Last Wednesday, the NYTimes ran an anti-Wal-Mart ad, the first in a media campaign from a "newly formed, union-backed anti-Wal-Mart group, which draws support from environmentalists, political activists, and women's rights groups."
I guess they're all taking time out from their opposition research on federal judicial nominees to pursue Wal-Mart but this may be a poorly chosen battle. It pits sermonizing political activists (not fun) against my impulse to shop (fun!) and my desire to buy stuff cheap (less fun, but important to my family). Advantage: my impulses and desires!
And: if their media buy is made up only of ads in the NYTimes -- whose primary readership is unlikely to live near, shop at or be sympathetic to a Wal-Mart -- can we really say this is a serious "campaign" meant to persuade anyone?