Walton’s Weekly Wramblings: Walmart’s Chess vs. Target’s Checkers (And That’s Putting It Nicely)

Hello everyone, and happy Saturday! Based on the positive feedback I received all week long for my inaugural Walton’s Weekly Wramblings article, I’m back to give it another go. My aim with this weekly analysis is to synthesize all the week’s news, separate out the headlines that really matter over the long-term, and draw themes out of them wherever possible.

So grab that second cup of coffee because we are starting off hot today!

Two Moves, Two Philosophies: The Strategic Divide

This week we saw two major headlines that on the surface might seem unrelated. But when you really dig into them, they reveal something fundamental about how certain retailers are thinking about the future versus others. And the contrast couldn’t be more stark.

On one hand, we have Walmart making Vizio TVs exclusively private label—a move that screams long-term strategic thinking. On the other hand, we have Target ending their price matching policy—a decision that feels painfully short-sighted.

Together, these two moves represent everything that’s right and wrong regarding retail strategy today.

As I said on this week’s Fast Five podcast, one could make the argument that Walmart is playing chess while Target is playing checkers. But that is too disrespectful to Walmart. It is more like Walmart is a team of adults playing basketball against third graders, swatting everything out of their way. 

Walmart: Building Tomorrow’s Retail Media Empire

First, let’s talk about Walmart’s Vizio move, because this is exactly the kind of strategic thinking that separates the winners from the also-rans.

When Walmart acquired Vizio for $2.3 billion last year, I said on our Fast Five podcast that this wasn’t just about TVs. I said immediately at the time that this was about building an ecosystem. And this week’s announcement proves that point perfectly.

By making Vizio exclusively private label, Walmart isn’t just locking out competitors from selling what has traditionally been an entry-level TV brand. They’re not just forcing Target and Best Buy to scramble for alternative suppliers right before the holidays—though that’s certainly a nice side benefit.

No, what Walmart is really doing is creating a controlled substrate on which they can experiment with the full power of connected TV retail media advertising. They’re building the infrastructure for where retail media is headed over the next decade and beyond.

Think about that for a second. Recent data shows that ad buyers expect 47% of connected TV inventory to be biddable this year—up from 34% in 2024. That’s quite a jump. And when buying CTV programmatically, 41% of ad buyers believe it will drive a better return on investment, while 35% expect it to be easier to achieve scale.

Here’s the kicker: one-third of Walmart’s current profit already comes from retail media. The Vizio move just supercharges that position in a way that gives them a competitive advantage that Target, Costco, and other traditional competitors simply can’t match.

But it goes even deeper than that. Walmart is going to have a 360-degree view of their customers that no one else can compete with. They’ll know what you’re buying in-store, what you’re buying online, what you’re watching on TV, and how you’re interacting with the programs you watch as well.

That’s the kind of data that retail advertisers salivate over, and they’re going to pay premium dollars for it because they can see closed-level attribution of sales easier than they can through almost any of Walmart’s competitors—with the lone exception probably being Amazon.

This is long-term strategic thinking at its finest. Walmart isn’t just reacting to the market. They’re creating the market they want to compete in five to ten years from now.

Target: Short-Term Thinking with Long-Term Consequences

Now let’s examine the flip side of strategic thinking: Target’s decision to end price matching. And I’ve got to tell you, as hard as I’ve tried, I cannot get behind this move.

Target announced this week that they’re no longer going to match prices for identical items at places like Walmart and Amazon. Their rationale? They say that customers “overwhelmingly price match Target and not other retailers.”

But you know what? That statement right there tells you everything you need to know about what’s wrong with this decision.

If your customers are overwhelmingly price matching you, Target, you have to ask yourself why. Your prices should never consistently be higher than Walmart and Amazon if you’re trying to compete in the same space. So either you’re admitting your internal pricing teams don’t know what they’re doing—which I don’t believe because I know many of them personally—or you’re being disingenuous about your real rationale.

I think what’s really happening here is that Target is scared. Target is scared going into the holidays because of what they’re seeing in the macroeconomic climate, and they want the flexibility to not have to match Walmart and Amazon in the upcoming season.

Look, I get it. Target can’t win a price war, but they can certainly lose one. But here’s the problem with that rationale: you already have people shifting to Walmart and Costco, and now you’re giving them another reason to question whether they’re getting a good deal at Target.

The data backs this up. According to Placer AI data that I specifically requested (see below), the percentage of Target shoppers who also shop Costco regularly has gone from 28% to 30% in just the last two years. That’s almost a 10% change, and when you’re talking about retail traffic flows, that’s significant.

Target is already losing customer loyalty, and now they’re removing one of the few tools they had to compete on price perception—which is something that has always plagued Target.

This is short-term reactive thinking. It’s like getting rid of red shirts and khaki pants (oh wait, Target already did that, too!) instead of making long-term decisions that are best for the brand. And I’ll just say this: the Target brand is the weakest it’s ever been. Just yesterday, someone I respect on LinkedIn said every time she goes into Target now it reminds her of Kmart. How did we get to a point where people are consistently comparing Target to Kmart?

Getting rid of price matching sure as hell doesn’t help that issue one bit.

The Technology Gap That’s Getting Wider

Here’s what’s really frustrating about Target’s move: Target hasn’t invested in the technology to solve what is ultimately the underlying problem here.

Walmart is going to have electronic price labels across all of its stores very soon, giving them flexibility to adjust prices in real-time. Meanwhile, Target has barely given electronic price labels a sniff. As the next year unfolds, Walmart can update prices in real-time, while Target still has to send in price changes on weekly cycles via printed batch jobs.

So Target’s pricing perception problem is only going to get worse, especially with the headwing of its new price matching policy blowing in its face. Instead of investing in solutions that are out there and in use, Target is taking the easy, short-term way out.

Is it a function of leadership? Is it hubris? I don’t know, but I worry things are only going to get worse for the bullseye.

The Ecosystem vs. The Blue Light Special

These two contrasting stories tell us everything we need to know about where retail is heading. The companies that are thinking five to ten years ahead, who are placing bets on the trends that matter, who are investing in technology, who are asking hard questions about what kind of businesses they want to be—those are the ones who are going to thrive.

Walmart is building an ecosystem that will generate disproportionate retail media profits that they can reinvest back into their business to drive growth. They’re creating competitive advantages that will compound over time. In fact, retail media is probably one way they plan to pay for the increased capital required to deploy electronic shelf labels across all their stores.

Target, meanwhile, is making defensive moves that might help their margins in the short term but hurt their brand perception and customer loyalty in the long run.

This isn’t just about Walmart versus Target. This is about the fundamental question every retailer needs to ask themselves: Are you thinking about the future you want to build, or are you just letting the idiosyncrasies of catering to the now shape who you are?

The retailers who are playing the long game, who are investing in technology and capabilities that will matter in the long run, who are willing to make short-term sacrifices for long-term strategic advantages—those are the ones who will still be standing when the dust settles.

Everyone else? Well, they risk becoming the latest blue light special on aisle five.

Or, as Walmart might say to Target right now, “King Me.”