Understanding the Gucci X Dapper Dan Commercial Through Stuart Hall’s Lens (Oppositional Reading)

The Gucci x Dapper Dan commercial has been praised by many people as a powerful message about celebrating Black culture and giving credit to a legendary Black designer. On the surface, it looks like a great example of a luxury brand finally doing the right thing by teaming up with someone they once ignored. But when we look more deeply and use a theory from a cultural expert named Stuart Hall, we can understand the commercial in a very different way. Hall believed that media—like TV shows, commercials, and music videos—have different meanings depending on how people "read" or understand them. While the company may try to send one message, the audience might see another. One type of reading is called an “oppositional reading,” where the viewer completely disagrees with the message being sent. In this essay, we will explore how the Gucci x Dapper Dan commercial can be seen not as progress, but as a clever business move to make money off Black culture without fixing real problems.

Secondly, the commercial shows Dapper Dan in a stylish Harlem setting, with Black models and luxurious outfits that are meant to celebrate Black excellence. Gucci wants people to think they are supporting Black culture and creativity by partnering with someone like Dapper Dan. They are trying to send a message that they are open-minded, inclusive, and respectful of Black fashion. From the surface, it looks like a powerful and positive move. However, when we look at it through an oppositional view, we see a different story. Instead of seeing a true partnership, we can see a big company using Black culture and style to sell more products and fix its image after being accused of racism in the past. This shows how companies can use diversity as a strategy to look good instead of making real changes.

Also, the commercial leaves out important parts of the past that would show a more honest picture. Years ago, Dapper Dan was shut down by fashion brands, including Gucci, because he was using their logos in his designs. At that time, these brands didn’t respect his work or his audience. But now that his style is popular and profitable, they suddenly want to work with him. In the commercial, Gucci avoids talking about this history. They try to make it look like Dapper Dan is just making a comeback thanks to their support, but in reality, he had been doing great work for years without their help. By not showing this, Gucci erases the fact that they once tried to stop him, and now they are benefiting from his ideas. This makes the partnership feel more like a smart business trick rather than a sincere apology or celebration.

Another problem with the commercial is how it makes the relationship between Gucci and Dapper Dan look equal, when in fact, Gucci still holds most of the power. Dapper Dan is a respected figure in the Black community, but Gucci is a billion-dollar company with much more control. Even though it may look like Dan is in charge or that he is being honored, we don’t really know how much say he had in the project. It’s likely that Gucci controls how the story is told, what designs are shown, and how the commercial is made. From a critical point of view, this is not a partnership of equals. It’s more like Gucci giving a small amount of space to someone they once ignored, while still keeping most of the benefits for themselves.

The way the commercial uses Black culture is also worth looking at closely. Gucci shows Harlem, Black models, and clothing styles that are rooted in Black history, but the main people who buy Gucci are rich and often not Black. This means the company is using the look and feel of Black culture to sell luxury items to people who may not understand or care about where those styles came from. The culture is turned into something that can be sold, without respecting its deeper meaning. Stuart Hall talked about how media often takes powerful symbols from certain groups and makes them harmless or fashionable, so they can be sold to a larger audience. That’s exactly what is happening here. Gucci is not telling the full story or respecting the struggle behind the style—it’s just using it as decoration.

From this point of view, the commercial is not really about lifting up Dapper Dan or the Black community—it’s about making Gucci look good. Dapper Dan was once someone who went against the fashion industry. He made luxury fashion accessible to Black people in Harlem when those brands didn’t want them as customers. Now that Gucci is working with him, it seems like they are saying, “You’ve finally been accepted.” But this message is harmful because it suggests that success only comes when big companies approve of you. Instead of honoring his original message of rebellion and independence, the commercial changes him into someone who has now joined the system he once challenged. This takes away from the powerful message he stood for.

In conclusion, the Gucci x Dapper Dan commercial may look like a step forward, but when we examine it through Stuart Hall’s idea of oppositional reading, we can see a more troubling reality. Rather than showing real support for Black culture and fixing past mistakes, the commercial seems to use the appearance of diversity and progress to sell more products and improve Gucci’s image. It hides important history, pretends that power is shared equally, and turns Black culture into a product. This is why it’s important for us to look at media messages carefully and think about what they are really saying. When we understand the deeper meanings behind these messages, we can see when something that looks good on the surface might actually be more about profit than progress.