 |
|
|
|||||
Branded is a weekly column devoted to the intersection of marketing, business, design, and culture. For years, Target wore the halo among big-box retail brands: It may not have been the cheapest, but Tar-zhay offered solid value, often through collaborations with top designers, while enjoying a forward-looking and enlightened reputation. But its become increasingly clear that for many shoppers, the halo has been passedto Costco. And its paying off for the big-box club chain. The proximate cause of this divergence seems clear enough. Decisions made by Target to pull back on diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, which included efforts to explicitly support Black-owned brands and welcome LGBTQ+ consumers, alienated some of its regulars. Meanwhile, Costco reaffirmed its own DEI commitments as simply good for business and while that sparked some boycott chatter in the anti-woke mob, it didnt amount to much. Simultaneously, the big-box club chain has put a fresh emphasis on putting higher-end in its bargain mix, including literal gold bars. Targets initial announcement that it was paring back DEI initiatives sparked immediate complaints and boycott vowsand a notable chunk of those disaffected consumers seem to be sticking to their guns. In a recent report on DEI cuts impact on retail, analytics firm Numerator estimated that Target drew almost 5 million fewer store visits in a four-week stretch ending in February compared to the year before. Costco, in contrast, enjoyed 7.7 million more visits in the same stretch. The report pointed out that DEI-sensitive groups were a notable contributor to the trend. Latino shoppers, for example, made up about a third of Costcos gains. Placer.ai data found that Target overall foot traffic dropped 9% in February and 6.5% in March; and it appears to be continuing to fall. A Forbes report citing data from analytics firm Similarweb found that a February 28 economic blackout aimed at boycotting major retailers and consumer companies that have signaled less commitment to DEI caused Targets web traffic to drop a reported 9%with Costcos rising 22%. A group of Black faith leaders even called for a Target shopping fast for the entirety of Lent. (Target, which did not respond to an inquiry from Fast Company, has been muted in its response; it has pointed to fourth quarter 2024 results claiming a slight uptick in online and foot traffic, and has emphasized ongoing efforts to foster inclusive work and guest environments that welcome all.) While Walmart has also been a boycott target, these reports have so far found that there’s been less impact on Walmart from its own plans to scale back DEI efforts, and that may be because it never experienced a social-values halo. Walmart, instead, has always aligned its brand strictly with low prices. Similarly, Amazons price-and-convenience identity doesnt seem to have suffered from its own DEI pullback. So perhaps it’s not that Target is less progressive than those rivals, but that it was perceived, by design, as having promised to do more. Its also now been hit from both sides: first, criticized by the anti-diversity crowd for its Pride-friendly merch and now, by shoppers who perceive it as having backed down. Theres certainly anecdotal evidence to back the idea that Costco has benefitted from embracing DEI while others have backed off. In one Reddit thread on the subject, a veteran Costco shopper reports the lines for new member sign-up were 10-15 people deep. I’ve never seen more than 2 or 3 people signing up at a time. Another agreesand proceeds to complain about the resulting paucity of parking spaces, and to suggest that Costco up its membership fee. As for Target, while it might be seen as backtracking on diversity, its sticking with other elements of its established brand, like those designer team-ups. A line of Kate Spade clothing, bags, and accessories for Target drops this weekend, aiming squarely at the chains stylish bargain sweet spot. It could prove a test of some shoppers boycott commitment. Costco hasnt hinted at any plans to match that strategy, but it has cultivated its reputation for offering comparative bargains on luxe goods including Rolex watches, Dom Pérignon, 10-carat diamonds, as the companys board chair recently said. But even this is positioned as an extension of Costcos longstanding find-a-deal treasure hunt image, with discount prices at its core. With tariffmageddon looming over the American shopping sceneand causing Walmart and other retailers to gird themselves for uncertaintythats the brand attribute thats likely to mean the most to Costco and its shoppers. And if a reputation for sticking to its principles gets thrown in too, well, thats an even better bargain.
Category:
E-Commerce
Last month I posted a job description on our blog for a chief of staff role at my venture capital firm, Graham & Walker. Turns out, that job description really hit a nerve. Within an hour, more than a hundred candidates had put their hat in the ring and filled out the long Google form that served as our only form of application. Quickly overwhelmed by the interest, I asked everyone I knew for tips on how to review all those applications most efficiently. They recommended several tools, from LLMs to custom built. I was deep in research when something happened that made me change my mind. Our Google form included an optional field for anything else youd like to share. And thats where I saw what one applicant wrote: Applying for jobs is so dehumanizing. In that moment, I decided that if someone was going to take the time to thoughtfully fill out my Google form, I was going to do my best to read it. I dont hire often. I decided that this time, I would take no shortcuts. And that is how I ended up spending an entire week reading 597 job applications for one open role at Graham & Walker. Not scrolling. Not AI-prompting. Not keyword searching. Actual reading. I do realize this is not normal. Most peoplemost general partners, most hiring managersdo not do this. They cant, and they probably shouldnt. To be honest, I dont think I will be able to do anything like this ever again. But for me, and for this moment in time, it felt like time well spent. It was an experience I will never forget. A very manual hiring process To be clear, I didnt review 597 resumés. I reviewed 597 candidates answers to four open-ended questions: 1. Why do you want to work in venture capital? 2. Why do you want to work at Graham & Walker? 3. Why are you the best person for this role? 4. Anything else you want us to know? I read as fast as I could, slowing down whenever something really grabbed my attention. And based on those, I decided whether to look at the resumé. Out of 597 applicants, I clicked on 174 resumes. Two of my colleagues also reviewed around 200 applicants each. We gave a score to each one, selected the top scorers, and narrowed the field down to 15 finalists. Those candidates did a first interview. Seven moved on to a second interview. Three moved on to a third, and final, round. By which point, I could see us working with any of them. They were truly that amazingso much so that I was sad I couldnt hire all three. In the end, we made an offer to a stellar candidate and she accepted. What job seekers should know Lets be realthis process isnt sustainable, let alone scalable. Most hiring managers wont do what I did, especially in the age of AI. Job seekers should be aware of that. That being said, one crucial tip I would share is to know your audience. Just like we tell founders to research investors before they pitch, job seekers should research companies before they apply. If youre applying to high headcount organizations, your resumé needs the right keywords. But for smaller organizations, you cant rely on that same resumé to tell your story. Some of the best answers came from people with the least polished or traditional resumés. And others packed both resumé power and answers that jumped off the page. Theres a big difference between someone who wants a job and someone who wants this job. That may not matter as much to employers hiring hundreds or thousands of people every year. But for a high-impact, high-trust role at a pre-seed VC fund like mine, it makes a world of difference. Another lesson? Hundreds of you bring to the table a unique combination of strategy and execution. I lost count of how many times I read that. Perhaps not quite so unique after all? What hiring managers should know AI is changing how we work, fund, and build. But some decisions still require a human touchand hiring is one of them. Behind every application is a real person, with a real story. And if we want to build real companies, we cant afford to lose sight of that. I could only hire one person this time. But reading 597 applications reminded me that talent is everywhere. It forced me to slow down and pay attention. To read between the lines. To notice the difference between qualified on paper and eager to contribute. To consider the people who have the right attitude, not just the right experience. And to remember that raw talent, enthusiasm, grit, effort, and authenticity are just as valuable as credentialssometimes more. In venture, we talk about backing people, not companies. This was the hiring version of that. It wasnt the most efficient process. But its one Ill never forget. This story originally appeared on Leslie Feinzaigs Blind Spots Substack. Subscribe to it here.
Category:
E-Commerce
When an AI-assisted résumé lands on a hiring manager’s desk, most people have the knee-jerk reaction to chuck it straight onto the reject pile. While more and more companies are using AI in their day-to-day operations, when it comes to résumés and cover letters, the use of artificial intelligence remains taboo. The importance of AI-savvy talent This instinctive aversion to AI is costing firms invaluable AI-savvy talent. And with the demand and competition for AI skills so fierce, many employers are letting prospective talent slip through their fingers, straight into the laps of their competitors. Its time to overhaul recruitment processes out of the dark ages. We need to reshape and sharpen the AI-powered workplace that’s already taking shape. To do this, companies need to root out anti-AI bias, implement AI-based tasks in their skills assessments, and then actually prioritize hiring for AI talent. The hypocrisy of rejecting AI-generated résumés A recent study by Capterra found that more than half of job seekers have used AI to aid their job search as they look to dull the sting of a brutal and unforgiving job market. Now, it’s not just the applicants who are using AI. Seven in ten businesses admit they’re happy to use AI to reject applicants without any review or oversight from a human. Yet despite their willingness to let AI make the hard decisions for them, a staggering majority of hiring managers say they view AI-generated content on a job application in a negative light. Some have even admitted that they’d be less likely to hire a candidate who’s used AI altogether. So you could be rejected by AI for using AI. The irony is palpable. Hypocrisy aside, hiring managers’ AI aversion is ruinous. Companies can’t get enough of AI at the moment. They’re so desperate for AI talent that they’re happy to sacrifice experience if it means the candidate knows how to use a chatbot. Why, then, are firms turning away candidates who use AI to aid their job search? Getting rid of anti-AI bias in hiring The first step firms must take to achieve this is to root out anti-AI bias in their hiring processes. To achieve this, executives need to make it their responsibility to ensure hiring managers are familiar with the business’s skills needs now and over the coming years. In addition, they should make sure that indications of these skills aren’t being ignored or punished at the application stage. Instilling hiring managers with a stronger understanding of how businesses are deploying AI will help reduce bias and ensure that hiring managers can spot AI talent amid a sea of applicants. Introducing AI-based tasks in skills assessments Then, we need to see companies introduce AI-based tasks in their skills assessments. This should be for all job roles, not just tech-oriented ones. Along with the usual tasks hiring managers typically give, like drafting a client brief or giving a presentation, employers should assess candidates on their ability to use and deploy AI tools effectively. AI-based tasks might include creating a prompt for a chatbot capable of outputting high-quality materialswhere they mark applicants for the quality of the output. Or if the business employs specific AI tools, they can test applicants on their knowledge of the tool or ability to get to grips with it in a short time frame. Finally, employers should take the final step and strategically prioritize AI-fluent applicants over those who show no capability (or an unwillingness to learn). They might want to do this by creating an AI-capability score. Hiring managers need to prioritize AI skills, talents, and appetite, just as they have the mandate to hire for other role-relevant technical skills. AI will impact every single role within every company in the next few years. And in a world where AI tools are increasingly critical to businesses’ success, a base level of AI capability among workforces will be a make-or-break factor. Firms that continue to penalize AI use and ignore its critical nature to their business risk relegating themselves to anti-AI obscurity. Theyre likely to find themselves left in the dust of their more open-minded and forward-thinking competitors. If youre a hiring manager, why not take another look at those AI-supported applications? After all, the future of your workforce might sit behind them.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||