and procurement strategies that often favored gender-based diversity over racial diversity (Harvard Business Review, 2024). Despite this, white women were not at the forefront of the boycott, raising questions about whether the backlash was directed at the right target or if the focus on Black-owned brands was misplaced.

Read: The Failure of DEI: It Did Not Equate to Black Progress, So Why Keep Fighting for It?

The Timeline: From DEI Rollback to Boycott In early 2025, Target announced it would phase out its DEI programs, which had been instrumental in supporting Black entrepreneurs and ensuring their products had shelf space in one of the largest retail chains in the country (AP News, 2025). This decision sparked widespread outrage, prompting civil rights groups and prominent Black leaders to call for a boycott. The movement gained traction, with many urging consumers to take their business elsewhere in protest of what was seen as a step backward for corporate inclusivity.

While the boycott may have been intended to send a strong message, its unintended consequences quickly became apparent, particularly for Black-owned brands that had benefited from Target’s DEI policies. As sales declined, some entrepreneurs saw their products pulled from shelves. Kiara Imani Will, creator of LikeU Cards, publicly stated that her brand was removed from Target shortly after the boycott gained momentum (Reuters, 2025). Other Black entrepreneurs, such as the founder of Mielle Organics, voiced concerns that the economic fallout could lead to long-term setbacks in their distribution and growth (Reuters, 2025). Several Black-owned brands that once thrived at Target now face uncertainty due to the retailer’s rollback of its DEI initiatives. Black Girl Sunscreen, founded by Shontay Lundy, provides sun protection specifically designed for melanated skin. The Lip Bar, created by Melissa Butler, offers vegan and cruelty-free beauty products. McBride Sisters Wine Company, known for its “Black Girl Magic” wine collection, has brought diversity to Target’s beverage aisles. In the food sector, A Dozen Cousins delivers ready-to-eat beans inspired by traditional Black and Latino recipes, while Partake Foods specializes in allergy-friendly cookies and baking mixes. As these brands struggle with declining sales and distribution challenges, many entrepreneurs are urging consumers to continue supporting Black-owned businesses, whether at Target or through direct purchases, to ensure their long-term survival (Reuters, 2025)..

The Business Reality: Who Really Got Hurt? Target, like any major corporation, makes inventory decisions based on sales performance. When the boycott discouraged shopping, Black-owned brands—many of which were still stocked in Target stores at the time—saw a decline in sales. In retail, low sales can lead to product discontinuation, regardless of the cause. This raises a critical question: Was the removal of these Black-owned brands a direct consequence of the DEI rollback, or did the boycott itself accelerate the process by making these products less profitable?

The larger business reality is that Black people have yet to build institutions on the scale of Target or Walmart. This lack of infrastructure means Black-owned businesses are heavily reliant on major retailers for distribution, visibility, and customer reach. Without access to Target’s national supply chain, these businesses now face significantly higher costs in advertising, warehousing, and shipping. Instead of benefiting from Target’s existing logistics, they must now shoulder these expenses independently, which will inevitably raise the cost of their products. This puts Black entrepreneurs at a further disadvantage in an already competitive retail environment (Forbes, 2025).

Furthermore, the reality is that the Black consumer base only makes up 8.9% of Target’s customers, while white consumers account for 66.7% and Hispanic consumers 14.5% (Statista, 2025). If Black consumers are not purchasing Black-owned brands at a significant rate, then from a corporate standpoint, there may be little incentive for Target to stock Black ethnic products. Sales data largely drive retail decisions, and if a demographic is not driving substantial demand, companies will prioritize products that cater to their most extensive customer base.

From a financial standpoint, Target may have had little incentive to keep stocking Black-owned brands if their sales numbers suffered during the boycott. If a significant portion of Target’s Black customer base stopped shopping there, it may have inadvertently justified Target to phase out products catering to that demographic.

Historically, boycotts have been a powerful tool in civil rights movements, from the Montgomery Bus Boycott to divestment campaigns against apartheid. However, the success of a boycott depends on clear goals and strategic execution. Other than giving some Black leaders air time on podcasts and YouTube shows and helping some raise money. But unfortunately, in this case, the boycott may have lacked a concrete demand beyond protesting the DEI rollback. Was the goal to force Target to reinstate its diversity programs? To increase Black-owned brand partnerships? Or simply to punish the company? Without an apparent, achievable demand, the protest may have caused collateral damage to the businesses it sought to protect (CNN, 2025).

Moreover, not all Black entrepreneurs supported the boycott. Some, like Afro Unicorn founder April Showers, publicly urged consumers to continue shopping at Target to ensure Black-owned brands remained viable. Their argument was straightforward: A national retailer provides unmatched visibility and sales potential that many small businesses cannot achieve on their own. If Target drops them, returning to retail shelves elsewhere can be an uphill battle (The Grio, 2025).

Furthermore, there was no clear leadership or consensus on the boycott’s ultimate goal. While it was positioned as a response to Target’s DEI rollback, Black consumers did not necessarily benefit the most from these initiatives. This raises a critical question: What was the intended outcome of the boycott? If the goal was to reinstate DEI programs that predominantly benefited white women, then the movement may have been misdirected. Without a defined endgame, the boycott risked harming Black-owned businesses more than Target itself.

What Comes Next? The Target boycott highlights the complexities of economic activism. While protesting against corporate decisions that undermine diversity is necessary, strategies must be carefully considered to avoid unintended harm. Suppose the goal was to pressure Target to recommit to DEI initiatives. What leverage remains now that the boycott has potentially decreased the viability of Black-owned brands within the store?

Rather than solely withdrawing economic support, a more effective strategy might be a dual approach: boycotting while simultaneously investing in alternative avenues for Black-owned businesses. Supporting Black entrepreneurs through direct purchases, community-based retail partnerships, and online platforms could ensure that these brands continue to thrive regardless of Target’s corporate decisions.

Additionally, Black entrepreneurs and leaders must work toward building large-scale institutions that rival retailers like Target and Walmart. Without independent distribution networks, national visibility, and streamlined logistics, Black-owned brands will continue to face steep barriers when major retailers shift policies. Investing in Black-owned supply chains, cooperative retail spaces, and direct-to-consumer platforms is essential for long-term success (Brookings Institute, 2025).

Conclusion: A Pyrrhic Victory? Ultimately, the boycott against Target may have sent a message, but at what cost? If Black-owned brands lose their national distribution, the movement may have inadvertently done more harm than good. The lesson here is that activism must be strategic and solutions-oriented. The next step should focus on long-term economic empowerment strategies that ensure Black businesses are not solely dependent on major retailers but can also flourish through independent channels. Only then can the movement claim a true victory.

References:

• AP News. (2025). “Target Announces DEI Policy Rollback.”
• Brookings Institute. (2025). “The Economic Barriers Facing Black-Owned Businesses.”
• CNN. (2025). “The Effectiveness of Boycotts in Corporate America.”
• Forbes. (2025). “The Cost of Independent Distribution for Small Businesses.”
• Harvard Business Review. (2024). “Who Really Benefits from DEI Initiatives?”
• Reuters. (2025). “Black-Owned Brands Dropped from Target Amid Boycott.”
• Statista. (2025). “Consumer Demographics at Target by Race.”
• The Grio. (2025). “Black Entrepreneurs Speak on the Target Boycott.”