Ad-busters' ideology

Ad-busters presents an anti-capitalist ideology to it's audience

• One argument against capitalism, is that it is potentially selfish. This idea of competition etc.
• That you work for your money, inherently unequal. Why would you even bother with the system if you cannot win somehow? In order for a capitalist society to exist, there must be people above and below.
• More money gives people more opportunity. Money allows for people to attend clubs and activities which means they have access to a wider range of skill-sets.
• If you're born poor, you're already at a disadvantage. If you are born rich, you are already at a huge advantage.
• Marxist theory "The assumption that our society is dominated by an elite ruling class, who dominate the working class." The ruling class are the source of all the problems.
• The ruling class control media because they have a lot of money and power. They can use this in order to manipulate a lot of people. We are manipulated by the ruling class into believing certain ideologies.
• Consumerism, a society which orients around buying things. We define ourselves through what we buy, not who we are. This allows the ruling class to dominate, as they own what we buy. They can manipulate this. 

Ad-Busters would rather we didn't live in a capitalist society.

Claude Levi Strauss - Binary oppositions. A binary opposition is two concepts which are completely opposed to one another. Our entire world, culture, stories, way of thinking and brains are oriented around binary opposition. For example, to have a concept of day we must have a concept of night.

Roland Barthes - Theory of semiotics - coding. Codes include, pro-airetic (something will happen), hermeneutic (creates mystery) and symbolic (represents something).

PAGE 1

• There is a binary opposition between the brand name 'Christian Louboutin' and the imagery. Louboutins are expensive, luxury shoes which have a reputation for being only afforded by the rich. This contrasts the imagery in the photo, which shoes a boy wearing bottles as shoes. This is not practical, and therefore it can be inferred that he is poor.
• The things he is wearing act as symbolic coding for shoes, as they have the same conventions. String and bottle look like a flip flop.
• Because the shoes are not practical, it acts as a pro-aietic code that something potentially dangerous could occur, as they are not fit for wear.
• The fact that they are using bottles for shoes creates a hermeneutic code. The setting is a desert/dry area, and the boy's ethnicity is stereotypically that of a person in Africa. Therefore, we would assume that he needs the water, but he uses the bottles for shoes instead.
• They are trying to say that despite a designer label and money, the Louboutins serve the same purpose as normal shoes. It's comparing a designer label to something which is essentially free.

PAGE 2

• There is a binary opposition between black and white and colour photograph. This can show the difference in time of which the images were taken.
• There is a binary opposition between crowds and being alone. 
• There is a binary opposition between danger and safety, as the top photo looks dangerous as they are around barbed wire. The bottom looks safe as it is a fashion runway. One is unfamiliar, the other is.
• There is a hermeneutic code created regarding the top picture, because the event is unclear. 
• There is also a hermeneutic code regarding the bottom picture as the model's identity is unclear
• There is a pro-airetic code created by the people around the barbed wire, as we know they are going to get hurt.
• There is symbolic coding created by the material and design of the dress and the setting. It looks expensive, because it is on a runway which only really big designers have. (Most of the time). This creates a binary opposition between the rich and poor.
• The people in the top photo look scruffy and unclean, whereas the woman in the bottom looks clean and put together. This is another binary opposition.