A semiotic anlysis of the Louboutins/runway double page spread in Adbusters

• A confrontational and potentially racist mode of address??? A shocking and controversial set of ideologies. 
• Binary opposition is constructed between a well known high end fashion designer and the clearly home-made shoes worn by the model. Constructs an ideological perspective that the fashion industry is exclusive, and indeed harmful; to people in developing countries. 
• Binary opposition between a fashion runway and the refugees struggling to push beyond a fence. Again, constructs an ideological perspective of struggle, poverty and exploitation
• Postcolonial perspectives: a gutteral mode of address, testing the audience, and suggesting that they are also part of the problem 
• Extremely low production values on 'red soles' image, like an old cameras phone. Symbolic code of poverty, conflict and a terrible life
• Expectation of audience knowledge. Adbusters expects audience to be familiar with high end fashion brand, indicating a potentially middle class audience. Are the audience themselves the problem? Does this magazine hate me?
• High angle, birds eye view shot 'looking down' on the model is symbolic that we, as consumers of the shoes are having an impact on those in a developing country, and are indeed 'looking down' on those less fortunate than us
• Hermeneutic code of dirty feet presents a question to the audience: "why are these feet so dirty? What life do they lead? How disgusting!" 
• Breaking of hegemonic norms and values. Bottles are clearly not shoes. They are not fashionable.
• Intertextual reference to charity adverts such as the water aid advert, a criticism of Louboutins marketing strategy, selling a deliberately trashy aesthetic to extremely rich people
• Runway page: a binary opposition between harsh, high contrast black and white and rich, colour creates the symbolic connotation of a desirable lifestyle vs a hateful and horrible existence
• Accuses target audience of being guilty of force people in to poverty. Criticises the capitalist ideology that in order for one person to be rich, another must be poor and exploited. Additionally, even high end brands are often constructed in 'third world' and developing countries for much much less than in would cost otherwise. Countries such as Bangladesh and Indonesia have drastically lower wages to pay, and many fewer laws protecting workers
• Extremely sparse layout, with very little copy. Forces the audience to construct their own meaning. Complete lack of anchorage. A funny joke??? A highly inappropriate joke??? With no anchorage, the audience are left to make up their own mind.
• A double page spread
• A stereotypical representation of an African individual. No apparent gender. Utilises the codes and conventions of a charity advert. Complete lack of anchorage. 
• Slogan draws attention to the brand identity of Loubitin shoes. Red soles ere refer to bleeding feet, and to global inequality. 
• Bottles function as a symbolic code for water, drawing to attention a stereotypical lack of water in Africa. 
• Possible reference to sweatshops?
• Oppositional reading: [possibly racist and stereotypical?]
• Draws attention towards accepted truths 
• Assumption that the readers of adbusters are middle class and comfortably wealthy
• Preferred reading of guilt
• MES of bared wire and black and white creates a sense of poverty and conflict

But what can we do? The double page spread presents a stark and terrible world ripped apart by capitalism and inequality. By participating in a capitalistic society, we are complicit and guilty of exploitation. But the spread doesn't offer any alternative! Is this simply hateful for the sake of it?

Bonus - Checking out the Christian Louboutin website I was struck by the edgy, counter cultural ideological perspective constructed by their promotional images. This mid-shot low angle shot of a cheerfully mismatched, scruffy and perhaps even non-hegemonically attractive model (sorry mate) is further anchored throughout the setting and the model's performance, sitting on a tram line. Can you buy looking scruffy and edgy and maybe even looking homeless? Louboutin certainly seem to think so, and you'll pay the best part of £700 for the shoes alone here. 

So what's the message? You will be forgiven for suggesting 'Louboutins are for everyone'. But really? Is that the case? Could a genuinely poverty stricken person buy these shoes? Does £650 really say "yep, come on, these are for everyone?" Surely the ideological perspective of inclusiveness creates a counterpoint with the actual price of the shoes? If Louboutin really wanted to say "we're for everyone", then they'd probably include a budget range. But if they took that stance, they would be backpedalling on their extremely exclusive unique selling point!

High end fashion often presents subversive, trashy and countercultural ideologies that are completely at odds with the extremely high price of the product bveing advertised Advertising sells a lifestyle, and Liuboutin conversely sells a trashy and poverty striken lifestyle to a wealthy target audience.