USING STUART’S HALL METHOD WITH OPPOSITIONAL READING TO DECODE THE GUCCI X DAPPER DAN “MADE IN HARLEM” VIDEO

 USING STUART’S HALL METHOD WITH OPPOSITIONAL READING TO DECODE THE GUCCI X DAPPER DAN “MADE IN HARLEM” VIDEO

The Gucci x Dapper Dan “Made in Harlem” video was created to send a message of partnership, inclusion, and celebration of Black culture — but when I watch it with Stuart Hall’s oppositional reading, I see something very different: a brand using culture for its own profit while hiding the deeper power imbalance. Stuart Hall’s method shows us that we don’t have to take media messages at face value. The Gucci video wants you to feel good about the partnership. But when you break it down, you see how brands can say one thing while doing another. That’s why oppositional reading is so powerful because it helps us see the full picture.
Gucci wants people to believe that this campaign is about giving respect to Harlem and Dapper Dan after years of ignoring and stealing from Black fashion. That’s the message they encoded into the video. But with oppositional reading, I fully reject that message because we see how brands like Gucci are the ones still in control. What’s interesting is how the video tries to cover its real motive with pretty pictures, flashy outfits, gold chains and feel-good vibes. They show close-ups of Dan smiling, the models laughing, and everyone working together in harmony but the deeper truth is Gucci actually controls the story, the money, and the outcome of the shoot. Harlem was never an equal partner here. Gucci simply figured out how to turn what was once street fashion into luxury profit. So while the video looks like respect, it’s really more about manipulative strategy.

Furthermore, the video shows Dapper Dan working with Gucci like they’re equals, but in truth, Gucci holds the power while Harlem’s story is just part of their public relations marketing. They want to make their Harlem publics feel like they are been valued. When you see Dan fitting jackets on models or posing with Gucci executives, the video suggests that everything is now balanced. It tries to make us believe that Gucci has changed and that both sides now sit at the same table but in reality, that is what we call a surface-level image. Gucci is not giving Harlem control over any real decision-making power rather they have full control of the partnership, the branding, the rollout, and of course, the profit-sharing. Dan may get his name on the door, but Gucci owns the building. What’s even more important is that Gucci only reached out after Dan’s style became popular and also too powerful for them to ignore. They could not do without having that kind of power on their hands else they might actually have been overpowered because Harlem’s culture was valuable once it became profitable. That shows this is not a genuine partnership. It’s a calculated business move where Gucci controls the timing, the narrative, and the money flow. Dan’s inclusion looks like a win, but under oppositional reading, we see how it’s only happening on Gucci’s terms.

Also, we notice the video uses Harlem’s visuals and Dapper Dan’s history to sell authenticity, but it’s not pure rather it carefully avoids talking about racism, poverty, and the other real reasons why Harlem’s fashion scene was born. One of the most important things missing from this video is the full story behind why Harlem had to build its own fashion world in the first place. The fashion industry historically locked Black designers out. Dapper Dan only started remixing designer logos because luxury fashion refused to serve Black communities. Instead of opening their doors, brands like Gucci ignored Harlem until they saw money in it. The video never explains this. They show Harlem’s pretty streets and rich culture, but not the deep inequality that created this fashion movement. The oppositional reading helps us see how Gucci is just borrowing Harlem’s image now that it’s trendy. The beauty shots of the neighborhood are carefully chosen. They don’t show poverty, they don’t show gentrification, and they don’t show struggle. Instead, Harlem becomes a backdrop a mood board for Gucci’s global marketing campaign. It’s not Harlem being honored rather it’s Harlem being packaged and sold.

In addition, Dapper Dan’s personal success is used in the video to sell the idea that Gucci has changed, but his success is also carefully controlled by the same system that sonce pushed him out. The Gucci-Dapper Dan story is being sold as a feel-good redemption arc: a once-underground designer now fully embraced by high fashion. But this success story works perfectly for Gucci because it allows them to avoid talking about systemic change. Dan’s personal win is used to suggest that Gucci has grown, but Gucci still owns the majority of the power and wealth. This is a common move in capitalism. Instead of opening the doors for many, the system highlights one person who made it, while keeping the bigger structure exactly the same. Under oppositional reading, we understand that Dan’s partnership doesn’t mean Harlem’s designers now have equal access to the industry. It simply means Gucci has absorbed one person into their system to make themselves look progressive. Real change would mean giving more people ownership, creative control, and true partnership not just hiring low level designer for PR.

In conclusion, Gucci’s video is less about Harlem and more about protecting its own brand image, showing how capitalism loves to borrow from culture while avoiding real responsibility. Gucci’s main goal here isn’t justice or real inclusion — it’s reputation management. After facing criticism for copying Dan’s designs years earlier, and after their own racism scandals (like the blackface sweater controversy), Gucci needed to clean up its image. Partnering with Dapper Dan allowed them to turn their bad press into good press. Now, instead of being seen as a brand that steals from Black culture, they get credit for “uplifting” it. That’s the real game here. Capitalism always finds a way to turn even its mistakes into profit. Gucci’s leadership didn’t have to give up any real power; they just had to invite one person into the fold and spin it as progress. The oppositional reading shows how the system stays intact while selling the image of change. Gucci still makes billions while Harlem stays where it’s always been: full of creativity, but with limited ownership over the luxury space it helped inspire.