I picked this fake Nike add for my blog response, to sum up the advertisement's meaning, the ad is trying to bring an awareness of the global economy and the effects of America's consumer culture on the third world to it's audience. One key difference (besides the fact that she isn't wearing shoes in a Nike add) is that this add advertisement doesn't generate any kind of desire;there isn't any goal or direction the audience gets the message form the add but doesn't get a quick fix. Even if a consumer sees the add and understands the inadequately of consumerism they can't do much, accept maybe not buy the product being mocked.

The is an anti advertisement in the truest sense of the word. The fake add gives no outlet for desire and does little to actually move one to act on an individual level. The “Nike” mock add doesn't fit in the mold set by consumerism it criticizes culture and politics instead of an actual person or changeable trait. Secondly the mock add doesn't offer any kind of fulfillment for the audience. Even if Nike were to go out of business the consumer would have one less bard of shoes and the poor third world workers would have less jobs, and if any good did come out of not buying “Nike” it wouldn't fulfill a consumer at a personal level.

To better understand the difference between the fake Nike add and a real add of the same type would be to see how an add of the same message would support consumerism. Say, the add mocked Nike but offered an alternative shoe company, one who's shoes where made in America by well paid unionized workers. That way the consumer would feel fulfillment form buying a product and consumerism would be supported by the advertisement; after all a need is being filled, one product isn't good( in this case Nike), and the one being suggested (the alternate company's) by the add is. The audience would not support extortion of third world workers and their spending would make them believe they made the world a better place.