In a statement that has ignited controversy, the head of Consumer Advocacy Group, Will Hild, has leveled serious allegations against Target’s Chief Executive Officer, Brian Cornell, accusing him of making misleading statements in connection to the retailer’s LGBTQ Pride merchandise.
The dispute gained traction following Cornell’s appearance on a CNBC segment, where he tackled questions regarding a dip in sales and faced scrutiny over the store’s products aimed at celebrating Pride Month. The conversation turned tense when CNBC’s Becky Quick broached the topic of customer concerns, citing products like “transgender bathing suits aimed at kids” and a collaboration with a designer allegedly promoting satanic views.
Cornell dismissed these assertions, maintaining, “You and I both know, those weren’t true.” However, Hild, representing an organization known for its stance against corporate activism, challenged Cornell’s rebuttals. Speaking to Fox News Digital, Hild expressed his disbelief, saying, “He just flat out lies about what Target did.” He further emphasized, “There are verifiable facts that prove Target targeted children with transgender ideology products and worked with a designer known for satanic affiliations.”
Target’s collaboration with UK-based brand Abprallen came under particular scrutiny. The brand, known for its provocative messaging like “Satan respects pronouns,” and its designer, Erik Carnell, known for satanic expressions, became a focal point of the debate. Additionally, the presence of “tuck-friendly” women’s swimsuits – albeit not in children’s sizes – in vibrant Pride sections surrounded by children’s items, fueled the argument that the products were indirectly marketed to children.
Adding to the controversy, Hild claimed that items designed for transgender customers were strategically placed among children’s products, which, in his view, equates to targeting a younger demographic.
Despite the uproar, Target remained silent and did not issue a comment on the criticisms leveraged by Consumer Advocacy Group.
Cornell, during the interview, also touched on the adverse reaction to the Pride merchandise, noting it had increased concerns for employee safety due to customer discontent. Hild interpreted this response as a deflection tactic, accusing Cornell of trying to overshadow the offense to consumers by alleging risks to employee safety.
Hild went as far as to suggest that Cornell’s actions had compromised the safety of children in Target stores, asserting that the CEO was shifting the blame onto consumers for his own missteps.
Every June, Target has traditionally mounted extensive Pride month displays. This year’s array included a broad spectrum of merchandise from baby rompers to adult apparel emblazoned with LGBTQ supportive slogans. The backlash was particularly vehement over items like the “tuck” swimsuits and children’s coloring books depicting adults in affectionate poses, which some perceived as premature exposure to complex gender ideologies.
In response to the backlash, Target confirmed that it had made “adjustments” to their Pride displays and even removed certain products. These changes were not widely communicated to staff, leading to surprise and frustration among many employees, especially those supportive of the Pride movement.
In the aftermath, Cornell suggested that the backlash was subsiding, a point Hild staunchly contested, remarking, “Consumers remember what Target did to target children.”
The controversy extends beyond merchandise to Target’s partnerships, particularly with GLSEN, an educational group advocating for policies that are argued to obscure parents from their child’s gender transitions in school. The connection with GLSEN, which featured in Target’s Pride displays and received substantial donations from the company, added another layer to the ongoing debate about corporate responsibility and consumer trust.