News
A boycott campaign fuels tension between Black shoppers and Black-owned brands – evoking the long struggle for ‘consumer citizenship’
Target’s recent decision to end its diversity programs has sparked backlash among Black consumers and entrepreneurs. While some call for a boycott, others caution that it could harm Black businesses more than the retailer.
Timeka N. Tounsel, University of Washington
Some Black consumers may be breaking up with Target this February.
It all started late last month, when the retailer announced that it was ending its diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The move drew widespread rebuke from social justice organizers, including New Birth Missionary Baptist Church Pastor Dr. Jamal Bryant. Although Target said one set of its racial-equity initiatives had already been scheduled to conclude, the timing was notable: The move came just days after the White House called for a federal DEI ban, and as several other companies took similar actions.
Beyond renaming its “supplier diversity” team – now called “supplier engagement” – and ending “diversity-focused surveys,” Target hasn’t said what the change will mean for the many Black entrepreneurs who sell everything from coffee to sunscreen on its shelves. The webpage for the retailer’s Black Beyond Measure initiative, which highlights dozens of Black-founded brands and connects business owners to a program designed to “democratize access to retail education,” remains active.
But Target’s critics, including Minneapolis-based civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong, view the move as a surrender to the new presidential administration’s attack on equity programs. In a news conference outside Target’s Minnesota headquarters on Jan. 30, 2025, Armstrong called for a nationwide boycott of the store to begin on the first day of Black History Month.
While many social media users posted in support of the boycott, some Black founders whose brands are stocked by Target – and there are dozens of them – have been more conflicted. Tabitha Brown, whose products can be found in various aisles, from books to cooking appliances, asked customers to reconsider boycotting Target. Withholding their dollars, Brown insisted, will hurt Black businesses far more than the corporations that sell their products.
This request for restraint garnered a mixed response on social media. Some Black consumers accused Black business owners of selling out the very racial community that contributed to their success.
So, why would a Black business owner ask consumers to patronize a retailer that signaled it doesn’t care about Black customers? And how did something as mundane as where people buy toilet paper and shampoo become a litmus test for racial consciousness in the first place?
Black consumers and the fight for dignity
The marketplace has long been a battleground where Black Americans have sought to assert their citizenship. Most of the nation’s biggest household brands didn’t begin to take African American consumers seriously until after World War II. Before that shift, advertisements and product packaging were more likely to feature degrading Black caricatures to appeal to white shoppers, than to address Black consumers directly.
This segregated commercial landscape reinforced the belief among some community members that Black people would not be taken seriously as citizens until they were taken seriously as consumers. They would need to vote with their dollars, patronizing only those brands and retailers that respected them.
In my research on marketing campaigns aimed at Black women, I’ve examined how the struggle for consumer citizenship complicated the dynamic between Black entrepreneurs and consumers. On the one hand, businesses have long leveraged Black ownership as a unique selling proposition in and of itself, urging shoppers to view Black brand loyalty as a path to collective racial progress.
Unlike their larger competitors, Black entrepreneurs relied on their racial community to stay afloat. Patronizing African American businesses could therefore be framed as a racial duty. Conversely, as African American advertising pioneers made clear, recognition from big brands was a political victory of sorts because it signaled that Black dollars were just as valuable as anyone else’s. https://www.youtube.com/embed/SAFubUnsl3Y?wmode=transparent&start=0 A short documentary from The Advertising Club of New York featuring iconic ads from African American marketer Tom Burrell.
Competing for Black dollars
Corporate attention to Black consumers ebbs and flows in a cycle that is especially noticeable in the beauty and personal care industry. In seasons of limited competition for African American customers, entrepreneurs typically thrive, even while they struggle to meet the capital demands of a growing brand. Their success, however, beckons larger corporations, which then seek to capitalize on consumer niches they previously ignored.
Two common approaches that mass market brands pursue to compete for Black dollars include acquiring smaller, established Black brands and developing their own niche products. Large corporations deployed both strategies during a period of intense expansion into the beauty market of the 1980s.
Black owners tried to stave off their competition by creating a special emblem that alerted shoppers to their authenticity. Then, as now, social justice organizations, such as Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Operation PUSH, also initiated boycotts and urged Black consumers not to choose “lipstick over liberation.”
Nevertheless, many Black entrepreneurs sold their brands, and by 1986 nearly half of the Black hair care market was no longer Black-owned.
A linked fate
Parsing winners and losers within the world of Black enterprise is as difficult now as it was in earlier periods. African American business owners often possess a cultural consciousness that distinguishes their brands, even when they can’t match the resources of larger competitors. And as they figure out how to survive an uneven playing field, Black entrepreneurs sometimes face accusations of betraying their racial community.
In a market governed by the law of supply and demand, Black consumers benefit from increased competition. Yet, racial loyalty sometimes asks that they eschew these benefits for the sake of keeping Black dollars in Black hands.
Four years ago, when Target launched its Black Beyond Measure funding initiative, it seemed that the retailer had struck a rare balance in supporting Black brands and their customers. In addition to curating a collection of products to lure shoppers, Target used the campaign as an opportunity to position entrepreneurs to flourish well beyond Black History Month.
Now, as Black consumers and business owners weigh varying responses to the retailer’s decision to reverse their commitment to DEI values, one question endures: Do Black dollars matter?
Timeka N. Tounsel, Associate Professor of Black Studies in Communication, University of Washington
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Daily News
Metro Board to Consider Locally Preferred Alternative for Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project
Metro Board will consider Modified Alternative 5 as the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project on January 22, 2026, a major step toward improving transit between the San Fernando Valley and LA’s Westside.
On Thursday, January 22, 2026, at 10:00 AM, the Metro Board will consider selecting a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project. This milestone could significantly improve mobility options between the San Fernando Valley and the of Los Angeles.
Proposed Alternative
After a technical evaluation and reviewing more than 8,000 public comments from the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) period, Metro staff has proposed Modified Alternative 5 as the LPA. This underground heavy rail line would run between the Van Nuys Metrolink Station and the E Line Expo/Sepulveda Station with a key connection to the G Line at Van Nuys Boulevard.
Modified Alternative 5 combines the benefits of Alternative 5—high ridership, frequent service, and shorter station construction sites—while avoiding geographic challenges in the Santa Monica Mountains. It also incorporates connectivity advantages from Alternative 6 along Van Nuys Boulevard, reducing the overall project length and anticipated costs, and increasing direct connections to Metro’s growing transit network.
Next Steps
If approved, Metro would advance project development for the LPA, including:
- Evaluating phasing and the Public/Private Partnership (P3) delivery model
- Identifying value engineering opportunities
- Refining designs to allow G Line connection at Van Nuys Boulevard
- Continuing environmental review and community outreach
Public Participation
Residents, businesses, and institutions are encouraged to provide feedback:
- Attend in person: Sign up on the tablets in the Metro Headquarters lobby before 9:45 AM.
- Email comments: BoardClerk@metro.net (comments received before 5 PM on January 21, 2026, will be sent to the full Board)
- Watch live: boardagendas.metro.net
Why This Matters
The Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project will connect the San Fernando Valley to the Westside, addressing the natural barrier of the Santa Monica Mountains and relieving congestion on the I-405. It will provide a fast, safe, and reliable alternative to the freeway and strengthen LA’s regional transit network.
Disclaimer: Station locations and construction timelines are subject to change. Project availability may vary. Public input is encouraged before final decisions are made.
Continuing Coverage: STM Daily News will continue to follow developments surrounding the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project, including Metro Board decisions, environmental review updates, community input opportunities, and the project’s long-term impact on transportation across Los Angeles.
For the latest updates, in-depth reporting, and transportation-focused coverage, visit STM Daily News.
Author
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
News
Major Popeyes Franchisee Sailormen Files for Chapter 11 — What It Means for Restaurants and the Economy
Sailormen Inc., a major Popeyes franchisee operating 130+ locations in Florida and Georgia, filed for Chapter 11 on Jan. 15, 2026 amid rising costs and heavy debt. Many restaurants are expected to remain open as restructuring continues.
A major Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen franchise operator is heading to bankruptcy court — but the headline does notmean Popeyes corporate is filing, or that every restaurant involved is about to close.
Sailormen Inc., a Miami-based Popeyes franchisee that has operated in the system since 1987, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Jan. 15, 2026. The company operates more than 130 Popeyes locations across Florida and Georgia (some industry coverage puts the count at 136), making it one of the chain’s largest franchise groups in the region.
Franchisee filing, not a Popeyes corporate bankruptcy
This case involves Sailormen (the operator) — not Popeyes corporate and not parent company Restaurant Brands International.
In a message referenced in industry reporting, Popeyes leadership said Sailormen’s filing does not reflect the overall health of the Popeyes brand, and that a large majority of Sailormen’s restaurants are expected to remain open while the company restructures.
What pushed Sailormen into Chapter 11
Court-related summaries and industry coverage point to a familiar mix of pressures hitting restaurant operators:
- Inflation and higher operating costs (food, labor, and day-to-day expenses)
- Higher borrowing costs as interest rates climbed
- Liquidity strain, including reports of falling behind on rent and facing pressure from landlords and vendors
- Legal disputes, including vendor-related claims tied to unpaid balances
The failed store sale that worsened the situation
One key detail: Sailormen reportedly tried to sell 16 Georgia restaurants to stabilize finances. That deal fell through, and the company remained responsible for lease guarantees tied to those locations — a liability that can linger even if other stores are performing.
The debt and the lender pressure
Industry reporting describes Sailormen as carrying a heavy debt load — cited at about $130 million overall.
More detailed figures cited in coverage include:
- Over $112 million in unpaid principal loan balance
- Over $17 million in accrued interest and fees
Reporting also points to pressure from BMO (BMO Bank), described as Sailormen’s largest lender. In December 2025, BMO reportedly sought to appoint a receiver, a move that can displace management and take control of a company’s assets. Sailormen’s Chapter 11 filing allows the company to continue operating as a debtor-in-possession while it attempts to reorganize.
Why this matters for “Food” and “Our Economy”
This isn’t just a Popeyes story — it’s a snapshot of what happens when restaurant operators face higher costs, value-conscious consumers, and more expensive debt at the same time.
Chapter 11 is designed to reorganize a business, not automatically liquidate it. For customers, the near-term impact may be limited if most locations stay open.
STM Daily News will follow this story as it develops, including any updates on store operations, restructuring plans, and potential sales of locations.
Sources
- Restaurant Business: “A big Popeyes franchisee files for bankruptcy” https://restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/big-popeyes-franchisee-files-bankruptcy
- Restaurant Dive: “Large Popeyes franchisee files for Chapter 11” https://www.restaurantdive.com/news/popeyes-frachisee-sailormen-files-chapter-11-bankruptcy-protections/809854/
For more food business headlines and how they connect to the real economy, follow STM Daily News.
Authors
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Food and Beverage
Diva Fam Inc. Announces Voluntary Recall of True Sea Moss “Sea Moss Gel Superfood” Products Due to Possible Health Risk
Diva Fam Inc. is recalling all True Sea Moss Sea Moss Gel Superfood flavors nationwide due to missing pH/temperature records and potential botulism risk.
Diva Fam Inc.. announced a voluntary recall of all lots and flavors of its True Sea Moss brand Sea Moss Gel Superfood due to a lack of required regulatory authorization and temperature monitoring records for pH-controlled food products, according to a company statement released January 9, 2026.
The company said the recall applies to products manufactured prior to January 9, 2026. The manufacture date (MFD) is indicated on the can lid in MM/YYYY format.
Why the products are being recalled
Diva Fam said the recall is related to missing required regulatory authorization and temperature monitoring records for certain pH-controlled food products. The company noted that pH-controlled foods that are not manufactured in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements may present a potential risk of microbial growth, including organisms that can produce toxins associated with botulism.
Botulism is a rare but serious illness that can affect the nervous system. Symptoms may include general weakness, dizziness, double vision, difficulty speaking or swallowing, and, in severe cases, difficulty breathing or muscle weakness.
Diva Fam said no illnesses or adverse health events have been reported in connection with the products subject to this recall to date.
Where the products were sold
The affected products were distributed nationwide through select retail locations, online via https://truеsеamоss.cоm/, and other distribution channels, according to the company.
Recalled products (all flavors, all lots)
The recall includes all flavors and sizes and batch numbers of True Sea Moss brand Sea Moss Gel Superfood packaged in 16 FL OZ (473 mL) glass jars, manufactured prior to January 9, 2026.
Recalled flavors and UPCs
| Flavor | UPC |
|---|---|
| Mango | 5065006235875 |
| Pineapple | 5065006235288 |
| Wildcrafted | 5065006235073 |
| Apple and Cinnamon | 5065006235776 |
| Elderberry | 5065006235189 |
| Passion Fruit | 5061033691882 |
| Blue Spirulina and Raspberry | 5065006235813 |
| Strawberry | 5065006235271 |
| Cherry | 5061033691264 |
| Mango and Pineapple | 5065006235301 |
| 5 Blends in 1 | 5061033690052 |
| Soursop | 5061033691875 |
| Lemon Pie | 5061033691271 |
| Orange | 5061033692926 |
How the issue was identified
The company said the matter was identified during a California Department of Public Health inspection that raised questions regarding regulatory authorization and related production records for certain distributed products. Diva Fam said it is cooperating fully with regulatory authorities and initiated the voluntary recall to ensure regulatory alignment.
The company said the recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
What consumers should do
- Discontinue use of the affected product.
- Follow the instructions provided by the place of purchase regarding product return or disposal.
- Contact the company for additional information (details below).
Consumer and media contact
Consumers seeking additional information may contact:
- Email: support@divafam.com
- Phone: (818) 751-3882
- Hours: Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time
Source: Diva Fam Inc. (PRNewswire, Jan. 9, 2026)
https://stmdailynews.com/culvers-thank-you-farmers-project-hits-8-million-donation-milestone/
Authors
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
