Negotiated Reading of the Gucci × Dapper Dan Harlem Ad (Using Stuart Hall’s Model )

 23BE033067

In Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model, communication is seen as a process that involves not only the creator of a message (the encoder) but also the receiver (the decoder). According to Hall, audiences do not simply absorb the intended meaning of a media message; instead, they actively interpret it based on their own cultural background, experiences, and understanding of the world. Hall breaks this interpretation down into three possible readings: dominant, oppositional, and negotiated. A negotiated reading occurs when a viewer understands the dominant message being communicated and accepts parts of it but also resists or questions other elements.

The Gucci × Dapper Dan collaboration is a strong example of how this theory works in practice. On the surface, the campaign is clearly meant to promote themes like cultural inclusion, Black excellence, and historical recognition. Gucci partners with legendary Harlem designer Dapper Dan who was once excluded from mainstream fashion spaces to co-create a capsule collection and feature him as a central figure in their campaign. This move was presented by Gucci as a step toward acknowledging past wrongs and celebrating the influence of Black creatives in the global fashion industry .As someone viewing the campaign, I can see and appreciate what Gucci is trying to do. From a negotiated perspective, there are parts of the message that I genuinely connect with. For one, it’s powerful to see someone like Dapper Dan, who was once shut down by major fashion houses, finally getting recognition from one of the biggest luxury brands in the world. The imagery of Harlem, the roots of his style, and his own personal story being centered in the campaign make it feel like a celebration of Black culture. It resonates because it’s rare to see high-end fashion actively give credit to someone who was once dismissed or penalized for the same designs that are now being embraced.

However, a negotiated reading also involves pushing past surface impressions. While I recognize the message, I also find myself questioning the motivation behind it. The partnership came shortly after Gucci faced serious backlash over a racially insensitive sweater that resembled blackface imagery. Many viewed this as cultural appropriation, and it sparked public outrage. In that context, the collaboration with Dapper Dan starts to look less like an act of genuine appreciation and more like an effort to do damage control. In other words, while the message of inclusion is present, the timing of the campaign raises questions about how authentic that message really is.

This contradiction is what makes a negotiated reading so important. It’s not about dismissing the entire message, nor is it blindly accepting it. It’s about holding two ideas at once: appreciating the visibility and recognition being offered to someone like Dapper Dan, while also being skeptical about whether this partnership is driven more by business interests than by a true desire to create lasting change When we dig even deeper, we start to see the dynamics of power still at play. Yes, Dapper Dan is featured. Yes, Harlem is highlighted. But Gucci still controls the narrative. They control the production, the funding, the distribution, and ultimately, the global image. Dapper Dan is part of the campaign, but he’s not fully in control of it. The question becomes: is this real empowerment, or is it symbolic inclusion that still centers the brand’s own goals? Hall’s theory helps us see that media messages are never neutral. They are constructed, encoded with meaning by the producers, and then decoded by audiences in different ways. The dominant reading of this ad might be, “Gucci is becoming more inclusive and recognizing Black talent.” Many viewers, especially those unfamiliar with the history of Dapper Dan or the backlash Gucci previously faced, might accept this message entirely.

An oppositional reading might reject the campaign altogether, seeing it as purely performative and hypocritical. A negotiated reading, however, sits in the middle it accepts that something positive is happening, but it also points out the limitations, contradictions, and underlying structures that remain unchanged. Another reason why a negotiated reading makes sense in this context is because fashion is a space where representation often exists alongside exploitation. Black culture has long influenced fashion trends from hip-hop streetwear to braided hairstyles but these styles are often adopted without proper credit or compensation to the communities they came from. Dapper Dan’s original designs, for instance, were once criticized or shut down by luxury brands for using their logos without permission. Now, those same brands are profiting from similar aesthetics. So even though the ad is framed as a redemption story, it doesn’t erase the years of controversies that came before it. That’s what makes the viewer feel proud but also uneasy.

Cultural theorists often talk about the idea of “recuperation,” where dominant systems take in rebellious or underground elements and repackage them for mainstream consumption. That’s arguably what’s happening in this campaign. Dapper Dan represents a type of fashion that once lived outside the rules of high fashion. He was a symbol of resistance, creativity, and Black entrepreneurship. Now that same energy is being pulled into the corporate machine of luxury branding. From a negotiated point of view, this doesn’t necessarily make the collaboration bad it just means we have to recognize how complex and layered it is.It is also worth asking who benefits most from this partnership. While Dapper Dan does gain recognition, resources, and a new platform, Gucci gains access to cultural credibility that it previously lacked. By aligning with someone so deeply respected in Black fashion circles, Gucci is able to reposition itself as socially conscious, progressive, and in tune with cultural history. This helps the brand recover from past mistakes and strengthens its appeal to younger, more socially aware consumers. In that sense, the ad isn’t just a tribute to Dapper Dan it’s a strategic move to rebrand Gucci itself. In media studies, this kind of analysis is crucial. It teaches us to move beyond simple reactions like “I liked it” or “I didn’t like it.” Instead, we’re encouraged to ask: What is this ad saying? What is it not saying? Who is speaking, and who has the power to shape the message? Who benefits, and at what cost?

In conclusion, the Gucci × Dapper Dan campaign is a meaningful but a complex piece of media. A negotiated reading allows us to appreciate the genuine steps toward representation while still holding space for criticism. It helps us navigate the tension between visibility and tokenism, between collaboration and commodification. We don’t have to choose between celebrating progress and demanding more we can do both. That’s what critical thinking, and Stuart Hall’s model, empower us to do.