MIGRAIN: Reception theory

1) What are the preferred, negotiated and oppositional readings for the adverts you have studied?

preferred

Their branding of clothes gives customers identity and no matter who they were and what they have done doesn't define me and they can wear what even they like. Also, the use of 50 Cent could be for celebrity endorsement so those who support him or agree with ideas and options will buy Reebok. 

negotiated
No matter what someone's past has been like they have potential tomorrow and even if they were a criminal and have learnt their lesson they can change and their brand of clothes will always support them.

oppositional 
Since 50 Cent was a criminal, the branding of clothes is supporting criminals and only people with a rough past can wear there brand and it also shows even if they have done bad mistakes and crimes in the past it doesn't matter in the future and has no effect.

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.

The post itself is quite vague therefore it is hard to have a concrete idea of how the advert may be interpreted because the use of 50 Cent and the fingerprints have a clear link to criminals so the audience would more likely to receive this ad as a target for criminals  

Although on the other side the quote and title "I am what I am" doesn't exactly relate to criminals being a positive thing and in fact states that everyone has the potential to change a become a better person and more than their mistakes which is a positive message so Reebok is supporting a good cause.

1) What are the preferred, negotiated and oppositional readings for the adverts you have studied?

preferred

preferred
The branding pf the clothes gives you many advantages for examples allows you to run at high speed and stay ahead from your competitors and gives your potential to play in a stadium. Also using celebrity endorsement to attract fans of Neymar. 

negotiated
More famous football players would play with thee shoes, therefore, it means the shoes are expensive and anyone can buy them 
oppositional 
People could view the shoes are only for those who play in-stadium and for those who have less potential, the shoes may not be for them.

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.

The use of Neymar and the lighting effect in the back most definitely create a stadium scene which may make people not want to buy the shoes as they are seen as a thing that is not cable for the "average" person because not all can go to stadiums and not all can be Neymar.
Although the title "Explosive speed" with the font used, the use of Neymar who is extremely fast and the fire like effect behind his shoes may support evidence to show how these shoes let you run at high speed, therefore, it is unlikely an audience may interpret this in any other way because there is too much evidence.