Reception theory

Reebok advert

Dominant:  The dominant reading for this advert is that Reebok is suggesting that people who have made bad choices in the past can always change. Reebok uses 50 Cent to show their audience that there are always opportunities to improve your life and make the right choices. 

Negotiated:  The negotiated reading would be that Reebok presents 50 Cent as a 'criminal' or as a 'gangster' because of the way they have portrayed him with the chain around his neck and the cap. However, they are also attracting more of an audience because they have used a famous person and when people would see him they would want to buy Reeboks products

Oppositional:  Reebok have presented themselves to the audience that they are a company that associates with criminals only. They are suggesting to the audience that if you are a criminal then you should buy Reebok products. People wouldn't want to buy their products because Reebok associates themselves with criminals suggesting that they encourage criminal activity. 

Nike advert

Dominant:  Nike is trying to tell the reader that only if they buy their product then the shoe will work. Their main text ' the shoe works if you do' clearly intrigues the reader and forces them to buy Nike's product. Nike are selling their product by writing a small paragraph describing their product as 'comfortable' and 'stylish' attracting more customers.

Negotiated:  Nike are suggesting to their audience that the shoe will only work if the person who wears it does. This is said to initially just sell the product for Nike so their company could make money. The audience knows that there is no such thing where a shoe will work if you do. Although, some people could view it as Nike trying to  promote a healthy lifestyle, it could be said that they are just trying to sell their product.

Oppositional:  Audience could view this as an insult if you are not 'fit' enough because Nike are suggesting that if you do not work out or remain active then you are not using the shoes right. Essentially, Nike have created a false representation of the shoes because some people may not feel a difference when wearing their product.

2) Do these adverts provide evidence for the idea that audiences are free to interpret messages in a variety of ways - including rejecting them? Answer this question as a mini-essay, exploring both sides of the argument.

Yes, In my opinion all adverts allow the audience to interpret the messages conveyed in a variety of ways including rejecting them. I believe there are no set of rules as to how the audience should perceive the messages that are conveyed. The adverts are open to any interpretations, for example, Reebok decided to use an image of 50 Cent who looks like a criminal and Nike chose to just use their product because they know their product is powerful enough on its own to convey any message. The audience are free to interpret the Reebok advert in any manner, for example, the audience could believe that Reebok are promoting their company that is for criminals or they could see it as an opportunity to reform from mistakes made in the past and that Reebok are there to support those people. For the Nike advert, people could see it as an opportunity to start maintaining a healthy lifestyle or people could see this as a product that is only for teens because of the products style and use of morbid colours. Overall, I think the audience are free to interpret adverts in any way or reject them if they feel like doing so.