The Commodification of Identity: How Marketing Shapes Self-Perception

In contemporary consumer culture, the relationship between brands and personal identity has grown increasingly complex. Far from merely selling products, today's marketing strategies sell identities, lifestyles, and self-concepts—transforming the very nature of how we perceive ourselves and others. This process, often referred to as the commodification of identity, represents one of the most profound influences of capitalism on individual and cultural expression.

The Identity-Consumption Nexus

Research consistently demonstrates that consumption has become a primary mechanism through which individuals construct and express their identities. Belk's (1988) seminal work on "possessions and the extended self" established that consumers use their possessions as identity markers, essentially incorporating brands and products into their self-concept. In his words, "we are what we have" (Belk, 1988).

This connection has only intensified in recent decades. According to research published in the Journal of Consumer Research by Escalas and Bettman (2005), consumers actively use brands to create and communicate their identity, particularly when those brands connect to reference groups they aspire to join (Escalas & Bettman, 2005).

Dr. Jennifer Aaker of Stanford University has further substantiated this relationship through her research on brand personality dimensions. Her empirical studies demonstrate that consumers selectively choose brands with personalities that align with their actual or aspirational self-image, effectively using commercial entities as vessels for identity work (Aaker, 1997).

Fashion: Wearing Identity on Our Sleeves

Perhaps nowhere is the commodification of identity more visible than in the fashion industry, where clothing and accessories function as explicit identity markers.

A study by Thompson and Haytko (1997) published in the Journal of Consumer Research analyzed how consumers use fashion discourse to negotiate social identity. The researchers found that consumers don't passively absorb fashion marketing but rather engage with it dialectically—accepting some elements while rejecting others—to construct personalized identity narratives (Thompson & Haytko, 1997).

Specific brands illustrate this process vividly:

Supreme: Research by Pongsakornrungsilp and Schroeder (2011) documented how streetwear brands create value through co-creation with consumers, transforming from subcultural signifiers to mainstream status symbols. Through calculated scarcity and community engagement, such brands create not just products but membership in an exclusive identity group (Pongsakornrungsilp & Schroeder, 2011).

Fast Fashion: A study by Joy et al. (2012) in the International Journal of Consumer Studies revealed that fast fashion companies like Zara and H&M have accelerated consumption cycles. Their research with young consumers found that participants frequently updated their wardrobes—and by extension, their identity presentation—to keep pace with rapidly changing fashion trends (Joy et al., 2012).

Social Media: The Digital Identity Marketplace

Social platforms have revolutionized identity commodification by creating spaces where personal branding becomes explicit and measurable through likes, followers, and engagement metrics.

Marwick's (2015) ethnographic research on Instagram influencers, published in Public Culture, revealed how individuals strategically curate branded identities, often incorporating commercial products as key signifiers of their digital persona (Marwick, 2015).

The phenomenon extends beyond influencers. Research by Vogel et al. (2014) in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication found that social media users engage in social comparison with others online, affecting their self-evaluations and self-esteem (Vogel et al., 2014).

This self-commodification creates measurable psychological effects. A study by Gonzales and Hancock (2011) in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking demonstrated that exposure to one's own Facebook profile enhances self-esteem, whereas exposure to mirror reflections produces a more negative self-assessment (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011).

Platform-specific research reveals distinct identity commodification patterns:

Instagram: Studies by Sheldon and Bryant (2016) showed that one of the key motivations for Instagram use is surveillance/knowledge about others, including monitoring their consumption and lifestyle displays (Sheldon & Bryant, 2016).

Luxury Branding: The Ultimate Identity Commodity

Luxury brands represent perhaps the purest expression of identity commodification, explicitly selling status, exclusivity, and social position rather than mere functional benefits.

Research by Han, Nunes, and Drèze (2010) in the Journal of Marketing categorized luxury consumers based on their wealth and need for status, identifying four groups with different identity motivations for purchasing luxury goods:

1. Patricians: Wealthy consumers who use subtle brand signals recognizable only to other patricians
2. Parvenus: Newly wealthy consumers who use conspicuous luxury signals to distance themselves from the non-wealthy
3. Poseurs: Non-wealthy consumers who use counterfeit or entry-level luxury items to emulate wealthy consumers
4. Proletarians: Consumers who do not engage in status signaling through luxury consumption

This framework reveals how luxury brands create complex identity hierarchies within their consumer base, with each group using the same brands differently for identity purposes (Han, Nunes, & Drèze, 2010).

Brand-specific research demonstrates these dynamics:

Louis Vuitton: Research by Kapferer and Bastien (2009) analyzed luxury brand strategic positioning. Their analysis shows how luxury companies transform their products from quality markers to identity symbols (Kapferer & Bastien, 2009).

The Psychological Mechanisms

The effectiveness of identity commodification relies on several psychological mechanisms identified in research:

Self-discrepancy theory: Research by Higgins (1987) found that discrepancies between actual and ideal selves create specific emotional vulnerabilities that marketing can target (Higgins, 1987).

Identity threat and reinforcement: Experimental research by White and Argo (2009) demonstrated that consumers are more likely to avoid products associated with negatively viewed aspects of their identity (White & Argo, 2009).

Narrative transportation: Studies by Van Laer et al. (2014) revealed that brand stories that enable narrative transportation—immersion in a narrative world—are particularly effective at influencing consumer behavior (Van Laer et al., 2014).

Cultural and Social Implications

The commodification of identity extends beyond individual psychology to reshape cultural and social structures.

McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) documented how brand communities have become significant social structures for many consumers. Their ethnographic research with brand community members found strong emotional connections among fellow brand enthusiasts (McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002).

From a cultural perspective, Holt's (2002) historical analysis traces how marketing has evolved from a modern to postmodern approach, with brands becoming cultural resources rather than simply commercial entities (Holt, 2002).

Resistance and Alternative Approaches

Despite marketing's powerful influence on identity formation, research also documents resistance to identity commodification.

Kozinets' (2002) study of anti-consumption communities found that participants consciously reject brand-mediated identity in favor of alternative consumption practices. His interviews with adherents revealed sophisticated critiques of identity marketing and deliberate strategies to construct self-concept independent of commercial influences (Kozinets, 2002).

Similarly, research by Arsel and Thompson (2011) documented how consumers actively work to "demythologize" commercial identity narratives, particularly when marketers appropriate authentic subcultural identities. Their research with indie music fans showed how community members developed complex systems to distinguish "authentic" identity expressions from commercially co-opted versions (Arsel & Thompson, 2011).

Marketing isn't Just Diagnostic... it's Prognostic

The research clearly demonstrates that marketing doesn't merely reflect identity but actively shapes how individuals perceive themselves and others. Through fashion, social media, and luxury brands, commercial entities have become primary mediators of identity expression and formation.

This commodification process operates through sophisticated psychological mechanisms and generates significant cultural consequences. However, research also reveals ongoing resistance as consumers seek authentic identity expression outside commercial channels.

As marketing techniques become increasingly sophisticated and as digital platforms further blur the lines between personal expression and commercial activity, understanding the commodification of identity becomes essential for both marketers and consumers. The research suggests that while brands will continue to play important roles in identity construction, the most fulfilling identity expressions may emerge from conscious engagement with—and sometimes resistance to—these commercial influences.

References

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.

Arsel, Z., & Thompson, C. J. (2011). Demythologizing consumption practices: How consumers protect their field-dependent identity investments from devaluing marketplace myths. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 791-806.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-168.

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-389.

Gonzales, A. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(1-2), 79-83.

Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15-30.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319-340.

Holt, D. B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70-90.

Joy, A., Sherry Jr, J. F., Venkatesh, A., Wang, J., & Chan, R. (2012). Fast fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fashion Theory, 16(3), 273-295.

Kapferer, J. N., & Bastien, V. (2009). The specificity of luxury management: Turning marketing upside down. Journal of Brand Management, 16(5), 311-322.

Kozinets, R. V. (2002). Can consumers escape the market? Emancipatory illuminations from burning man. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 20-38.

Marwick, A. E. (2015). Instafame: Luxury selfies in the attention economy. Public Culture, 27(1), 137-160.

McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38-54.

Pongsakornrungsilp, S., & Schroeder, J. E. (2011). Understanding value co-creation in a co-consuming brand community. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 303-324.

Sheldon, P., & Bryant, K. (2016). Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and contextual age. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 89-97.

Thompson, C. J., & Haytko, D. L. (1997). Speaking of fashion: consumers' uses of fashion discourses and the appropriation of countervailing cultural meanings. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(1), 15-42.

Van Laer, T., De Ruyter, K., Visconti, L. M., & Wetzels, M. (2014). The extended transportation-imagery model: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of consumers' narrative transportation. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 797-817.

Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(4), 206-222.

White, K., & Argo, J. J. (2009). Social identity threat and consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 313-325.