Cosmetic Comfort

Advertisements play a significant role in the daily lives of consumers, despite being passive elements of the consumer’s surroundings for the most part. While advertisements are perceived as purely promotional material for a specific product, their effectiveness relies on taking advantage of the consumers’ needs and emotions in order to entice their attention. In “Branded For Life,” Andy Beckett reviews and presents the argument that consumption is not intended to evoke a sense of conformity for the consumer, but rather a sense of distinction.

He portrays the rise of counter-consumerist movements in the late 20th century, citing as hippies and environmentalists, and argues that in trying to stray from materialism they ended up creating smaller consumerist ecosystems of their own (para. 11.) Critics such as Michel Certeau disagree with the notion that consumers are prone to advertising-based manipulation, arguing that they absorb and subvert the imposed elements of media pressures for their own use and benefit. In light of the critiques that can be made against Beckett’s methodology and logic, he showcases a valid core argument that tackles a significant sociological issue. Modern advertisements target the vulnerability of individuals to persuade them into pursuing an artificial sense of distinction (Beckett para. 7) which in itself is rooted on the foundations of conformity, consumers then seek distinction from their social class by attempting to conform to the attributes of another (Zygmunt, p. 7); consequently, this phenomenon gradually shapes the values of society while its extensive presence erodes consumer autonomy despite the illusion of choice.

Consumers tend to believe that they make independent and unbiased decisions, but they seldom possess a noticeable distinction from other consumers and are instead prone to conformity. While consumers are autonomous and self-aware in theory, the reality is that various external factors influence the decisions they make and remove their autonomy as a result; nonetheless, the consumer will still believe that they are autonomous, leading to a perceived sense of autonomy that does not reflect reality (Wertenboch.) Beckett argues that the consumer in a modern capitalist society seeks distinction through materialism, and does not in fact look for a sense of belonging or conformity.

It is true that the consumer desires uniqueness, but the author does not consider the possibility for the consumer’s desire to be both unique and to conform. Conformity and distinction are relative concepts, and if their subjects in relation are not the same, then the consumer could in fact pursue both goals regardless of whether they are aware of it or not. Critics contend that the presence of a popular standard like emotionally appealing advertising does not immediately prove that consumers are prone to attraction or manipulation by it, but that the outcome of their reaction and use of this standard for their own benefit determines the degree of their control over it (De Certeau, p. xviii.)

Furthermore, the claim that the counter-cultural movements of the 1960s contained consumerist elements which benefit capitalism (Beckett para. 7) stands on the strawman argument that these movements promise a puritan separation from any acts of commerce or participation in the capitalist market, and it also relies on the claim that rebelliousness has become the face of consumerism (Beckett para. 4.) Beckett errantly assumes the belief that distinction and conformity are mutually exclusive constants in order to substantiate his argument on the vulnerability of consumers to advertising, which could’ve been more efficiently argued through more objectively and empirical methods.

Advertisers use societal trends and sensitive personal information to distort or exaggerate reality to influence their audience, who are consequently convinced into thinking that the advertised product is necessary for their sense of distinction among their peers as well as for their sense of conformity among wider society (Beckett.) In the modern age of widespread technology and digital consumption, advertisements have become more personalised than ever towards each consumer and with this personalisation comes drawbacks and benefits.

The consumer’s needs are met before they even realise it thanks to the extensive collection and analysis of the customer’s data and habits that makes advertisements personalised. The means by which this data is collected has been criticised as invasive, disregarding of the consumer’s rights to privacy and autonomy, as well as exploitative of the consumer’s sensitive information to sell them the right product at the right time (André et al. 5.) Anti-consumerist subcultures and trends have been incorporated into mainstream advertising (Beckett para. 3-4,) which goes to show that even dissent can be commodified and the consumer does not have any real freedom of choice. Critics dismiss this argument, arguing that the amount of personalisation in advertising does not correlate to the degree of consumer autonomy present (Holmen.)

The values of consumers are subject to change, particularly through the influence of external media such as advertisements; consequently, advertisements become a convenient yet subtle tool for the gradual manipulation of societal values as seen fit by those disseminating them. It can be argued that today, the most successful manner of selling the greatest amount of any product is to convince the consumers that they need it to obtain an artificial sense of distinction (Beckett para. 6,) and the means used to achieve this level of commercial success came with significant social and ethical consequences. These ethical repercussions are evident as seen for example in the widespread body image issues among a significant number of Americans, with the average perception of the desirable body type among them being similar if not identical to the ideal bodily standard promoted by advertisers (Sustainability Directory.)

The manner in which advertisements are used by the beauty industry subtly targets common points of insecurity among consumers and exacerbates these insecurities (Velasquez, p. 15) to evoke the consumer’s interest for the promoted products further; furthermore, the consumers are subconsciously impacted by this persuasive rhetoric, leading to a shift in their values and ultimately a noticeable gradual impact on societal values or behaviour (Beckett para. 6.) While critics may argue that the factors of consumer susceptibility are not as significant as they are portrayed to be (Coppock et al.,) evidence overwhelmingly shows that companies have long used persuasive and emotive elements to implant values and perceptions that increase the desirability of their products to the audience. Corporations disregard the moral consequences that derive from the persuasive rhetoric they employ in advertising, effectively stripping the consumers from having an informed volition by feeding them a distorted reality to gain profit.

Consumers are presented with the illusion of choice, and it is through their ignorance of their subjection to control that they are made vulnerable to other external influences disseminated by contemporary marketing. Advertising is not a reflection of existing societal norms and values, but rather a distortion of them in the manner most beneficial to private entities that stand to gain profit from this distortion of values. The pervasiveness and influence of advertising is shown through the infiltration, distortion and commercialisation of rebellious subcultures by corporate sponsors during the late 20th century, although critics argue that this detracts from the uncomfortable truth that this commercialisation was imminent without the existence of these companies to begin with (Beckett para. 7.)

It is important to note, however, that rebellious subcultures that continue to exist without adulteration or commercialisation, as noted by Beckett through the example of pacifists which have never been impacted by the commodification of dissent (para. 11.) Companies don’t just rely on faux rebellion, though, as advertisements that promote fitness supplements, equipment, or services such as gym memberships are one of the most common and effective types of promotional material today. The appeal of fitness advertisements is drawn not from making the product or service itself directly seem more desirable, but through invoking emotions of self-consciousness, inferiority, or contention in the audience by using exceptionally untroubled, attractive models that are seen promoting and giving positive testimony for these products or services which leads to the viewers internalising these external values of beauty (Velasquez, p. 17.)

Corporations thrive on the deception of consumers into a sense of security, so that they may drive them towards a vulnerable condition where it is easy to embed specific values on them and convince them that a certain product is the key to distinction among their peers (Beckett para 8.) While this endeavour has historically been successful in keeping consumers attached to superficial products and services that they do not need out of being subject to subliminal influence in advertising, this profit comes at the cost of distorting societal values which may lead to significant consequences over time.

Advertisements are perceived as passive and unimportant features of everyday life, only being a nuisance at worst but nothing inherently significant or concerning. Evidence shows that this cannot be further from the truth, and that their pervasiveness and influence targets the vulnerability of individuals to persuade them into pursuing an artificial sense of distinction which in itself is rooted in conformity. Consumers who subconsciously seek distinction from their social class by paradoxically attempting to conform to the attributes of another are especially susceptible to the subtle cues and persuasive elements embedded in promotional materials. This psychological dynamic extends far beyond mere persuasion, it shapes societal values through the emotions it invokes and gradually erodes consumer autonomy through the data it collects, all while maintaining the illusion of choice.

Bibliography

1. André, Quentin, et al. “Consumer Choice and Autonomy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data.” Customer Needs and Solutions, vol. 5, nos. 1–2, 2018, pp. 28–37. Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-017-0085-8.
2. Bauman, Zygmunt. Consuming Life. John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
3. Beckett, Andy. “Branded for Life.” The Guardian, 4 June 2005, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/jun/04/highereducation.news1.
4. Coppock, Alexander, et al. “The Small Effects of Political Advertising Are Small regardless of Context, Message, Sender, or Receiver: Evidence from 59 Real-Time Randomized Experiments.” Science Advances, vol. 6, no. 36, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc4046.
5. De Certeau, Michel. The Practice of Everyday Life. University of California Press, 1984.
6. Fiske, John. Understanding Popular Culture. Routledge, 1989.
7. Holmen, Sebastian. “Is It Getting Too Personal? On Personalized Advertising and Autonomy.” Etikk i Praksis – Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, vol. 17, no. 2, 2023, pp. 53–67. https://doi.org/10.5324/eip.v17i2.5056.
8. Sustainability Directory. “How Does Advertising Affect Body Image? → Question.” Pollution → Sustainability Directory, 22 Apr. 2025, https://pollution.sustainability-directory.com/question/how-does-advertising-affect-body-image/.
9. Velasquez, Tatiana. “Decoding Influence: Cosmetic Industry Strategies, Media Beauty Standards, and Their Mental Health Impact on Generation Z Consumers.” Digital Collections @ Suffolk, Suffolk University, Oct. 2025, https://dc.suffolk.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=undergrad.
10. Wertenbroch, Klaus, et al. “Autonomy in Consumer Choice.” Marketing Letters, vol. 31, no. 4, 2020, pp. 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09521-z.