Target’s stock is down 24% this year while Walmart’s is up 15%. Costco gained 8%. This is not a retail story tied to Tarrif issues or market decline, this is a case study on what happens when you get caught in the positioning void between clear market positions.
If Target can’t escape this brand purgatory, neither can your brand.
The Anatomy of Market Encroachment
Target built an empire on being the “accessible premium” retailer. They coined “Tar-jay” by making designer collaborations accessible to mainstream America. For years, this positioning worked brilliantly. Target wasn’t the cheapest, but it was cooler than Walmart. It wasn’t premium, but it felt more aspirational than pure discount retail.
Then the market converged around them.
From below, Walmart weaponized scale. With 90% of Americans living within 10 miles of a Walmart, they didn’t need to be cool they just needed to be convenient and cheap. They moved upstream into grocery, pharmacy, and even premium brands while maintaining their price leadership.
From above, Amazon redefined convenience entirely while Whole Foods captured the premium grocery experience. When Amazon acquired Whole Foods, they created a pincer movement: unbeatable convenience online and authentic premium positioning offline.
Target found itself caught in the positioning void, trying to compete on price with Walmart (impossible) and on experience with Amazon-Whole Foods (increasingly difficult). Their “accessible premium” positioning became “expensive convenience” or “cheap premium”—neither compelling to consumers.
The numbers don’t lie: Target’s revenue declined 0.8% in 2024 while their inventory rose 3%, creating storage inefficiencies. Their gross profit margin compressed from 27.4% to 27.2% as they slashed prices on over 10,000 items to compete. Meanwhile, their digital growth of 8.7% couldn’t offset the fundamental positioning problem.
When Innovation Becomes Commoditization
Target’s designer collaborations tell the story of how brand innovations decay. The original partnerships with Isaac Mizrahi and Stella McCartney were genuinely revolutionary. They democratized high fashion and created cultural moments that drove massive traffic and brand buzz.
But breakthrough becomes baseline. What started as groundbreaking partnerships devolved into a monotonous cycle of celebrity endorsements that barely registered with consumers. Their Kate Spade collaboration in April landed with a thud in an oversaturated market where every retailer has designer partnerships.
The problem wasn’t execution—it was that the innovation no longer solved Target’s fundamental positioning challenge. When everyone offers “accessible premium,” no one owns it. Target’s collaborations became expected features, not differentiators.
The Positioning Void Death Spiral
Once you’re caught in the positioning void, every decision becomes a compromise that weakens your position further:
Inventory Inefficiencies: You can’t match Walmart’s scale economics or Amazon’s algorithmic precision, so you’re stuck with suboptimal inventory that pleases no one completely. Target’s inventory rose 3% while sales declined, creating costly storage problems.
Partnership Dependencies: Target’s paused Ulta partnership shows how void-positioned brands become dependent on others for differentiation. When you don’t own a clear market position, you need constant external validation through collaborations.
Cultural Positioning Paralysis: Target’s retreat on DEI initiatives after shareholder pressure exemplifies void-brand paralysis. They tried to be everything to everyone and ended up alienating core customers without gaining new ones.
Operational Band-aids: BOPIS (buy online, pick up in store) is genuinely convenient, but it’s an operational solution to a positioning problem. Target’s same-day delivery grew 25%, but you can’t operationalize your way out of unclear brand positioning.
The Market Convergence Trap for Founders
Target’s positioning void is a preview of what’s happening across industries. Markets are converging toward clear value propositions:
- Price vs. Premium: Consumers choose obvious value or obvious quality
- Convenience vs. Experience: They want either frictionless transactions or memorable interactions
- Scale vs. Specialization: They prefer either everything-everywhere or best-in-category
The positioning void—where Target built their empire—is disappearing. Brands that try to be “pretty good at everything” get outcompeted by specialists who are “great at one thing.”
This isn’t just retail–it affects every industry:
Software: Companies choose either lowest-cost solutions or best-in-class tools, rarely “pretty good” middle options.
Food: Consumers polarize between ultra-convenient (DoorDash, meal kits) and ultra-experiential (high-end dining, artisanal products).
Media: Audiences choose either free content or premium subscriptions, with struggling middle-tier offerings losing ground.
The Framework for Avoiding the Void
Smart founders can learn from Target’s predicament by applying a clear positioning framework:
1. Choose Your Lane Early
Pick one primary value proposition and own it completely:
- Price leadership (like Walmart)
- Premium experience (like Whole Foods)
- Convenience dominance (like Amazon)
- Category specialization (like Costco)
Don’t try to be second-best at multiple things. Be best-in-class at one thing.
2. Double Down Ruthlessly
Every decision should reinforce your chosen position. Target’s collaborations should have either made them definitively more premium or definitively cheaper. Instead, they kept them in the positioning void.
When Walmart moves upstream, they maintain price leadership. When Amazon adds premium features, they maintain convenience dominance. Your core position should never be negotiable.
3. Watch for Void Signals
Recognize when competitors are attacking from multiple directions:
- Declining market share despite operational improvements (Target’s revenue down 0.8%)
- Increased dependence on partnerships for differentiation
- Customer indifference to your core value proposition
- Rising operational costs without positioning clarity (Target’s SG&A rose from 20.0% to 20.6%)
Target showed all these signals but couldn’t escape because their brand identity was built on the middle position.
4. Choose Your Battle
You can’t win everywhere, so pick where you’ll dominate. Walmart chose scale and price. Amazon chose convenience and selection. Target tried to compete on multiple fronts and excelled at none.
Define success narrowly enough that you can achieve clear leadership, then expand from that position of strength.
The New Reality for Founders
Target’s struggle represents a fundamental shift in how markets work. The “something for everyone” approach that built retail empires in the 20th century is failing in converged 21st-century markets.
Modern consumers don’t want compromise brands. They want clear, differentiated value propositions. They’ll pay premium prices for premium experiences or discount prices for basic utility, but they resist paying medium prices for medium experiences.
This creates both threats and opportunities for founders:
The Threat: If you’re building a “better, faster, cheaper” solution, you’re probably building a void-positioned brand that will get surrounded.
The Opportunity: Clear positioning is more valuable than ever. Brands that own distinct market positions can command premium prices and customer loyalty.
What Happens Next
Target’s search for a new CEO to replace Brian Cornell represents an admission that their current positioning isn’t sustainable. They need to choose: go further downmarket to compete with Walmart on price, or go upmarket to compete on experience and curation.
For founders watching this unfold, the lesson is clear: the positioning void is deadly. Pick your lane, own it completely, and defend it ruthlessly. Because if Target—with massive resources, established brand equity, and operational excellence—can get trapped in the void, any brand can.
Thank you for reading this week,
Xx Camille
P.S. You can access my siganture brand and social media framework now in my Masterclass.