Latest from Forbes
Forbes
19 minutes ago
- Business
- Forbes
The Real Reason Target Is Failing While Walmart Prospers
The Real Reason Target is Failing While Walmart Prospers The history of modern retail is often the history of the people who founded the companies that became household names. As such, you might say that many legendary, successful brands have souls or a set of basic principles that somehow outlast their founders. It also follows that there is often a price to pay when companies lose or sell their souls or stray from their principles. For example, Ray Kroc gets credit for growing McDonald's into a global phenomenon but it was the founders—McDonald brothers Richard and Maurice—who came up with the Golden Arches design and whose obsession with operational efficiency remains the North Star of the company's management today. When McDonald's tried to introduce salads and gourmet sandwiches in the early 2000s, customers balked and the stock price cratered. It took three years of getting back to its principles for the price to recover. Target, the struggling discount department store, is the latest example of a brand that has lost its soul. The principal behind the 1962 launch was co-founder Douglas Dayton, grandson of the founder of Dayton's, a popular up-scale chain of department stores in the Midwest. Target began as a discount store that aimed to 'combine the best of the fashion world with the best of the discount world.' The logo represented 'hitting the mark'—the quality/value sweet spot. The approach worked so well that by the 1990s customers had conferred on it the Frenchified sobriquet 'Tar-jay' which, according to one industry observer, signaled, 'It's cheap but attractive, it's common but somehow chic, it feels easy and guilt-free.' In 1995, to compete with Walmart's growing fleet of supercenters, Target began adding grocery sections to its big box stores. The case could be made that it was the moment the company began to stray from its roots. Target had no DNA in the food business. Grocery stores operate on the thinnest of margins and chic or attractive has nothing to do with marketing commodities like eggs and bread. Target was trying to be Walmart and Target at the same time. Walmart—also launched in 1962—began as a general merchandise discount store in rural Arkansas, at the time possibly the least-chic place in America. The company's motto: "Everyday Low Prices,' or 'Always.' The first Walmart Supercenter opened in 1988 and included the now-ubiquitous full-scale grocery section. Walmart, which is today still significantly owned by descendants of founder Sam Walton, did not try to be Target by, for example, up-scaling its general merchandise. Instead, it built its grocery business into a juggernaut of sales—nearly 60% of its 2025 revenue of $681 billion. Although general merchandise is where Walmart generates the bulk of its profits, the grocery aisles drive foot traffic. Examples of consumer-facing companies that have lost their way abound. As we noted last year, Starbucks founder Howard Schultz came out of retirement twice—in 2008 and again in 2022—to rescue the company after it had drifted away from its community-centric marketing and store culture. You also don't have to look far to find examples of companies that have managed to nurture a good idea or business model for the long term. In many cases, what helps sustain a brand are significant shareholders who are members of the founding family, as in the case of Walmart. Target shares are widely-held, mostly by institutional investors, and there apparently are no Dayton descendants around to influence how the company is run who keep it true to its heritage.
Forbes
19 minutes ago
- Sport
- Forbes
Magical Lionel Messi Earns Shock Inter Miami Win
Inter Miami has defeated FC Porto 2-1 at the FIFA 2025 Club World Cup. It's a shock result that puts Lionel Messi's MLS side second in Group A. The moment that Inter Miami was waiting for. The moment that Lionel Messi was waiting for. The moment that Gianni Infantino was waiting for. A simply stunning free-kick from Messi to put the MLS side 2-1 up against FC Porto. Finally some real stardust has been sprinkled over this tournament. Trademark Messi from the edge of the box. The Argentina legend stepped up and rasped the ball into the top corner. The free-kick position was so central that Messi might have gone either way, the goalkeeper dared not guess but then he was beaten on his own side. He didn't even see it coming. It was a genius strike from the number 10. Impeccable execution, hit with purpose, this was vintage Lionel and he has finally left his mark on this tournament. A shock result from the Mercedes-Benz stadium in Atlanta, and a historic one for the MLS. When Lionel Messi put Luis Suárez through on goal in the first half it was still 1-0 to Porto, and Suárez squandered the opportunity. He looked a million miles off the player he used to be. The Uruguayan was well off the pace and that summed up Miami's championship until that point. Miraculously, that all changed in the second period. Inter Miami were 2-1 up in the 54th minute and held onto that result to leapfrog the Portuguese side in the group. The first shock victory of the tournament has been produced by David Beckham's veteran stars. The result also means that Brazilian side Palmeiras will confirm top of the group by drawing their final game with Inter Miami. Plameiras defeated Al Ahly earlier on Thursday. This would be fantastic news for South American football after an already brilliant start to the tournament for the CONMEBOL teams. In the final round of games, Inter Miami will face off with Palmeiras of Brazil, and Porto will take on Al Ahly. It's still all to play for. A heavy victory or defeat for each team could leave them in or out of the tournament on match day three of the group stage. Inter Miami looked down and out in this tournament. The team didn't show up in their opener against Al Ahly and they didn't start strong against Porto either. Miami was 1-0 down after just eight minutes and it's fair to say that everyone would have written off the South Florida side from group progression at that point. Now the men in pink can make a shock escape from this extremely tight group. Al Ahly and Porto need to win and hope Inter Miami and Palmeiras don't draw on the final day of group games. That result would confirm the exit of Al Ahly and Porto from the tournament no matter who wins their game. Therefore, a cagey low scoring draw could be the obvious outcome when the MLS side take on the Brazilians.
Forbes
25 minutes ago
- Politics
- Forbes
Gen. Erik ‘Gorilla' Kurilla—Not Pete Hegseth—Leading U.S. Military On Iran
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly deferred authority on the U.S. military's involvement in the Middle East to Gen. Erik Kurilla, the U.S. Central Command chief known as 'The Gorilla' who served earlier tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and an Iran hawk, who has pressed for a more aggressive response in the region. Kurilla, appointed as the head of U.S. Central Command by Joe Biden, has become the apparent go-to ... More advisor for the Trump administration in the Middle East. Kurilla, a Biden appointee, has become the leading adviser on the Middle East over other Department of Defense officials, and he has held an audience with President Donald Trump more than any other general, Politico reported, citing unnamed former and current defense officials. Hegseth has yet to turn down a request from Kurilla for more military assets in the Middle East, including new fighter planes, a person familiar with their dynamic told Politico, despite resistance to sending more weapons from Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Pentagon's policy chief Elbridge Colby. Dan Caldwell, a former adviser to Hegseth, told 'Breaking Points' that Kurilla has a 'fundamentally different view on the importance of the Middle East' than other officials in the Trump administration, adding Kurilla likely believes a 'military campaign against Iran will not be as costly as others.' Caldwell suggested Kurilla was likely becoming more vocal as his three-year tenure as CENTCOM chief nears its end. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell disputed Hegseth's deference to Kurilla, telling Politico in a statement Hegseth 'empowers all of his combatant commanders the same way, by decentralizing command and harnessing their real-world expertise,' while another defense official said Kurilla and Caine have a 'hand in glove relationship.' During a congressional hearing earlier this month, Kurilla said he presented a 'wide range of options' to Hegeth and Trump to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. When asked if CENTCOM would respond with overwhelming force if Iran failed to give up its nuclear program, Kurilla responded, 'Yes.' Kurilla was the subject of a U.S. Army-led investigation after he allegedly pushed a subordinate service member during a trip to the Middle East in 2024. Three unnamed U.S. officials told NBC News that Kurilla allegedly shoved an airman when Kurilla was asked to sit down during a flight to Israel. CENTCOM said at the time that officials were not aware of an investigation into Kurilla. Kurilla, 59, is an Elk River, Minnesota, native who was commissioned into the U.S. Army as an infantry officer in 1988, according to CENTCOM. A West Point graduate, Kurilla was deployed to Panama in 1989, the Gulf War in 1990, and to Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. He has been awarded two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star with valor in 2005 for leading U.S. troops in Iraq. Kurilla was nominated to lead CENTCOM under President Joe Biden in 2022, after previously commanding the 82nd Airborne Division and serving as CENTCOM's chief of staff.
Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Health
- Forbes
What 3,500 Americans Reveal About Hearing Aid Battery Packaging
This is what safety has become for some: a blade and the risk of injury to get a hearing aid ... More battery. All packaging images shown in this article were submitted by verified Amazon reviewers who are hearing aid users or caregivers. More than 3,500 Americans have shared publicly their negative experiences, through Amazon reviews, petitions, audiology offices, and caregiver reports, about one thing: the redesigned packaging of hearing aid batteries. These are not complaints about the batteries themselves but about the hard plastic, scissors-required, injury-prone containers they now come in. The packaging directly results from Reese's Law, passed in 2022. Last February, I wrote about these concerns in an article titled 'Good Intentions Lead to Poor Design.' At the time, many were still adjusting to the law's rollout. But the early signs were already evident: confusion among retailers, frustration among end users, and the sudden disappearance of products that had made battery changes easier and safer. Senators Richard Blumenthal and Marsha Blackburn introduced Reese's Law in response to a tragic injury involving lithium coin batteries. The goal was urgent and necessary: to protect children from battery ingestion. The law was written too broadly. Its implementation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission created confusion, unintended harm, and new barriers for older adults and people with disabilities The CPSC was tasked with developing the law's technical guidelines, which were finalized in 2023 and took effect in 2024. The law exempts hearing aid batteries. Yet, in practice, the CPSC's rule interprets that exemption narrowly, stating that while the battery may be exempt, the packaging is not. This distinction makes little practical sense. The packaging is how a hearing aid user accesses the battery. If the packaging is inaccessible, the exemption is meaningless. This contradiction created widespread uncertainty. Many of us in the field, designers, clinicians, and manufacturers, were left unsure how to proceed or whether we could proceed. Compliance was unclear. Risk aversion took hold. And even products that supported both safety and accessibility were pulled from shelves. Zinc-air hearing aid batteries are non-toxic, chemically stable, and not associated with a single known fatality. The law failed to distinguish between them and far more dangerous lithium coin cells. In response, manufacturers overcorrected. Retailers panicked upon poor sales. And what used to be a simple daily task, changing a hearing aid battery, became an exercise in frustration, injury, and, in many cases, abandonment of hearing aids altogether. I know this is not just from data. I live it. As an entrepreneur and co-inventor, I built a product that solved this problem. It worked. Then it was pushed aside by the confusion and compliance culture created by this law. That product became the Akoio Hearing Aid Battery Dispenser. I focused on usability when I set out to build a better hearing aid battery solution. I partnered with design leaders from the consumer packaged goods world, the same minds behind successful products in health care and accessibility. I collaborated with former leaders from the battery industry. I worked with Varta, a top-tier battery manufacturer. Together, we engineered an automatic tab removal system that is easy to carry, store, and change hearing aid batteries. Most importantly, it is accessible to many users facing various physical challenges. The Akoio® Hearing Aid Battery™ Dispenser made battery changes simpler, safer, and more accessible ... More until policy confusion removed it from the market. The dispenser was brought it to market through Amazon, quickly earning a 4.7 out of 5.0-star rating from verified buyers. Customers called it intuitive, reliable, and long overdue. One reviewer wrote, 'Finally, a battery holder I can use without dropping half the pack. Whoever designed this actually gets it.' It was not just well-designed. It was well-received. And then it was sidelined. When Reese's Law was enforced in March 2024, battery manufacturers began redesigning their packaging to comply. For hearing aid batteries, that meant overcorrecting, introducing hard plastic shells, clamshell packs, and layers of material that required sharp tools to open. The law technically exempts zinc-air hearing aid batteries. But, retail interpretation, legal caution, and lack of regulatory clarity swept everything into one overly restrictive category. Even products built for safety and accessibility were suddenly viewed as risks. Retailers pulled back. Legal teams were vague. People who relied on hearing aids were left to struggle. This is not an isolated story. It is part of a pattern. As I gathered these complaints, one stayed with me. In a video, an older woman described how she now uses a box cutter to open her hearing aid battery pack. She struggled as she cut into the thick plastic, as the blade was so close to her hand and fingers! This is what so-called safety and accessibility have become for many: a sharp blade and the risk of injury just to be able to use the hearing aid's battery power to hear! Real packaging, real consequences. This pack after 'cutting' left behind sharp plastic shards and ... More loose batteries. Since Reese's Law took effect in March 2024, I have gathered and analyzed more than 3,500 user cases detailing the impact of redesigned hearing aid battery packaging. These came from end users, caregivers, audiologists, petition signers, Amazon reviews, and retail sites like CVS and Walgreens. Each case was reviewed and categorized for usability, injury, and abandonment trends. That sample size represents an estimated 1.7 million Americans reliant on hearing aids powered by zinc-air batteries, which are reliable and convenient. Here is what was found: As one user put it, 'These new packs are so tough to open, I gave up. I cannot live with cuts and dropped batteries every day.' This is not how a safety regulation should function. Today, around 80 percent of new hearing aids sold are rechargeable. That shift is real and meaningful. But millions of current users still rely on zinc-air batteries, not because they are behind, but because these batteries remain dependable, affordable, and compatible with their devices. Zinc-air batteries are not going away. Daily access must remain safe, simple, and dignified for those who rely on them. But that access has eroded. What was once a one-handed, intuitive action is now a frustrating, injury-prone task. This happened not because of battery package design but because of regulatory overreach and market fear. The business impact has been just as sharp. Responsible companies have had to pause, exit, or redesign products that were already solving the problem. Innovation has been punished, and the market has chilled. Recently, Abram Bailey, CEO of Hearing Tracker, launched a petition titled 'Stop Impossible Hearing Aid Battery Packaging'. The petition has gathered over 1,500 signatures from hearing aid users, audiologists, and caregivers. This was not a protest against child safety. It was a call for regulatory clarity and common sense. The petition does not ask Congress to repeal Reese's Law. It asks lawmakers and regulators to revise it, to recognize the unintended harm caused by rigid packaging requirements. The message is simple and humane: protect children, yes. But do not make life harder for the people who depend on these batteries every day. Real stories from the Hearing Aid Forum illustrate just how severe this issue has become: These are not outliers. They are everyday users trying to live independently and being blocked by packaging that was never designed with them in mind. We need to bring accessibility back into the safety conversation. That starts with the Consumer Product Safety Commission providing clear guidance on how Reese's Law applies to hearing aid batteries. We need room for child-resistant packaging that also meets the needs of adults with dexterity and vision limitations. And we need to encourage, not discourage, the kinds of innovation that solve for both safety and usability. This is not about rolling back protection. It is about refining it. It is time for policymakers, product designers, and disability advocates to come together to fix what the law missed. Safety and accessibility must be designed together. Anything less is unacceptable. I built a better mousetrap because I live with this problem, and I know how many others do, too. The law that followed did not kill that idea. But it made it harder to share, distribute, and trust the system that claims to work in our interest. We can do better.
Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Business
- Forbes
Whatever They Do, Don't Let Them Reform An ‘Insolvent' Social Security
Let's start with the obvious, now and in the future Social Security payments aren't remotely imperiled. It's said here over and over again, but rates saying once again, that the surest sign that present and future Social Security payments (including COLA increases) are safe and sound is the certain lack of a 'lockbox' or 'trust fund.' In the past, Social Security collections that weren't sent out to retirees were predictably spent by politicians who exist to spend. In the future, shortfalls in Social Security collections relative to outgoings will be paid for by general revenues flowing into Treasury. Which is why reform of Social Security, reduced benefits, or delayed retirement age promoted by the various Social Security alarmists and scolds would be such a bad idea. Yes, you read that right. Reform of Social Security would be an awful idea precisely because it would lead to bigger government. Outlandish? Not really. Stop and think about it. In thinking about it, let's be clear that Social Security, like Medicare, was itself a bad idea. Really bad. The very notion that we need or needed government to provide for retirement in a world and nation dense with all manner of financial services firms eager to put our savings to work in pursuit of retirement nest eggs insults foolish. Just think how much bigger all of our retirements would be if the U.S. Treasury hadn't been the recipient of so much of our earnings each paycheck, not to mention the equal amount contributed by our employers. Still, if there's a positive to Social Security it's that what's a bad idea has the potential to account for a growing share of federal dollars flowing out of Washington. The latter worries the Washington Post's Catherine Rampell, along with libertarians like the Cato Institute's Romina Boccia, but this situation should cheer those who prefer erecting roadblocks to government growth wherever we can find them. Rampell and Boccia worry about the federal government not having enough money to spend as Social Security accounts for a growing share of federal outlays, but perhaps at least Boccia could be convinced that this is a feature of Social Security's allegedly looming 'insolvency.' As is argued in my upcoming book The Deficit Delusion, the bigger the take of Social Security from general revenues, the fewer opportunities for politicians on either side to dream up new ways of spending our money. The simple, economy-sapping truth is that most government programs start out small, only to grow big. The growth is an effect of every program having at least one constituent on both sides of the aisle in Congress. Once sponsors can be found on both sides, it's hard to kill what shouldn't have been given life to begin with. So, while Social Security remains a bad idea, it's a bad idea that we all know, and that most of us have worked around. See the earlier comment about the density of financial service firms. Rather than give the political class new dollars to dream up new programs, it's better to simply allow Social Security to 'crowd them out.' So-called 'insolvency' can't come soon enough.
