Conversation Agent - Valeria Maltoni - Press Statement Misses Target

« Sometimes Innovation is no More Than Doing Something Old ... Better | Main | The Future of We Media »


yes, that's so very true. Shaping Youth is KNOWN for 'balanced and deliberate' I need to reinforce that...thanks.

As infuriating as it is for people to misunderstand the 'bigger picture' I feel it could harm OUR brand by lowering into a 'one ad' defensive dialog to try to open eyes for the larger POV...As you said, the general public is 'unreasonable/distracted' w/a preferernce for soundbites and labels over nuance...So I 'get it' that the majority of folks will choose 'eyes wide shut' mode as it's easier to play the 'over-reactive card' sans greater context...

That said, the 'move on/focus on the positive' stance isn't working well to quell the 'reactive vitriol of 'road rage' types who let loose in troll/trigger-point mode to resurface an otherwise dormant conversation...

My tech guy said, 'just shut down comments on that post if it's draining your productivity and polluting you w/bad energy'...But somehow THAT smacks of MORE potential to be misconstrued (since I'm a free speech proponent/anti-censorship gal)---

ugh. Just need a good media handler to shore up the flanks and redirect the focus to the larger issues. (and to get a thicker skin) ;-) And you're right, nothin' I can do about Target's response, only my own...still pondering that one...thanks for the tips...A.

When I mentioned the incident in the office, a couple of people said that it was enough to walk to the next ad in Times Square and see much worse. This statement goes to the perception of what Shaping Youth is trying to do. People are unreasonable and distracted.

Nobody wants to enter a one-sided conversation. You cannot help Target not responding and you cannot make them. Their brand is their problem. Your brand is your problem.

To recalibrate the perception of your organization you go back to your core mission, the support you give and receive, and broaden the conversation to what the issues are that inspired you to lead that effort. This is not about Target, it's about you and your organization. Remember that you are also dealing with public perception and lack of interest. Balanced and deliberate trumps reactive every day.

Yes, there is a larger lesson on media for all of us -- controversy sells on interest, especially when most do not stick around to figure out exactly what happened.

Valeria, yep, I know YOU are an AOC contributor for sure, I was hoping some of your sharp readers would join in the fun. (I'd love to see Hawaii have a presence!)

As for Target's 'conserv. corp. culture' yes, there seems to be a 'disconnect' there, like the old Rolling Stone ad campaign "perception vs. reality."

I love their peppy pup (the bull terrier w/the circle) and lifestyle ads and such, so I find myself in the awkward position of sticking up for Target when people are too harsh w/them on my blog; I keep assuring 'look it was probably just a misstep'---but I’m beginning to think Tim’s comment above is absolutely right. (about dodging the entire conversation)

Reason being? There are ways corporations can 'recover' from customer svc. issues even AFTER the fact (see the Jott/MisJott CEO brilliance that I mentioned in their cust. Svc. Gaffe here:

And yet, Target reminds silent.

You’d think if they were trying to rectify the perception of dissing customer outreach, they’d at LEAST have touched base w/Shaping Youth in 'some' manner (off-line, off-blog, phone call, boilerplate oopsie, smoke signal, whatever)

But nope, they never did.

Not a word…not a great cust svc/branding statement, esp. when both our orgs have been dragged through the media spincycle.

Which brings me to a similar query, based on your vast expertise in this arena: Should I stay silent/ignore or reframe skewed contexts of our org (Shaping Youth)?

We've been lobbed some doozies (slanderous assumptions/accusations that could damage the perception of our brand if not corrected) yet we don't have the people power to 'mop up the misinformation' and set the record straight.

Is it better to just 'keep on keepin on' and not reopen the can of worms/since the original conversation is completely off the front page now (Jan. 8 posting?) or should I deconstruct the anatomy of the hijacked conversation as a media literacy lesson for all, much as you've done in your Feb. 3 post?

Thoughts? Advice? Plea for professional best practices?

I'm all ears. Best, Amy

The comments to this entry are closed.

Conversation Agent

  • Since 2006, Conversation Agent focuses on the impact of technology in business, culture, and human behavior. At Conversation Agent LLC, I help organizations and brands develop and communicate their full business / product value consistently.


As seen on

Advisory Boards

Marketing that makes business sense


Book Reviews

  • Conversation Agent participates in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. It provides a means for Conversation Agent to earn commissions by linking to Amazon.

Comment Policy and Social Guidelines

  • This is my blog and not a public space. Critical discourse is welcomed. However, inappropriate comments will be deleted. See my social guidelines for reference.


  • The opinions blogged herein represent only those of Valeria Maltoni and do not reflect those of her employer, persons or companies mentioned herein, or anyone else.