Me too.

Though we are in conservative SC, I think this one might make it through the appeals process unscathed. Since we likely have both the intentional tort of defamation (likely libel per se) and negligence in dissemination brought by a private plaintiff (as opposed to a public figure), the medical expenses seem only part of the basis since we know that damages, both compensatory and punitive, are presumed in a per se situation such as this when the defendant Target acted with reckless and utter disregard for the truth under the Gertz & NY Times cases standard.

Luckily for Target, they have a new advertising campaign in place that has already received full approval from Dr. Tantillo (‘the marketing doctor’), a frequent guest on Box Business News.

Target’s new advertising campaign will absorb a full 3/4 of their marketing budget (at least according to the post on the the Marketing Doctor’s blog). The campaign will emphasize Target’s addition of more perishables and will fight against the perception that their products cost more than those of Wal-Mart and Kmart, including actual prices of products in their ads. ( I’m not sure I totally believe it that Target costs doesn’t cost a tad more than Walmart or Target..but maybe this just means that dirtier, more disorganized stores with frumpier staff spells VALUE to me).

“The marketing concept is about integrating business model fundamentals with aggressive marketing campaigns, and Target clearly has that concept in mind.”

“The instinct in tough times might be to cut marketing dollars. Bad idea. Smarter marketing is needed now, not less marketing.”

Tantillo’s full post