Facing a decline in customer goodwill and the measurable effects of a DEI-inspired boycott, Target CEO Brian Cornell broke his silence in an all-employee memo, which may have done more harm than good in quelling anxiety among Target staff, according to the Minnesota Star Tribune.

Key Facts

Acknowledging that Target has suffered a “tough few months” and that he and his leadership team have been noticeably absent in their silence, Cornell committed to share more with employees to reinforce the company’s values going forward.

He reiterated the company’s commitment to “inclusivity, connection, drive” as core values, even as Black faith leaders called for a customer boycott after Target rolled back its DEI initiatives earlier this year.

Since the end of January, immediately after Target announced its revised DEI policies, Target experienced 11 consecutive weeks of decreased foot traffic, with a slight uptick during April Holy Week, though April foot traffic ended off 3.3%, according to Placer.ai.

Also missing from Cornell’s message were any concrete steps that he and the leadership team will take to reverse course.

Key Background

Target created confusion among employees and customers after announcing in January that the company had concluded its diversity, equity and inclusion goals, ended reporting to outside diversity-focused surveys, such as HRC’s Corporate Equality Index and “evolved” its supplier diversity program that had supported minority-owned businesses. This followed a controversy surrounding Target’s Pride Month 2024 activities. Last June, the company rolled back its Pride Month selections and displays after experiencing a backlash the year before from some customers who felt the company’s merchandise choices were inappropriate. Yet the roll back in Pride Month 2024 left other customers feeling Target was abandoning support of the LGBTQ community.

No Longer Considered A Champion Of Diversity

Target previously has been considered a retail champion for diverse communities, but over the past year, it has lost much of that goodwill. Katya Skogen, the director of cultural insights at research firm Collage, reports that consumer trust in Target has dropped by four percentage points in the last six months to 78% with the steepest declines among Black and Hispanic consumers. In addition, there has been a nine-point drop in perceived relevance of the Target brand among Black Americans. “This marks a serious fracture in the emotional connection that has long been one of the brand’s greatest strengths,” Skogen shared. “At a time when trust in brands is already fragile, and consumers cautiously navigate economic uncertainty, Target is under mounting pressure to restore the credibility that once set it apart.”

Criticism Mounting

Retail consultant Carol Spieckerman said Cornell’s memo drew attention to the “communication vacuum without explaining it.” She added that in the email, Cornell acknowledged but didn’t take responsibility for the concerns and controversies surrounding the company. “The tone implies that things are happening around and to Target that are out of its control,” she continued. GlobalData’s Neil Saunders got much the same impression. He shared the memo, which appeared jumbled, lacked substance and was poorly crafted, “highlights the disconnect that has opened up between management and the shop floor.” He added, “No where does it spell out how problems will be remedied.”

Crucial Quote

“Many of Target’s issues are self-inflicted. The business seems to be in a weird state of inertia and denial. What’s strange is that Target isn’t a terrible business, it has many advantages and a lot of talent in its ranks, it just doesn’t seem to be able to marshal them properly. Leadership really needs to start connecting better with staff at all levels. At the moment it’s not so much leading as drifting,” GlobalData’s Saunders shared.

Tangent

Target is facing mounting troubles at checkout with self-checkout being limited in some stores and a previously established limit of ten items for self-checkout being enforced. Despite Target statements that self-checkout is offered in most stores and will remain, TheStreet’s Cody Kline reports that Target customers increasingly feel frustrated by “blocked machines, roped-off lanes, long lines and stressed-out cashiers.” Kline observed that the Target customer experience at checkout is getting worse, not better. “When perception doesn’t match the brand promise, trust erodes — quietly, but quickly,” she warned.

Conclusion

The crisis at Target is multifaceted, involving a decline in customer goodwill, decreased foot traffic, and a loss of trust among diverse communities. The company’s decision to roll back its DEI initiatives and the subsequent boycott have had significant consequences. To restore its credibility and reputation, Target must take concrete steps to address the concerns of its employees, customers, and stakeholders. This includes providing a clear plan to reverse the damage, taking responsibility for the company’s actions, and demonstrating a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

FAQs

Q: What is the current state of Target’s customer goodwill?
A: Target is facing a decline in customer goodwill due to its decision to roll back its DEI initiatives and the subsequent boycott.
Q: What are the consequences of Target’s decision to roll back its DEI initiatives?
A: The consequences include a decline in foot traffic, a loss of trust among diverse communities, and a decrease in consumer trust.
Q: What can Target do to restore its credibility and reputation?
A: Target must take concrete steps to address the concerns of its employees, customers, and stakeholders, including providing a clear plan to reverse the damage, taking responsibility for the company’s actions, and demonstrating a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Q: How has the boycott affected Target’s sales?
A: The boycott has resulted in 11 consecutive weeks of decreased foot traffic, with a slight uptick during April Holy Week, though April foot traffic ended off 3.3%.
Q: What is the current state of Target’s self-checkout system?
A: Target is facing mounting troubles at checkout with self-checkout being limited in some stores and a previously established limit of ten items for self-checkout being enforced.

The last five years ushered in a wave of performative urgency across the healthcare industry — a tidal surge of press releases, C-suite appointments and purpose-driven campaigns declaring a new era of commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. For many who have spent their careers in the trenches of health disparities work, it felt like a long-awaited reckoning — a rare window to push real, systemic change.

The Reality of Health Equity Efforts

But now, with the political winds shifting and legal uncertainties clouding the DEI landscape, many of the loudest voices have gone eerily quiet. Initiatives are quietly being sunset. Equity teams are being dissolved. Former champions have disappeared from panels and podiums. What once appeared to be a movement now feels more like a marketing cycle that expired.

Was Health Equity Just a Fad?

It’s fair to ask: was health equity just the latest healthcare “hustle”? Another badge for visibility? A convenient way to be on trend? Many of the early warning signs were there: initiatives announced without infrastructure, funding that never materialized and leadership roles created without authority or resources. DEI professionals were invited into rooms — but too often not given a voice. They were handed lofty titles, yet asked to color inside predetermined lines. Meanwhile, their organizations basked in applause for appearances, not results.

What Happened to Health Equity?

What happened? The generous interpretation is that legal and political pressures forced a change in strategy. But even that framing lets too many leaders off the hook. Because you can alter rhetoric without abandoning values. You can evolve your messaging without walking away from your mission. The truth is more uncomfortable: some organizations weren’t ever serious about this work to begin with. They were renting values, not owning them.

The Impact on Health Equity Leaders

Let’s not sugarcoat this moment. Many health equity leaders feel betrayed. They feel used. And they’re right to feel that way. Because what’s at stake isn’t just credibility — it’s people’s lives. Vulnerable communities that experience the harshest disparities in health outcomes don’t have the luxury of waiting for politics to stabilize or organizational priorities to realign. So, where do we go from here?

Moving Forward

1. Stay the Course—Even If the Spotlight Is Gone

Now is not the time to back down. In fact, real leaders will show themselves in what they do now, when the noise has died down and the easy accolades are gone. Organizations that meant what they said should continue to drive toward health equity goals however they are described — if necessary, under new language or frameworks. Call it quality. Call it population health. Call it patient-centeredness. But don’t stop doing the work just because the branding changed. Leadership is not about doing what’s popular — it’s about doing what’s right, even when it’s uncomfortable.

2. Demand Accountability—for Past Commitments and Present Silence

We cannot normalize the kind of strategic amnesia now unfolding across healthcare. When organizations made bold pronouncements in 2020, they weren’t just symbolic gestures — they were public commitments. And commitments matter. It’s time to ask the uncomfortable questions: What happened to your health equity agenda? Why are your equity leaders gone? Where did the funding go?

3. Integrate Equity into the Broader Healthcare Fix

The biggest opportunity we’ve missed is also our most urgent one: integrating the health equity conversation into broader healthcare reform. The same systemic issues — misaligned incentives, fragmented care, access barriers, clinician burnout — that fail everyone fail the most vulnerable people first and worst. Equity isn’t a separate issue. It’s the canary in the coal mine. Fixing equity and fixing healthcare are not competing goals — they are convergent ones. If we design a system that works for the most complex, marginalized patients, we design a system that is better for everyone.

Conclusion

So, yes, some of what we saw over the past few years was performative. Some of it was opportunistic. Some of it was a hustle. But it wasn’t for everyone, and we can’t afford to let our cynicism dictate the future. Because while some leaders may be done with health equity, health equity isn’t done with us. The disparities are still there. The patients are still suffering. The trust is still broken. And our obligation remains — especially if we want to call ourselves a just and compassionate healthcare system. Real leadership in this moment isn’t loud. It’s consistent. It’s not in the spotlight. It’s in the follow-through. And it doesn’t waver when the applause and recognition stops.

FAQs

• Q: What is health equity?
  • A: Health equity refers to the principle of ensuring that all individuals have an equal opportunity to achieve optimal health, regardless of their background, socioeconomic status, or demographic characteristics.
• Q: Why did health equity initiatives seem to fade away?
  • A: Health equity initiatives appeared to fade away due to a combination of factors, including shifting political winds, legal uncertainties, and a lack of genuine commitment from some organizations.
• Q: How can we move forward with health equity efforts?
  • A: Moving forward requires staying committed to health equity goals, demanding accountability from organizations, and integrating equity into broader healthcare reform efforts.
• Q: Why is integrating equity into healthcare reform important?
  • A: Integrating equity into healthcare reform is crucial because it addresses the systemic issues that disproportionately affect vulnerable communities, ultimately leading to a better healthcare system for everyone.

Introduction to Lyft Silver

Rideshare company Lyft announced a new service aimed at older adults called Lyft Silver. The company says it’s about giving seniors "the gift of independence, without the weight of worry." The service features larger text, simpler menus and prioritizes matching riders with vehicles that are easier to enter and exit. It even offers live human support when needed.

According to Lyft’s announcement, they’ve "poured their hearts" into this design, thinking about "those we cherish most." They’ve worked with experts on aging to create what they call a "groundbreaking feature." It all sounds thoughtful and well-intentioned. But when I look at the list of features, I can’t help but wonder: Why are these improvements only available to seniors? Wouldn’t many of them be just as useful for riders of any age?

When Good Design Gets Age-Restricted

Let’s examine what Lyft Silver actually offers. According to Fast Company, the service uses a font that’s 1.4 times larger than the standard app. It has a cleaner, simpler interface. It connects users with rides that are easier to get in and out of. (Apparently, Lyft’s data showed seniors are twice as likely to cancel when matched with pickup trucks.) And it offers access to phone support with real human beings.

Are any of these features that only older adults would benefit from? Wouldn’t many people of all ages struggle to read tiny app text on a sun-drenched phone screen while standing on a street corner? Who hasn’t been frustrated when an app update buries an essential function three menus deep? Might other users prefer to be matched with vehicles that are easier to enter? And who wouldn’t want to connect with a live human when things go south?

The Paradox Of Specialized Design

Design legend and usability expert Don Norman puts it perfectly: "Designing for people with disabilities almost always leads to products that work better for everyone." The irony is that making these features "special" actually reinforces a problematic mindset about design. I don’t think I’ve ever quoted former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer about anything. But he was absolutely right when he stated, “Accessible design is good design.”

When companies create separate, specialized interfaces for different user groups, they’re often implicitly acknowledging that their main product isn’t as usable as it could be. Instead of fixing the core experience, they create an alternate path that often gets less attention and fewer updates over time. There’s also something mildly patronizing about age-segregated design. Only 5.6% of Lyft’s riders are over 65, according to Fast Company. Today, that age bracket makes up 18% of the U.S. population. Lyft’s low senior usage rate likely revealed a usability problem, not a lack of need or interest among older adults.

The Business Case For Universal Design

From a business perspective, making your product more usable for everyone isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s smart strategy. When curb cuts were mandated for wheelchair accessibility, they ended up benefiting parents with strollers, travelers with luggage, delivery workers, and countless others. Lyft’s own data points to the business upside. Older adults are 57% more likely to miss their rides, Fast Company reported. That’s lost revenue, not to mention frustrated drivers and riders. By making the service more accessible, Lyft stands to increase successful rides across all demographics.

Moving Beyond Age-Restricted Design

What would a truly inclusive Lyft app look like? Perhaps it would offer customizable font sizes and contrast options for everyone. It might let any user select vehicle preferences based on ease of entry. And imagine offering a "Get Help" button for all users, not just those over a certain age. Design that accommodates diverse needs doesn’t have to mean designing for the lowest common denominator or sacrificing aesthetic appeal. In fact, as Don Norman argues, there’s no reason assistive devices can’t be beautiful and elegant. The same applies to digital apps.

Lyft Silver for All?

Lyft deserves credit for identifying gaps in their service for older users. But the real innovation would be recognizing that the improvements they’ve created for Lyft Silver shouldn’t be age-restricted at all. When good design gets labeled as a specialized option for a particular demographic, we all lose out. Isn’t it time we stopped treating ease of use as a special feature?

Conclusion

In conclusion, while Lyft’s introduction of Lyft Silver is a step in the right direction, it raises important questions about the nature of design and accessibility. By restricting these features to seniors, Lyft may be reinforcing a problematic mindset about design. Instead, the company should consider making these improvements available to all users, regardless of age. This approach would not only benefit seniors but also enhance the overall user experience for everyone.

FAQs

Q: What is Lyft Silver?
A: Lyft Silver is a new service offered by Lyft that is designed for older adults, featuring larger text, simpler menus, and easier-to-enter vehicles.
Q: Why is Lyft Silver only available to seniors?
A: According to Lyft, the service is designed to give seniors "the gift of independence, without the weight of worry." However, many of the features may be beneficial to users of all ages.
Q: What are some potential drawbacks of age-restricted design?
A: Age-restricted design can reinforce a problematic mindset about design, imply that the main product is not usable, and create a separate, potentially less-maintained path for certain users.
Q: What are the benefits of universal design?
A: Universal design can benefit all users, regardless of age or ability, and can also be a smart business strategy, increasing accessibility and usability for a wider range of users.