WE DON’T HATE; WE JUST DON’T ACCEPT THE MESSAGE AT FACE VALUE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDd7_oly3Qk&pp=ygUcaHR0cHM6Ly95b3V0dS5iZS9aRGQ3X29seTNRaw%3D%3

Using Stuart hall’s encoding and decoding lens to view the video of Gucci in collaboration with Dapper Dan, a designer. In 2018, the fashion world buzzed when Italian luxury brand Gucci officially partnered with Harlem icon Dapper Dan a designer who was once rejected, raided, and erased in his small Harlem boutique, by the same luxury system that now claimed to embrace him. The video campaign showcasing this “historic” partnership complete with Harlem streets, Black models, and the legendary Dap himself was marketed as a moment of reconciliation, mutual respect, and cultural uplift.  Highlighting that there are three ways to decode any intention passed across to us, there is the dominant, negotiated and the oppositional, but we will be looking at the oppositional decoding lens to view this video and letting you know how much we are against the whole behind-the -scenes information being passed across by Gucci. In oppositional decoding, viewers do reject the intended meaning of the content, instead interpreting each scene or whole content in critical and resistance perspective.

Firstly, let analyze the intended meaning of the video in a way where we are not against or for or even in between. The video portrays Gucci respectfully honoring Dapper Dan’s designs and Harlem roots showcasing an inclusive partnership and presenting Gucci’s move as a celebration of Black creativity and cultural exchange. This video makes us notice that they have done good by helping, or even accepting black culture, as we notice most models used to take pictures or videos were black. Also, we see celebration in the faces of individuals present there, which means there is happiness present, and this is what the video shows us. Therefore, what the video shows is how Gucci, in collaboration with Dapper Dan, has decided to partner and accept black culture.

Also, using an oppositional decoding lens to view this video, as a viewer using an oppositional lens I would say “This is just a way that an organization would likely behave when trying to protect its image, we could call it public relations scope. We see how Gucci exploited Dapper Dan’s designs for years without credit. Now they’re trying to wash their image by celebrating Harlem on camera. They profited off his style, got caught, and now they’re pretending to be his friend.” This is practical and realistic, we might not know the full story but the little we know we say. It is right to be fully against whatever intention was behind this video. For a fact we can prove that Gucci doesn’t just do things because they have placed themselves as sympathetic, but their major aim is just making profit and how they are practicalizing this is by using a designer who has been criticized by them before but later saw a potential they could use in Him [Dapper Dan]. Another point of criticism is how Black culture becomes a backdrop for branding. The video shows us in Harlem, but only Harlem that fits Gucci’s vision. It’s colorful, it’s musical, it’s fashionable. But it’s also sanitized for consumption, and packaged to sell luxury. This is a common theme in marketing, brands use “urban” aesthetics to appear cool but do little to empower the communities they borrow from. In this case, the very streets that were once policed for “knockoff culture” are now romanticized in Gucci commercials. So as a viewer using an oppositional lens to view this video, I am fully against this video and everything it holds.

Additionally, with this lens, the viewer sees beyond the polished storytelling and reads, How Gucci took Dapper Dan’s creative ideas without genuine respect until backlash forced them to apologize en.wikipedia.org+3glamour.com+3npr.org+3. Not only that but also Power imbalance, [higher class vs lower class] A major luxury brand using a smaller Black designer, not specifically small but compared to Gucci he is, to look diverse for marketing benefits. Even within the partnership, the question remains: who has the power? Gucci still owns the brand. They control the money, the messaging, the distribution. While Dapper Dan is finally given a seat at the table, he is still within Gucci’s house. He didn’t start his own luxury label. He was welcomed back, but on their terms. The video never directly addresses this power imbalance. Instead, it focuses on aesthetics and emotion. We see Harlem, but we don’t hear the voices of the people. We see the streets, but we don’t learn the pain of being excluded for years. The story is curated to make Gucci look like the hero. Performance over sincerity of the partnership is seen as a public relations move, not a true apology or equitable collaboration. Oppositional decoding reminds us. Just because a brand frames a partnership as respectful, not everyone will believe it. Context matters history of exploitation can overshadow future gestures. True change demands structural fairness, not only surface-level representation.

In conclusion, under this reading, the video becomes not a celebration, but a contentious symbol of past misuse and present marketing strategy, a reminder to critically assess brand narratives. From the oppositional perspective, the Gucci and Dapper Dan collaboration is not simply a feel-good fashion story. It is a complex, layered event that reveals the ongoing tension between Black creativity and corporate control. It shows how capitalism can repackage resistance into trend, and how history can be retold by those who once ignored it. We see that not everything that glitters is gold. This reading brings out that we don’t see at surface, but it causes critical thinking and develop mentality to not just accept the way it is given to us. We should also understand that whatever an encoder passes across is its own meaning, so it is left to us to accept it and remain in that perspective or rather think deeper and know why and how it all came about. Stuart Hall reminds us that the media is not just about what is shown, it’s about how it’s received. Different viewers bring different histories, emotions, and awareness to the content. The oppositional decoder doesn't hate the video. They just refuse to accept its message at face value. They look deeper. They ask: Who is this really for? Who gets paid? And who still waits for their full recognition?