How Target Stores Has Missed the Mark

Why Target is a Failing Retail Brand

By Brian French, Florida Business Writer

Target, once a darling of American retail, has been struggling to maintain its position as a leading big-box retailer in an increasingly competitive and rapidly evolving market. Known for its trendy yet affordable merchandise, clean stores, and a carefully curated brand image,

Target was long seen as a step above competitors like Walmart, appealing to a slightly more upscale demographic while still offering value. However, in recent years, the retailer has faced significant challenges that have eroded its market share, customer loyalty, and financial stability.

This article explores the multifaceted reasons behind Target’s decline, from operational missteps and strategic failures to external pressures and shifting consumer preferences.

Failure to Adapt to E-Commerce Dominance

The rise of e-commerce has reshaped the retail landscape, and Target has struggled to keep pace with giants like Amazon and Walmart, who have invested heavily in their digital infrastructure. While Target has made efforts to bolster its online presence—through initiatives like same-day delivery, curbside pickup, and partnerships with services like Shipt—these moves have often felt reactive rather than proactive.

According to a 2024 report from Statista, Amazon captured nearly 40% of U.S. e-commerce sales, while Target’s online sales accounted for a fraction of its revenue, with only about 18% of its total sales coming from digital channels in 2023.Target’s e-commerce platform, while functional, lacks the seamless user experience and vast product selection that Amazon offers.

Slow website performance, inconsistent inventory availability, and a less intuitive interface have frustrated customers who expect a frictionless online shopping experience. Furthermore, Target’s reliance on third-party delivery services has led to inconsistent fulfillment, with customers often reporting delays or issues with order accuracy.

In contrast, competitors like Walmart have invested in proprietary logistics networks, giving them greater control over the supply chain and delivery process.

Inventory and Supply Chain Woes

Target’s supply chain inefficiencies have been a significant contributor to its struggles. During the COVID-19 pandemic, disruptions exposed vulnerabilities in Target’s inventory management. Overstocking of certain products, such as apparel and home goods, led to bloated inventories, while understocking of high-demand items frustrated customers.

In 2022, Target reported a $1 billion inventory write-down due to excess stock, which forced the retailer to heavily discount products to clear shelves. This not only hurt margins but also damaged the brand’s reputation for offering desirable, on-trend merchandise.

Even post-pandemic, Target has struggled to optimize its supply chain. The retailer’s “just-in-time” inventory model, which aims to reduce holding costs, has backfired in an era of unpredictable demand and global supply chain disruptions. Unlike Walmart, which has leveraged its scale to secure priority with suppliers, Target has often been left scrambling to restock shelves, leading to empty aisles and lost sales.

Posts on X have highlighted customer frustration with out-of-stock items, with some users calling Target’s inventory management “a complete mess” as recently as early 2025.

Erosion of Brand Identity

Target’s brand identity—once defined by its “cheap chic” aesthetic, exclusive designer collaborations, and a curated shopping experience—has weakened in recent years. The retailer built its reputation on offering affordable yet stylish products, often through partnerships with high-profile designers like Isaac Mizrahi, Missoni, and Lilly Pulitzer.

However, these collaborations have become less frequent, and when they do occur, they often fail to generate the same buzz as in the past. Customers have complained that Target’s in-house brands, such as Cat & Jack and Universal Thread, while initially successful, have declined in quality, with issues like poor durability and inconsistent sizing becoming common grievances.

Moreover, Target’s attempt to appeal to a broader demographic has diluted its brand appeal. By trying to compete with Walmart on price while simultaneously positioning itself as a trendier alternative, Target has alienated its core customer base—middle-class shoppers looking for affordable style. The retailer’s stores often feel caught between two worlds: not as budget-friendly as Walmart, nor as aspirational as higher-end retailers like Nordstrom. This lack of a clear brand identity has left Target struggling to differentiate itself in a crowded market.

Missteps in Customer Experience

Customer experience, once a hallmark of Target’s success, has deteriorated in many stores. Shoppers have reported declining store cleanliness, disorganized aisles, and understaffed locations, which contrast sharply with the retailer’s reputation for a pleasant shopping environment.

On X, users have shared photos of cluttered Target stores, with comments like “This used to be my happy place, now it’s chaos” gaining traction in 2024. Staffing shortages, exacerbated by labor market challenges post-COVID, have led to longer checkout lines and reduced customer service, further eroding loyalty.

Target’s self-checkout systems, intended to streamline operations, have also drawn criticism. Technical glitches, limited machine availability, and the lack of human interaction have frustrated customers, particularly older shoppers who prefer traditional checkouts.

Meanwhile, competitors like Costco have maintained a focus on personalized service, which has helped them retain customer loyalty despite their own operational challenges.

Controversial Strategic Decisions

Target’s strategic decisions have at times alienated its customer base. In 2023, the retailer faced significant backlash over its Pride Month merchandise, with some customers boycotting stores due to perceived politicization.

While Target has long positioned itself as an inclusive brand, its handling of the situation—pulling certain products from shelves in response to criticism—was seen as inconsistent and reactive, angering both supporters and detractors. This misstep damaged Target’s reputation and led to a reported 5% drop in same-store sales in Q2 2023, according to a CNBC report.

Additionally, Target’s aggressive expansion into smaller-format stores in urban areas and college campuses has yielded mixed results. While these stores were intended to capture younger, urban consumers, they often carry limited inventory, which frustrates customers expecting the full Target experience. The high operational costs of these locations, combined with lower-than-expected foot traffic, have strained profitability.

Financial Pressures and Declining Performance

Target’s financial performance reflects its operational and strategic challenges. In 2023, the retailer reported a 1.6% decline in annual revenue, marking its first full-year sales drop in nearly a decade, according to a Bloomberg analysis. Profit margins have also been squeezed by rising costs, including labor, transportation, and energy.

Target’s stock price has underperformed compared to competitors, with a 15% decline over the past two years, while Walmart’s stock gained 20% in the same period.

The retailer’s heavy reliance on discretionary categories like apparel, home decor, and electronics has made it particularly vulnerable to economic downturns. As inflation and rising interest rates have squeezed consumer budgets, shoppers have prioritized essentials over non-essential goods, hitting Target harder than Walmart, which has a stronger focus on groceries. Target’s grocery section, while growing, still lags behind competitors in selection and pricing, limiting its ability to capture budget-conscious shoppers.

Competitive Pressures

Target faces intense competition from both traditional and online retailers. Walmart has solidified its position as the go-to for budget shoppers, offering lower prices and a broader grocery selection. Amazon dominates e-commerce with unmatched convenience and pricing power.

Meanwhile, specialty retailers like TJ Maxx and HomeGoods have siphoned off customers seeking trendy, affordable home goods and apparel—categories where Target once excelled.

Emerging competitors like Shein and Temu have also encroached on Target’s market share by offering ultra-low-cost fashion and home products, appealing to younger, price-sensitive consumers. Target’s inability to match these prices while maintaining its brand image has put it at a disadvantage. Additionally, Costco’s membership model has attracted a loyal customer base willing to pay for value and quality, further eroding Target’s share of the middle-class market.

Shifting Consumer Preferences

Consumer preferences have shifted dramatically in recent years, and Target has been slow to adapt. Younger shoppers, particularly Gen Z, prioritize sustainability, ethical sourcing, and unique experiences—areas where Target has lagged. While competitors like H&M and Zara have leaned into sustainable fashion initiatives, Target’s efforts, such as its “Target Zero” sustainability program, have been criticized as superficial and limited in scope.

Additionally, the rise of secondhand retail and resale platforms like ThredUp and Poshmark has diverted customers away from traditional retailers like Target. These platforms offer trendy, affordable clothing with the added appeal of sustainability, which resonates with younger consumers.

Target’s failure to innovate in this space, such as by introducing a robust resale program or emphasizing eco-friendly products, has left it out of step with market trends.

Leadership and Strategic Misalignment

Target’s leadership has faced criticism for its inability to navigate these challenges effectively. CEO Brian Cornell, while credited with driving growth in the 2010s, has struggled to articulate a clear vision for the retailer’s future. Frequent executive turnover, including key departures in merchandising and supply chain roles, has further disrupted strategic continuity.

The retailer’s board has been accused of prioritizing short-term cost-cutting over long-term investments in technology and customer experience, leaving Target ill-equipped to compete in a rapidly changing industry.

Target’s decline is the result of a combination of internal missteps and external pressures. Its failure to fully embrace e-commerce, coupled with supply chain inefficiencies, has hindered its ability to compete with Amazon and Walmart.

A diluted brand identity, declining customer experience, and controversial strategic decisions have further eroded loyalty. Financial pressures, intense competition, and shifting consumer preferences have compounded these issues, while leadership struggles to chart a clear path forward.

To reverse its decline, Target must invest in its digital infrastructure, streamline its supply chain, and recommit to its core brand identity of affordable style. It must also adapt to changing consumer preferences by prioritizing sustainability and innovation.

Without bold action, Target risks fading into irrelevance in a retail landscape that rewards agility and customer focus. While the retailer still has a loyal customer base and recognizable brand, its window to reclaim its position as a retail leader is rapidly closing.