It sometimes happens in families that there is one sibling that learns the easy way and one that learns the hard way. They both grow up, but one gets the car keys more often than the other. Remember watching a lot of Friday night TV do ya? Thought so.

Such it is with the sibling rivalry between ‘big-box’ merchants Target and Kmart. They keep fighting over the remote, trying to figure out what people think is cool and how to fit in at school. Their scary half-brother Wal-Mart has converted the basement into his personal war-room as he makes plans for world domination and grows ever bigger gobbling Chinese food served by grandmothers that can’t afford to retire. But while the evil laughter drifts up from downstairs, Target and Kmart are left to wrestle over the rest of the house (the ground floor at least). It is obvious though, when looking at these two, that one has had a slightly easier time of it than the other. Target is popular with the chicks at school while Kmart gets beat up for his lunch money. Why? What effect have the choices that these two have made over the years altered their paths and led one to be on the honor role and the other to have to stay after class?

When it comes to Kmart, one might say that they are at a disadvantage right away when compared to Target. The Kmart name has been inherited from a different era. It feels old to say. The Target name has punch. It even has the clever twist of a tongue-in-cheek French pronunciation, ‘Tarjay’, making it sound much more chic and ‘joie-de-vivre’ than it is, thereby easing the pain of having to go. Along with a simple, fitting mark, and Target is the favorite child, right? Well, just as in any family, some kids are more ‘visually blessed’ than others, but is that any reason to stay home and mope? It is up to us to take what God gave us and use it to it’s fullest. Kmart is what it is. And it should be able to use the resources it has and make a go of it. So why is it that Kmart has struggled so over these recent years? Well, the answer, it seems, is that some siblings ‘get it’ and some don’t… as they say. The reality is that Kmart is suffering from a lack of understanding in how best to position their brand in this time of our national life.

First, the logo. The traditional Kmart logo was just that, traditional in look and message. The example here has ‘Cutting the cost of living’ as the tag line. Low prices are the message? With the arrival of the dreaded Wal-Mart on the scene at least Kmart had the sense to see that with this they had no traction. The logo then changed to put the ‘mart’ in script type inside a large red ‘K’, thereby trying to make an icon out of the letter. This idea was watered down with the introduction of the ‘BIG Kmart’ line of stores. In an effort to directly combat Wal-Mart by offering groceries as well as the typical fare of clothes and house wares. An obvious example of learning the hard way. The fate of ‘BIG’ was essentially sealed from the start as the logo is one of the worst examples of trying to create an icon that the consumer would have an emotional attachment to. The type of the ‘BIG’ is bland and the orange in the underline is just awful. This, combined with a few managerial missteps (remember the Kathy Lee Gifford sweatshop scandal and Martha Stewart’s legal troubles?) led to Kmart filing for bankruptcy in January 2002.

After some restructuring, Kmart launched a new logo by opening four prototype stores in October 2002. Evidently the restructuring did not change Kmart’s way of thinking enough. The new logo was a step in the wrong direction. Chopping the iconic ‘K’ into two parts muddied the single shape recognition. The new grey was bland and the new green had zero personality, let alone boldness. And still hanging on to the dull scripted ‘mart’. Completely forgettable. A defense of the new logo might state that Wal-Mart’s logo was no better. But the reality was that once Wal-Mart seized on the notion of a ruthless pursuit of the lowest prices imaginable, there was no losing, so they did not have to worry too much about a logo.

The Target logo, on the other hand, is a study in bold simplicity. Yes the name sounds a bit better to the ear. And there’s also the ‘Tar-jay’ plus. But the simple all caps name in red or black with the red ‘target’ mark works very well. Added to this the fact that it hasn’t been messed with several times in the last few years. Just like a person’s credit score, check it but don’t check it too often or it will hurt you.

But here is the beauty part. Since Wal-Mart has taken a lead that, barring legislation, will not be caught, Target and Kmart are in direct competition for the rest of the population that might live a tad closer to one of their stores instead of a Wal-Mart. Or is there another angle? It seems as though there is. Both Target and Kmart have actively courted celebrities to hawk products exclusively through their stores. Since Wal-Mart seems loathe to give a dime to anyone outside of their organization, Target and Kmart saw this as a niche that could be carved out of the buying public. And this is where another example of learning the hard way or learning the easy way comes into effect. Kmart secured deals with such names as Martha Stewart, Kathy Lee Gifford, Kathy Ireland and Joe Boxer (a brand) while Target sought out the likes of Michael Graves (who?), Todd Oldham, Mossimo Giannulli (Mossimo), Roots (a brand) and Isaac Mizrahi. What do all these names add up to for each store? The sum of the Kmart names point to one category - ‘Older Ladies’ (as the Beastie Boys might say). Target, on the other hand, has pulled together a set of personalities that are immediately recognizable by the younger ‘design conscious’ set. And who spends more money without thinking about it first? Of course. Design junkies were soon flocking to Target stores to grab Michael Graves teapots and house wares, much more affordable than his original teapot designs for Italian design house Alessi. And all the fashionistas that spend almost their entire paycheck on one skirt knew that they could follow Todd and Isaac to Target and save money on cheaper house wares.

When the advertising styles of Target and Kmart are put up for examination… there really is no comparison. Kmart’s ads are largely forgettable. Only now are they starting to understand the importance of drawing in the younger crowd. Target, on the other hand, has been extremely savvy about how their brand is projected to the consumer. Both print and TV ads are unabashedly young, fun and playful. They all make use of bold graphics and a relentless repetition of the Target icon. Playing on the idea of the same product stacked one after the other on a shelf, the ads make cheeky use of product repetition to produce bold colors and patterns. Also clever are the print ads that show imaginative reuse of otherwise banal products. A suggestion that going to a big-box retailer doesn’t have to be painful.

The latest Kmart logo is definitely a step in the right direction (if not a direct homage to its competitor). But the larger battle remains for the Kmart brand. A battle within itself to change the Kmart corporate mindset from its Midwestern roots to that of a forward-thinking company on top of the changing trends of a younger ‘target’ group.