According to USC, in 1970, the average person saw 500 ads a day. Now, in 2025, people view an average of 5,000 advertisements a day. While it may seem like we could simply “brush off” these images and videos and remain exempt from their messaging, studies show that ads can drastically change the way we view ourselves and others. While many interpret these as simply being forms of expression, it’s quite possible that these messages could be far more damaging than we believe.

Summer of 2025 was marked by a slew of controversies surrounding female celebrities and their marketing campaigns, raising questions on whether advertisers should be more mindful about how they present their products. In addition, it also brought about the concern of the dangers of how we, as consumers, digest marketing messages. The reality is that, in the digital age, no one is exempt from the destructive power of online advertising.

RECENT CONTROVERSIES

In May 2025, actress and model Sydney Sweeney launched a campaign with Dr. Squatch, selling a line of bath soaps infused with her own bathwater, titled “Sydney’s Bathwater Bliss”. The product garnered controversy across social media, with many people – specifically women – being repulsed by the campaign. Sweeney was the subject of an even larger controversy when she modeled for an American Eagle jeans commercial, titled “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans”. The campaign was meant to have a play on words, with the word “genes” being crossed-out and replaced with “jeans”. Sydney herself was dressed provocatively in the ad, and it raised suspicions of promoting white supremacy and thin, sexualized images of women.

In June 2025, popstar Sabrina Carpenter debuted the cover for her new album, “Man’s Best Friend” on Instagram. The cover featured her in a tight, short black dress on her hands and knees with a man gripping her aggressively by her hair. The photo sparked backlash, with many saying that Carpenter was reinforcing submissive stereotypes, and perhaps even abuse and domestic violence. 

Both Carpenter and Sweeney brushed off the controversies, saying their campaigns were meant to be satirical and that they had no intentions of promoting the aforementioned ideas, believing that audiences had simply overreacted. 

UNREALIZED RETENTION

Social media is no longer just about connecting with friends, but now also exposes us to content from our favorite celebrities, pop stars, and brands. While we may perceive this content as entertaining, rarely do we ever step back and assess whether or not these images can skew our perception of ourselves and the world around us.

Psychologists have actually studied this phenomenon and deemed it as the “third-person effect”. According to the third-person effect, people generally believe that advertising always affects others more than themselves. A couple of cognitive processes may be behind this thinking pattern, one of those being self-serving bias, which is the tendency to view others as lesser than ourselves to uphold our self-image. Another possibility is social judgement bias, which is our tendency to judge others based on stereotypes, incorrect social assumptions, and other implicit and explicit biases.

The repercussions of media images go far deeper than it seems we are capable of recognizing ourselves. Women are an easy target for marketing campaigns, raising concerns about how images of idealized or unrealistic female bodies can directly harm a young woman’s body image, perhaps even facilitating eating disorders. 

Women lean toward an upwards comparison when viewing images of other women. In other words, they evaluate what they themselves lack in comparison to another woman. Another study  demonstrated that women felt lower body satisfaction after being presented with an image of a woman in a bikini as opposed to a painting of a woman in a bikini. These same images also resulted in a large proportion of the participating women expressing a desire to engage in dieting and weight loss, and a lowered interest in wearing a bikini in public.

Women, however, are not the only victims of these idealized and sexualized marketing tactics. Men, too, experience negative consequences when viewing these images. An analysis of advertisements across multiple industries shows that gender stereotypes are still very prominent in marketing campaigns, which are prone to feature men in more dominant and professional roles as opposed to women.

The repercussions of these images on men and women are frighteningly far-ranging. The same study found that advertisements that reinforced gender stereotypes contributed to organizational discrimination, intimate partner violence, and substance abuse in men.

A lack of self awareness when it comes to social media consumption can be detrimental not only to our internal selves but also in our relationships with others. While we may interpret advertisements –such as Sabrina Carpenter’s album cover – as simply forms of expressions, studies show that we should actually be much more wary of the consequences they could have on our society.

RECEPTION AND RESPONSIBILITY

When asked about her album cover in an interview with CBS Mornings, Carpenter brushed off the allegations of her cover supporting gender stereotypes.

“Y’all need to get out more,” she said. “My interpretation [of the cover] is being in on the control, being in on your lack of control, and when you want to be in control. I think, as a young woman, you’re just as aware of when you’re in on control as when you’re not, and I think some of those are choices.”

She also noted in the interview that when sharing the album cover with family and friends prior to its release, that no one showed concern or made comment on the content of the cover.

Carpenter’s dismissiveness of the album cover criticisms, alongside her assumption that her close circle’s lack of a reaction was more representative of what she expected the public reception to be, aligns with the concept that we often underestimate the deep impacts of images on ourselves. While perhaps Carpenter did not intend to facilitate gender stereotypes, the provocative nature of her album cover could internalize such ideas.

This last week, Sweeney was asked about the American Eagle jeans ad in an interview with GQ. When asked if she was surprised by the public’s reaction, she responded:

“I did a jean ad. I mean, the reaction was definitely a surprise, but I love jeans,” she said. “I think when I have an issue I want to speak about, people will hear.”

Sweeney seemed to talk around the controversy, neither confirming nor denying her awareness or sense of responsibility for it. While it’s unknown to viewers whether this was a strategic PR move to avoid the issue or simply Sweeney being careless to the concerns of her campaign, it speaks deeply to the resounding consequences of advertising.

So, should artists and creators be held responsible for interpretations of their work they did not intend? I believe the answer is yes, to an extent. While these campaigns did not intend to have these repercussions, perhaps these recent controversies should be a wake-up call to the marketing industry. As complex beings, our minds have the capacity to process information on a sub-conscious level that impacts our actions and relationships. 

Marketers can and should realize that advertisements are not just about generating sales. The objectification of models and celebrities, coupled with the goal of making the viewer feel inadequate (whether it is for the purpose of inducing a need to buy their product or otherwise), should be considered unethical in the business world. Artists and companies should seriously evaluate the message they want to convey and how to convey it in a way that gets their idea across without severe misinterpretation.

ADVERTISING FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

As Christians, there is an extra layer of complexity to the content we consume. Obviously, in a world in which we are constantly inundated with content, we cannot be expected to exclusively engage in Christian content. Most likely, a majority of the artists we listen to or influencers we follow are secular. However, that does not change that we recognize each individual – believing or not – to be a child of God.

When consuming advertisements, we need to generate a level of self-awareness in which we recognize when someone is being represented in a way that is overtly sexualized or inappropriate. This not only misrepresents them as being made in the image of God, but it also harms ourselves in turn. We see ourselves as lacking and inadequate, and our understanding of how God created us beautifully becomes jaded. When advertising results in further-reaching consequences, such as depression, intimate partner violence, and discrimination, we are further destructing our relationships with others and in turn, the body of Christ.

One could argue that Carpenter’s album cover was simply a form of self-expression. And while, yes, it very well might be, strong and provocative images can hurt viewers – especially young women. As Christians, we understand that God has granted us free will – but to misuse that free will to harm others is not a proper exercise of it. 1 Corinthians 10:23 states: “‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say – but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’ – but not everything is constructive” (NIV). What might seem harmless or satirical to one person might be deeply destructive to another.

So, the next time you’re scrolling through your phone and passing by copious amounts of advertisements, step back and ask yourself if these images could be building you up or tearing you down. Because, most likely, some of your favorite and most engaging content is heavily entangled in the manipulative and treacherous world of advertising.