“Oops, I did it again,” says Target.
Except this is not an ode to Britney Spears. This is another marketing tragedy from a brand that, less than two years after rolling back its support for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), has once again found itself explaining to consumers why something offensive somehow made it all the way to the shelves.
Target is hardly alone. Gucci, H&M, and other major brands have repeatedly found themselves in similar situations: something evokes racist imagery or stereotypes, consumers react, and suddenly the corporate apology template makes its appearance.
Call it “I’m not touching you” racism: I know what I’m doing is provoking you, but as long as I’m not technically touching you, I can pretend I did nothing wrong.
How many times can a brand make the same kind of “mistake” before consumers have a right to question whether the problem is user error or something more intentional?
Target’s latest controversy surfaced over the weekend, when images of its $25 “Kids’ Glows Under Blacklight Circus Clown Halloween Costume” began circulating online. The orange-and-black costume featured a Black child wearing black gloves, a mesh face covering, an exaggerated smile, and a miniature top hat. Critics quickly pointed to its resemblance to racist minstrel caricatures.
By Monday, Aug. 24, Target had pulled the costume and issued an apology. The company said it “got this wrong,” called the costume offensive, and acknowledged that it was “especially hurtful” to its Black guests, team members, and partners. Target also said it was looking closely at how the costume reached the market and what needed to change.
But there is the question Target still has not answered: Why?
If the company knows something is hurtful, why do it?
How does something that “should never have been part of our assortment” make it through design, approval, production, marketing, and distribution? There were multiple opportunities to stop it. Yet Black consumers were once again left to explain why something was offensive after it had already been approved, produced, and sold.
That is where the frustration begins. The explanation is always about how the mistake happened, how the company feels about it, and what the company plans to do next. But the answer to why it happened in the first place is somehow lost in translation.
There are consequences when brands repeatedly ask consumers to swallow the same apology.
Target learned that lesson the hard way in 2025. After the company announced in January that it would roll back several of its DEI initiatives, including its Racial Equity Action and Change and supplier diversity efforts, Black consumers and civil rights leaders organized a boycott. By the end of February, Target had reportedly lost approximately $12.4 billion in market value amid the boycott and backlash.
The financial fallout extended beyond the stock market. Target faced declining sales and foot traffic, while CEO Brian Cornell announced in August 2025 that he would step down after 11 years at the helm. Michael Fiddelke succeeded him as CEO on Feb. 1, 2026, as the retailer worked to reverse declining sales and rebuild its reputation.
The lesson should have been clear that consumers were paying attention, and they were willing to take their money elsewhere.
Then came Aug. 24, 2026.
Target pulled the controversial Halloween costume and issued another apology. The company said it “got this wrong” and promised to examine how the costume reached the market. But this time, the question feels even more frustrating because Target has already experienced what happens when consumers lose trust.
On Tuesday, Aug. 25, Target’s stock fell nearly 4%, after dropping more than 5% at its lowest point that morning for an estimated loss of at least $2.9 billion in 24 hours. Tejal Patel, executive director of Target shareholder SOC Investment Group, described the incident to Reuters as “another example in a chain of events where Target has lost trust with its consumer base.”
That loss of trust matters.
So why do brands keep offending consumers? Why do companies assume time passing means people have forgotten? Why are Black people continually expected to teach corporations why something is offensive while those same corporations keep their hands out, ready for the next dollar?
There is something disturbing about watching corporations repeatedly poke at a community, apologize after the backlash, and then expect business to resume as usual. At some point, the apology begins to feel like part of the process: provoke, offend, withdraw, apologize, and wait for the wallets to reopen.
That is the real problem with “I’m not touching you” racism. The hand may never make contact, but the provocation is still there. It begins to feel less like a series of isolated mistakes and more like watching a bully discover exactly how far it can go before someone finally says enough.
Black consumers should not have to become corporate ethics instructors every time a brand makes a questionable decision. An apology can acknowledge the damage. It cannot erase the fact that someone had to approve the damage first.
If a company can recognize something as hurtful after the fact, it should have been capable of recognizing the harm before asking consumers to spend their money on it.
Target says it is looking at how this happened. Consumers are looking for a different answer: Why did it happen at all, and what is actually being done about it?
So, Target, when will the lesson finally stick? Because “Oops, I did it again” might make for a catchy pop lyric, but it makes for a terrible business strategy.
Na’ilah Burston
