New Boycotts Hit Target, Walmart, Amazon Again -- And This Time, They're Felt
- by Sarah Mahoney @mahoney_sarah, April 17, 2025
This Easter weekend, activists are taking aim at Target
Retailers are bracing for Economic Blackout, 2.0. New data from Numerator finds that while just 12% of U.S. consumers say they plan to participate in this
weekend’s Economic Blackout, down from 16% during the first event in February, the boycott's economic impact appears to be growing.
The activist-led movement, protesting what organizers see as corporate America’s retreat from DEI initiatives, continues to target the nation’s largest retailers. Among those planning to participate, 70% say they will avoid shopping at Target, 66% at Walmart, and 65% at Amazon. Target, notably, saw a 2-point increase in boycott mentions compared to February.
Participation rates vary by demographic. Millennials are the most likely to sit out shopping (16%), followed by Gen X (13%), Gen Z (12%), and boomers+ (10%). Awareness of the April event has dipped slightly to 31% of U.S. consumers, down from 38% in February. Awareness is highest among Asian (45%), Hispanic/Latino (45%), and Black (44%) consumers.
advertisement
advertisement
Support among those aware of the protests remains relatively strong, with 58% expressing support. However, opposition is rising, now at 18%, a seven-point increase since February.
February’s Impact: Early Warning Signs
Numerator’s analysis of verified purchase behavior during the Feb. 28 blackout found that while total retail sales dipped modestly, and not to a level of statistical significance, declines at Target, Walmart, and Amazon were more pronounced.
Household penetration at these retailers fell 2.2 points to 22.7%.
Sales dropped 6.2%, and shopping trips fell 7.5%, deeper declines than the broader market.
Black consumers showed the sharpest pullback, with spending down 18.7%, and trips down 17.6%. Black households collectively spent less than $1 billion that day, a $220 million drop -- the only time in the past year spending for that cohort fell below that threshold.
LGBTQ+ shoppers also registered significant declines, with household penetration down 4.7 points.
Major chains have so far kept mum on the boycotts, which are organized by the People’s Union USA and supported by multiple grassroots groups, including some influential Black churches.
The broader impact of the April event may not become clear until retailers report quarterly earnings in May. Many have already warned of softer consumer spending, with ongoing concerns about tariffs and broader economic conditions weighing on consumers. The University of Michigan reports that consumer sentiment plunged 11% this month to a preliminary reading of 50.8, the second-lowest reading on records going back to 1952. April’s reading was lower than anything seen during the Great Recession.
Early traffic patterns suggest some retailers are already under pressure. Placer.ai reports that Target has seen declining foot traffic for 10 consecutive weeks, coinciding with its DEI policy changes. Walmart has also reported smaller but steady declines, while Costco -- one of the few major retailers to reaffirm its DEI commitments -- has experienced rising foot traffic.
Even modest participation rates may challenge major retailers as consumers weigh brand values alongside price and convenience. Whether sales at Target, Walmart, and Amazon fall disproportionately remains to be seen. But the early data underscores that even relatively small movements can have a visible, measurable impact-- especially among key demographic groups.
As boycotts evolve, even small shifts in spending habits are starting to show up in the data.
This article, like many from MediaPost, forces a political lens onto a niche movement and overstates its impact. Just 12% of consumers plan to join the so-called Economic Blackout—down from 16%. That’s not a groundswell, that’s noise. And while certain groups showed spending dips on one day, that’s not a trend worth reshaping a brand around.
The real issue isn’t Target’s “retreat from DEI”—it’s that they made DEI their brand, pushed activist messaging into the kids’ section, and alienated their core shoppers. Activists are not a reliable customer base. They’re loud, not loyal.
Costco’s success isn’t proof of DEI-driven loyalty—it’s proof of staying focused on value and consistency. And if MediaPost’s writers had real-world marketing experience, they’d know this: long-term brand trust is built on knowing your customers, not lecturing them.
LIke clockwork, John is here to chime in with his anti-DEI mental gymnastics. However, Target store traffic has been tanking for nearly three straight months (https://www.retailbrew.com/stories/2025/04/11/target-suffers-10th-consecutive-week-of-foot-traffic-declines-sinking-stock-prices-since-caving-on-dei) ...which means that, yes, they "alientated their core shoppers" but abandoning their principles was the catalyst for that, not adopting them. If they were succeding before, and now they are struggling, it doesn't take much marketing experience to see what led from A to B.
Our family shopped at the nearby Target several times per week until they bent the knee to the MAGA cult. Now we're visiting more local chains and mom & pop supermarkets, and its refreshing. Haven't been to Target since February, and if they backtrack yet again, I am not even sure we would return. There are MANY families like ours. So, pontificate some more about that "loyal consumer base" and we'll see what happens after another three months.
Appreciate the passion, but let’s be honest—real marketing people understand that you don’t build brand loyalty by chasing activism or trying to please everyone. You build it by knowing your customer, staying consistent, and not turning the shopping experience into a political statement.
Target’s foot traffic didn’t collapse because it “caved.” It started falling after it went all-in on DEI as a brand identity, pushing polarizing messaging into spaces like the kids’ section. That’s when trust eroded. The backlash wasn’t over abandoning DEI—it was over how far they pushed it. Quietly, families stopped showing up—not because of a headline, but because the store stopped feeling like it was for them.
Your family boycotted when Target made a move you didn’t like. Fair enough. But that proves the larger point: activist shoppers aren’t a stable base. They’re reactionary, easily offended, and quick to walk. Meanwhile, the average customer—the one that used to shop at Target for value, style, and convenience—is long gone, and likely not coming back.
So sure, cite links and say this all started when Target “bent the knee.” But anyone with actual marketing experience knows better. The damage began when they forgot who their real customers were.
Who's "lecturing"? Diversity, equity, and inclusion are broadly held American values that contribute to business success. Sadly, the "lecturing" of those who either don't understand DEI, mistake it for affirmative action, or actually prefer its opposite -- homogeneity, inequity, and exclusion -- has turned smart business policy into a culture-wars political hotbutton.
This kind of response is a textbook deflection—it avoids addressing real concerns by smearing anyone who questions DEI as either ignorant or malicious. That’s not a defense of DEI. It’s a tactic to shut down debate.
Let’s start with the false premise: "DEI are broadly held American values." No—they’re redefined terms wrapped in appealing language. Diversity is one thing; most people value diverse perspectives. But “equity” as pushed by DEI advocates isn’t about fairness—it’s about engineered outcomes. And “inclusion” often means ideological conformity, where disagreement is painted as bigotry. That’s not broad agreement. That’s coercion.
Second, claiming DEI "contributes to business success" ignores a growing list of companies—Target, Bud Light, Disney, and others—who leaned hard into DEI messaging and paid the price. If DEI were truly a slam-dunk business advantage, you'd see increased revenue, not damaged brands and declining trust.
The accusation that anyone who questions DEI must prefer “homogeneity, inequity, and exclusion” is pure strawman. It assumes that unless you support this specific ideological framework, you must be against fairness altogether. That’s not serious thinking—that’s moral posturing.
And as for who’s lecturing—when brands use ad campaigns, packaging, internal training, and public statements to push political or cultural messages that many of their customers don’t agree with, that’s lecturing. It’s not inclusion—it’s messaging with an agenda.
Smart business policy is customer-focused, not ideology-focused. And what turned DEI into a culture-war flashpoint wasn’t those asking questions—it was those insisting there’s only one acceptable view.