I don't like to go on rampages that aren't rampages of delirious endorsement (for Donald Antrim, Michael Apted's UP series DVDs, The Queen's Gambit, marzipan, etc.), because, as Satchel Paige would say, it angries up the blood. The Chicago Sun-Times' Lewis Lazare is on a rampage about those Target ads in the magazine recently, and that's OK. I don't agree with him—the ads, if mildly distracting, are clearly commercial art (Milton Glaser, for goodness' sake!) and very unlikely to confuse readers even passingly familiar with New Yorker design and content—and some of the Sun-Times readers don't, either. But if you want to set my blood on Whip, mention Wal-Mart as a "classy" advertiser for Vogue, an above-board alternative to the Target-and-New Yorker calumny. Lazare writes:

It's a leap that, quite frankly, boggles our mind. And one that many consumers may look agog at. Especially coming as it does in Vogue, whose somewhat elitist image seems at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from hugely populist Wal-Mart.

Here's the good news, though: The Wal-Mart ad insert is a stunningly classy effort. And thankfully one that couldn't be confused with Vogue's editorial content.

The insert's overarching concept is to introduce Wal-Mart as an outpost where fashion-savvy types may find items of apparel that can be mixed and matched with elements from shoppers' existing wardrobes to create fresh, unstuffy fashion statements. Each ad page features a smartly attired real-world woman with copy explaining what's from Wal-Mart and what's from the photo subject's clothes closet.

Sounds like someone here has let advertising and reality blur together like this season's violet eyeshadows. As documented by my old friend Liza Featherstone and many others, Wal-Mart has marked its place in history not as an ethical business leader but as a defiant bastion of discrimination and shameful labor practices. That it continues to set the standard, in many ways, for both the national and international business communities is a disgrace. Neither Wal-Mart's blitz, since women sued the company on behalf of 1.6 million of their colleagues for discrimination, of Midwestern-accented, we're-the-good-guys ads nor hiring a more stylish ad agency make it "classy." Remember those skeletons Tina Brown outfitted for a fashion spread back in the magazine's uneasy '90s? You can drape rotting bones in as much couture as you want, but they still won't have souls. If Vogue cared about women, real-world or otherwise, it wouldn't take advertising from a company that would be happy if they just went away. In the words of Wal-Mart Watch spokesperson Tracy Sefl,

Wal-Mart thinks educated women will be so excited about the prospect of cheap merchandise that they will forget about how Wal-Mart does business. Wal-Mart is facing the nation's biggest class action gender discrimination suit. They must hope working women care more about clothes, shoes, and purses and less about equal pay, promotions, and fair treatment in the workplace. Moreover, we look forward to a Wal-Mart ad that declares, "Better Health Care For Our Employees is The New Black."

Wal-Mart Stumbles Onto the Runway [Wal-Mart Watch]
Wake Up Wal-Mart ["Always high costs. Always."]