Repairing Brand-to-Consumer Relations: Gen-Z’s Tendency Towards Advertisement Aversive Behavior and Solutions

Katherine G

Communications, Clark University School of Professional Studies

CAPSTONE PRACTICUM

Dr. Julie Frechette

April, 2026

Introduction

It is no surprise to anyone in the industry to say that marketing and advertisement has drastically changed over the past 40 years. The internet itself was only invented in 1983, quickly followed by the invention and rise of social media less than 20 years later in 1997. From advertisement being a game largely of magazines and TV, to a handheld master computer inundated with information on billions of companies accessible by the click of a finger in less than half a lifetime; many who lived through this renaissance of technology can attest to how much the world has changed in such a short time – but what about the people who grew up during the tech boom?

            Gen Z is a big topic in media. Older generations both struggle to relate to their inexperience with the pre 2000s tech boom world, and look to them to understand the new platforms of society. So many things have been highly digitalized in the modern world; socialization, work, leisure, entertainment, and overwhelmingly – marketing.

            In many ways the digitalization of our world has been amazing for marketers. The younger generations go on their 30 minute lunch break at work, lay down in bed to relax at the end of a long day, sneak out their phone during class, and there it is – short form video content with every three scrolls bringing them to an Ad featuring their favorite influencer. Social media is a dream to commercialization. It has never been easier in history to reach consumers, or to get them to buy. TikTok, one of the world’s most famous social media apps, not only has over 1 billion ads viewed daily (Karl), but has also integrated a “TikTok Shop” where consumers can immediately buy products in just seconds between their scrolls.

            Models like these coming out of the era of mass digitalization may make it seem like now is the easiest time to market in history. If everyone has constant access to advertisement, does that mean that advertisement has more power than ever? Well, the answer is more complicated than it may seem. Like everything else in this world, marketing seems it may be best in moderation. Gen Z, the generation most exposed to marketing since birth, seemed to have swung the pendulum all the way to the other side. Suddenly, marketers are struggling to reach their audience’s not due to lack of visibility or accessibility, but due to a resentment towards the concept of marketing itself.

            Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education recently ran a study on Gen Z’s interaction with advertisement on social media and one of their key takeaways was that “most Gen z deliberately avoids social media advertisements, such as scrolling past or ignoring them. Therefore, this research aims to identify distinct profiles of people who are resistant to social network advertisements. According to the report, Gen Z is "more adept" at downloading ad blocking software in the U.S. when it comes to blocking digital advertising.”, “lousy expertise has the most significant effect on ad avoidance, with target impediment coming in second” (Pragathi 2021). This makes two major problems for modern advertisers; not only does the younger generation have a mental resistance to the concept of marketing itself, they are also taking physical measures to distance themselves from witnessing advertisement. This study also found major commonalities among Gen Z social media users who did exhibit Advertisement Avoidant Behavior, finding four major reasons for advertisement fatigue within the generation.

            The four main contributing factors to Gen Z’s advertisement avoidance are “target impediment, privacy concerns, ad congestion, and adverse experiences” (Pragathi). Target impediment refers to the experience of going onto an app for a specific reason, and then being kept from this goal by way of an obstacle like an ad. This is to say, that things like pop-up ads and unskippable ads make Gen Z more ad avoidant. Let’s say someone goes onto youtube to watch a video on a videogame they like, only to find themself stuck watching a five minute unskippable ad about a blender you need to finish before you can access your target (the youtube video). This experience makes the individual more likely to become Ad Avoidance overall, as they view ads as a target impediment. Pragathi also found in this study that individuals are more likely to feel respected by ads, and less likely to become ad avoidant, from ads that are skippable. They may even be more likely to watch the ad all the way through to the end, as they feel that it is not forcibly taking up time that they did not willingly give to the commercial.

            Privacy concerns refer to the concern that companies will utilize consumer data without their fully informed consent. Gen Z shows growing worry towards the concept of their personal data being utilized to advertise towards them, and it is not an irrational fear. There is a growing use of utilization of personal data, including the selling and purchasing of personal data by advertisement firms, particularly garnered from the top social media apps like Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram. Once you have forfeited the rights to your data through agreeing to the terms and conditions of an app, you have no say in who your data is sold to after.

            Congestion and adverse experience are the other two main sources of aversion to advertisement in Gen Z. Congestion is simply the overwhelming amount of advertisement that Gen Z is exposed to, especially on platforms like social media. Adverse experience can be any personal negatively perceived experience with advertisement. This can be in relation to harmful advertisement campaigns, false advertisement, etc. Overwhelmingly this study supported that Gen Z is more skeptical and avoidant of ads in their day-to-day life. Growing up on digitalization and having constant access to advertisement allows for the generation to have a higher level of discernment on ads. One thing that Gen Z is hyper focused on in advertisement is authenticity.

            Literature Review

            There is vast and rich literature supporting multiple key points of this research. For the research of this thesis, there were three primary targets: Gen Z’s avoidance of advertisement, authenticity perception in brand marketing, and advertisement’s effects on mental health en masse. All of these topics have been heavily researched by many scholars, but there is a gap within the intersection of these fields of research. Particularly, as is the aim of this thesis, how to consider the information together as a means to generate a solution that benefits both consumers and brands.

            Brown, Kozinets, and Sherry provide a base to work with on the theory of authenticity in brand, focusing on external consistency, transparency, and honesty as crucial pillars of an authentic brand perception by the public.

Spiggle, Nguyen and Caravella investigated self-brand connection, how consumers formulate their identity in relation to brands and brands reachability. This was a valuable asset to understand the psychology between successful brand-consumer relations.

Pragathi. A, et. al. in their research publication “Investigating An Inducement, Of Gen-Z Behavior – Avoiding Social Media Advertising” gives a thorough overview from their research in Gen Z’s avoidance of advertisement, a crucial component of the interests of this thesis. The data shows that Gen Z overwhelming avoids and is, in fact, more adept at avoiding classic corporate advertisements (particularly online).

            Zhou curates an overview in their paper of multiple cases of social media incidents where brands either excelled in public relations, or faced backlash in relation to advertisement campaigns. These examples were useful for studying in the research of this thesis, and some examples are directly referenced below.

            Many researchers discussed negative impacts on consumers, particularly on the youth and adolescents – an unintended object of research for this thesis, but directly relates to the core theme of Gen Z as this research dates back to when Gen Z would have been teens, providing a potential explanation to their aversion to advertisement.

            Yang discusses advertisers’ predatory behavior, targeting youth in their marketing. Patel, et al. provides extensive research into different mental health implications of exposure to advertisement in children; this includes but is not limited to negative body-image/disorderedly eating behavior, negative interactions in the home/family, and harmful gendered expectations. Gannon and Lawson provide a unique perspective on the topic of youth’s mental health and advertisement, pointing towards the “publicization” of youth through social media as a cause of negative mental health in teens and adolescents.

            In preparation for this thesis, extensive research was performed in brand-consumer relations and what consumers value in advertisement. Viloma found that Gen Z in particular values authenticity in marketing over all other brand qualities, including brand heritage. Sjöstrand and Lungwitz discussed brand authenticity perception and highlighted brand activism campaigns as a recommendation for increasing brand authenticity, discussed further in the solutions section of this paper.

            Authors who statistics that provided the scope of this issue include Conti et al., and Torres. Conti et al. provided data and research into how many touchpoints there are in the modern era of digitalization. Torres conducted a study on European happiness metrics, showing that there is an inverse relationship between money spent in marketing per year and a nation’s happiness.

Hamid et al. as well as Stafford and Pounders suggested some hopeful data, suggesting that advertisement can increase education and diversity representation if performed in ethical manners. This validates the continuation of continual marketing, within the scope of the negative qualities, providing a reason to find a solution to the disrepair in brand-consumer relations and low authenticity perception in the younger generation.

            Gen Z’s Lack of Perceived Brand Authenticity

            Lack of perceived authenticity is one of the greatest dangers to triggering adverse experience in consumers. Perception of authenticity in brands is dependent on their external representation, through public relations management both planned and unplanned. On the unplanned side there is unexpected events like social media cancellations and genuine endorsements, on the planned side there is public relation stunts and advertisement/marketing. The key to having a brand perceived as authentic by the public is to achieve external consistency. “External consistency reflects whether a brand is what it appears to be, not counterfeit, or not the result of spin or exaggerated claims” (Gray 2004). What this means is that perceiving a brand to have a consistent public perception is crucial to public trust.

            To understand why Gen Z has a lack of perceived brand authenticity in marketing, we must first define what authenticity means in relation to branding. Grayson asserts that there are two primary understandings of the word authenticity, both relating to truth and genuineness, but in different ways. These alternative interpretations of authenticity are called indexical authenticity and iconic authenticity.

            Indexical Authenticity is defined as “something that is thought not to be a copy or an imitation” (Gray 2004), something that feels authentic and unique. Indexical authenticity is achieved through acts like a celebrity signing an autograph, if it is believed to not be a copy. It is also perceived to be a person truthfully portraying themselves to the public, if the audience believes that they are not altering their appearance or character. Indexical authenticity depends on the belief of the audience that they are not perceiving a copy of the thing or person that they are witnessing.             Iconic Authenticity inherently builds on indexical authenticity. It is “something whose physical manifestation resembles something that is indexically authentic” (Grayson). A replication of a product is considered to be authentic if it accurately represents something that is already indexically authentic. For example, if Original Product A is reproduced as Copy B, but Copy B is visually and physically accurate to Original Product A, it is considered to be iconically authentic.

            In the context of branding and marketing, both indexical and iconic authenticity are expected of brands. Especially brands with extensive heritage. Indexical authenticity can be represented by brands accurately representing themselves to the public. If a company expresses that it has certain values, and then later is found in their public action to not be perceived as upholding that value, then they risk their reputation of indexical authenticity. This can happen through public scandals, or lack of perception of truthfulness in marketing. Similarly, if a brand originally upholds a value or expectation, and later fails to meet the prior perceptions of the brand, then they will risk their reputation of iconic authenticity. Indexical and iconic authenticity are subconsciously considered by public consumers everyday when perceiving brands, and together makeup their perception of a brands authenticity.

            It is not news to many that maintaining an authentic and truthful public perception are net positives for a brand, both in sales and reputation. So, if everybody knows that they should be doing it, the real question is are they? The tricky answer is that brand authenticity and perception are not always in direct proportion to one another. As Smith asserts in his study of brand authenticity perception by TikTok consumers, “An interesting conundrum here emerges: creators know that users prize authenticity, so they must strive to put on an authentic front to fulfill the platform’s existential goals of amassing interactions, fame, and perhaps even financial lucrativeness. At the same time, users are quick to rebuff what they see as straining too hard for authenticity as being ‘fake’” (Smith 2023). This paradox, that Smith likens to the prisoner’s dilemma, sets up the premise of why perception of authenticity in branding is so difficult to achieve. Every consumer wants to trust the brands that they support. To trust them they desire authenticity (whether consciously or subconsciously), both indexically and iconically. Every brand knows this and thus strives for authenticity. However, if the consumer can detect an outward effort being put into appearing authentic, then this comes across as indexically inauthentic, ultimately making the consumer not trust the brand. The paradox comes around full circle to make it so that brands have stay within the perfect space of perception of authenticity without being suspected to be trying.

             Smith also gives us insight into why Gen Z may few certain brands as (in)authentic, regardless of specific brand or brand intention. Smith finds that consumers are more likely to view a video as authentic if they have predisposed values that align with the video, and as inauthentic or “staged” if they have predisposed disagreements with the perceived values within the (TikTok) videos. In our current highly polarized social climate, Smith argues that TikTok has become an “echo chamber” due to the algorithm reinforcing content that users agree with. This increases polarization and extremist ideologies in the general public, making them more likely to have strong personal values and more importantly, strongly oppose content that dissents from their values. Since Smith found that this is directly linked to authenticity perception, the increase in polarization caused by TikTok lends to the increased likelihood for distrust of branding and marketing, as the likelihood of opposing values rises. Gen Z, who makes up over half of all TikTok users as of 2025, is inundated with information that supports their predisposed opinions within the echo chamber of the app. With Smith’s findings, this supports the notion that Gen Z would having rising distrust of branding, so long as it opposes (or appears to) oppose any preconceived values and opinions.

            These factors together show that there may be unique qualities of Gen Z itself that contribute to lack of trust in brands, and perception of brand authenticity, outside of shifts in brand behavior as a whole. While brands and their marketing have drastically shifted in the past 40 years, this has directly impacted the younger generations and vise versa, creating a relationship in which Gen Z’s perception on brand may run independent from the brand’s intention and efforts. This creates a unique struggle in reaching Gen Z. Not only does Gen Z distrust brands that can objectively be described as “untrustworthy”, through explicitly proven lies or failures to meet production standards, but Gen Z may be distrustful due to perception of value variables or the effort to appear trustworthy in it of itself.

            Brands Losing Authenticity Value with Their Consumers

            After covering the psychological background of the importance of perception of authenticity in marketing, and the reasons that a brand may or may not be perceived as authentic, these topics can be applied to real life examples of brands that lost the mark on or lost brand authenticity in public opinion.

            Quiksilver

            Quiksilver originated as a surfing apparel brand, primarily producing wet suits and later sheepskin boots for surfing. Their brand was initially marketed and produced with the highly emphasized passion for surfing of the two founders, Alan Green and John Law. The company was originally located in Torquay, Victoria, the surf capital of Australia.

            Here, their small business took off and became a favorite of the local surfers. Not only were the products well-made, but Green and Law’s own passion and dedication to surfing served as a charming invitation into their brand. Quiksilver was so successful that it was soon endorsed by a famous surfer, Jeff Hakman, who brought the company to the U.S.

            Quiksilver began to grow exponentially after this, their brand expanding internationally through Europe and America and becoming a household name for surfers. Their product line expanded too, beginning to sell T-Shirts, Jeans, and more, while still maintaining their original product line of surf wear and gear.

            Quiksilver’s big mistake happened in the early 2000’s. Quiksilver was excited about the shift in their visibility, and all of the opportunities they were receiving from other brands and stores. They stretched their original concept, and began to sell things like snow gear, skate gear, and things entirely unrelated to surfing in general.

            Despite an initial massive increase in revenue from their decisions, this was ultimately the downfall of Quiksilver. Quiksilver was known for having a very loyal consumer basis, and the company shifting away from their niche alienated their legacy clientele. Quiksilver’s reputation changed from passionate entrepreneurs to “sell outs” who moved away from the surfing community. Today, Quiksilver is highly criticized for their lack of surf wear, not even having the original wetsuits that they became famous for.

            This backlash culminated in 2025, when Quiksilver suffered from their drop in customer loyalty and had to file for bankruptcy. All U.S. branches are set to close, unlikely to open again.

            Many companies have a wide range of apparel, with the niche of a sport-centric theme being enough to give character and fluidity to their brand. Nike follows a model close to this and is one of the most well-known brands in the U.S. with fairly high public opinion. So why did this model not work for Quiksilver?

            What Quiksilver suffered from was a lack of iconic authenticity. While Quiksilver started with extremely positive public perception of indexical authenticity, having two owners who were very passionate about surfing themselves and centered their business around this value, in the 2000s they moved away from this original value narrative and sacrificed their iconic authenticity. While shifts and brand narratives are possible, moving too fast and sacrificing core values (or at the very least, core perceived values) causes the public to distrust the narrative your marketing and legacy has created.

            The clientele had high valued opinions of Quiksilver due to their belief that they shared values with the company and the company had integrity in these values. Sports are a highly passionate field, with dedicated members. To move away so quickly from the niche of one sport and disregard the product line can be perceived as a betrayal to customers. Even if a customer was primarily purchasing items from the product line like T-shirts, Jeans, etc. The movement of the brand away from the surf brand to a general apparel brand may have lasting impact on their reputation as a whole – and finally, on sales.

            JPMorgan Chase

            JPMorgan Chase experienced a different breech in authenticity perception in 2020. To predate this, in 2019 The New York Times published an investigation of the bank illuminating racist practices and discrimination within the company. Multiple egregious acts of racism were published in this report, however the most well known is the Jimmy Kennedy case. Jimmy Kennedy, former NFL player went into a JPMorgan Chase in Arizona and requested to obtain a private client status. With an $800,000 deposit and $13 million dollars earned from his playing career, Kennedy was a well within the range of a typical applicant for the program.

            Kennedy was denied his ability to receive the program benefits, and had an employee tell him it was due to his skin color and large stature. With New York Times publishing this information so that it was widely accessible, along with many other reports of institutional racism in the company at large, JPMorgan Chase was facing serious backlash during this time. When 2020 came around, many public figures were going viral for kneeling during the national anthem in symbolic support of the Black Lives Matter movement and black lives lost due to police brutality to highlight the lack of the justice system’s response to these murders.

            In March, Jamie Dimon was featured in a staged photograph kneeling alongside multiple coworkers, seemingly in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. It may have been damage control in response to the recent allegations of running a racist business model after it was outed for allowing loan and program discrimination against black individuals. At the very least, that is how it was interpreted by the public as it was immediately largely criticized by many who called for internal change over public displays of symbolic support.             Y-Vonne Hutchinson, ReadySet founder and chief executive, was quoted by the Washinton Post criticizing the publicity stunt, saying “Nobody's asking for a CEO to take a knee. You take the knee after you change your policies,” (Hutchinson, as cited in Mathes). Dimon’s actions, originally intended to bolster his support by those who valued racial justice, ended up making himself and his company appear performative and inauthentic.

            Unlike Quiksilver, JPMorgan Chase did not fail at iconic authenticity, as anti-racism was not necessarily established as a primary value of the brand’s legacy. There is a different cultural phenomenon at play here, in which the culture (particularly the younger culture, especially pronounced in Gen Z) adopts a certain cultural value and in turn expects this value to be shared by companies or brands that already exist. Rather than seeking out brands that share similar values or interests, some may find and support brands and develop cultural beliefs and values that supersede the values and interest that align with the brand.

            So, one could support JPMorgan Chase as they feel that the business model aligns with their expectation from a bank. However, as anti-racism becomes a stronger cultural value, they may center this in their focus when deciding which bank to support, regardless of their interests and values as they specifically align to their own personal experience with the bank.

            JPMorgan Chase’s failure was in indexical authenticity. Had the public believed that Dimon was anti-racism and knelt out of a genuine care and support towards the cause and the victims of police brutality, then the company would have had a public perception of true indexical authenticity. However, due to prior knowledge of the company’s lack of action against their own internal acts of racism, the act of kneeling was seen as performing an act that did not represent Dimon’s true self and values, therefore violating indexical authenticity perception.  

            #Ad Disclosure

            Another way that companies can fail to uphold an authentic image is through false marketing and advertising. This used to solely mean marketing a product as better or different than it actually was. Modern technology and advertisement has shifted dynamics, and calls for authenticity by newer generations demand brands hold themselves to a higher level of accountability when it comes to honesty and marketing.

            The new call is for marketing to always be disclosed as such. This is in response to brands widely paying influencers to promote their products as part of their own brand of lifestyle content. The development of this process has progressed into the aforementioned problem of brands attempts to appear authentic backfiring and resulting in them ultimately being accused of faking authenticity. In this case, Gen Z has a strong claim for accusations of manufactured authenticity.

            In reaction to Gen Z’s ad avoidant behavior, some brands have taken to a sneakier method. Paying for influencers to promote their products without making it obvious that it is a brand deal or an ad. This seems like a promising model for modern brands, as it is not screened by ad blocking software, and hopefully not immediately detectable as the type of marketing content that many Gen Z would simply scroll by. It also attempts to authenticate endorsement by making it appear to be indexical authenticity. For example, if your favorite Tiktok influencer says that they wear a certain lip gloss everyday in a get ready with me video because they “love it so much”, rather than admitting that they were paid to do an ad discussing things they like about the lip gloss, that makes it seem like an authentic representation of their thoughts and values more so than a video openly displayed as an ad. Especially due to the state of Gen Z’s overwhelming distrust towards advertisements and marketing, this strategy attempts to circumvent this mistrust by not allowing the audience to be aware that they are being marketed towards.

            However, the public has begun to catch on and now certain brands are facing scrutiny over this behavior. Particularly, influencers (as brands themselves) receive backlash over making content that is suspected or proven to be undisclosed advertisement.

            The UK has taken a particularly interesting approach to addressing this modern marketing phenomenon. The Advertising Standards Authority has launched a web page listing influencers who do not use the #Ad disclosure on paid advertisement deals (after repeated behavior of not indicating in any way that they are acting in an ad). This new webpage has made headlines, referred to as the “Wall of Shame” with multiple notable influencers and TV stars listed on the webpage with details about their lack of disclosure in advertisement deals.

            The Advertising Standards Authority’s actions are a culmination of the cultural attitudes of the newer generation, supported by the public’s endorsement of their new webpage. This is a potential beginning in the shift towards a new standard in accountability for authenticity in advertisement.

            Over-Saturation of Advertisement’s Impact on Mental Health

            Gen Z’s backlash towards sneaky advertisement is not unfounded. Recent research has supported the notion that over-saturation of advertisement in media in recent years has had an adverse effect on mental health, particularly in youth.

            A study by Jiahao Yang on the compilation of advertisement impacts on teenagers and adolescents found that advertisement exposure has the ability to impact teens and young adults both physically and mentally.

            Firstly, Yang looked at drug and alcohol marketing’s impact on physical behavior. They found that exposure to alcohol advertisement by youth not only increases the likelihood that a person will drink, but it will increase the amount of alcohol they consume when they drink. “As a result of the increased likelihood of later-life alcoholism caused by early drinking, this is particularly dangerous. Secondly, teen exposure to television advertisements for electronic cigarettes increased by more than a factor of two between 2011 and 2013, despite more than 40 years of bans on tobacco marketing on television.” (Yang 2022). This research is highly important to consider as it proves not only that advertisement has a strong impact and ability to influence adolescent behavior, but it also shows that it is able to harshly impact physical health through influence. Luckily, tobacco and alcohol advertisement are highly regulated in the U.S. However, marketing tactics like those aforementioned in the #Ad Disclosure section of this paper highlight the loopholes that companies are able to take advantage of to continually inundate the current culture with advertising campaigns.

            This tells us that advertising has the ability to strongly negatively impact youth, but Yang’s research also supports the notion that a large portion of advertisement is actively promoting unhealthy cultural influence. “[Advertisement] promotes aggression and stereotyping among youths. Gender stereotypes are the most prevalent form of stereotype promoted by advertising. Females are depicted as sexual objects in advertisements to satisfy male sexual urges. Women’s responsibilities are also shown as being restricted to the bedroom and the kitchen. Women are expected to marry, have children, and care for their families. In addition, they must be compassionate, caring, obedient, and subservient to their partners. To achieve these criteria, women must appear young, healthy, and appealing. Female teens are regarded differently at home, at school, and in society as a result of these advertising. Women’s violence is often accepted in society. In many advertisements, violence is depicted as a habit and a sign of masculinity” (Yang). Not only does advertisement promote sexualization and dehumanization of women, it also encourages violent behavior in men as a signal of masculinity. This means that impressionable adolescent girls see advertisement and are influenced to be more subservient and commodify themselves, while boys are encouraged to be violent and domineering. Knowing that advertisement directly and strongly impacts lifelong behavior of those exposed at a young age, this could be a large contributor to the current state of gendered violence. This is a case of agenda-setting, when the real-world mimics media. Advertisement enforces extreme gender roles, putting women in the place of being objects while men are in the place of abusive power, and those consuming the media unknowingly begin to mirror the values that are offered to them.

            Despite the adverse impact of marketing on children and adolescents, which Yang attributes to their inherent susceptibility to influence, brands use campaigns that specifically target these age demographics. This can come in the form of product placement in certain TV shows and videos aimed towards teenage audiences, or campaigns that pair toys with fast food items. Brands are aware of the youth’s susceptibility to marketing and influence and extort this to promote their own means. Some, like Yang, argue that it should be completely criminalized to target children in ad campaigns in general. Some countries have implemented this or similar laws, including Norway, Sweden, Brazil, and Canada, each to their own varying degree.

            Yang is not alone in her research into advertising’s effect on mental health in youth. It is an ever-growing topic among educators, psychologists, and parents what role advertising plays in children’s lives and how it impacts them.

            “The American Institute of Pediatrics (AAP) declares that kids’ low confidence, negative self-perception, and materialistic qualities might be exacerbated by their openness to publicizing” (Patel T et al 2024). A unique phenomenon has occurred in marketing between the public (audience) and the private (business) on social media. Never before has the public had more interaction, and interconnection with marketing campaigns. Particularly the younger generations which have been raised within the context of social media and online engagement, relationships with brands online comes naturally to them. Whether this be interacting with brands funny quips in Twitter comments, following an influencer who are themselves brands, or accessibility to posting your own branded content as a normal civilian without any fame or company relations. The younger generations have more interaction with brands than anyone else did at their age.

            In this social media dynamic, they also sometimes act themselves as a brand, or as “publicized content” as Patel T puts it. In social settings, like a school, many people follow each other’s social media content and curate their own to mimic a “brand layout”, trying to appeal to their audience and “sell” their lifestyle in exchange for social mobility. This behavior mimics that of marketing, making younger generation’s self-perception inherently tied to the concept of publication as they publicize images and campaigns of their lifestyle choices. Whether this be a picture hanging out with their friends on Instagram, or a relatable caption on TikTok, this behavior is highly common in younger generations and mirrors that of brands.             What may be even more interesting, is when people use social media to behave directly on behalf of a brand, even as individuals who are not famous or brand affiliated in any way. Since brands are able to recognize the shift in modern generation’s appeal towards publication and “branding” themselves, brands have tapped into the groundswell and allowed themselves to be more open to branding by the general population. This results in many low-scale brand deals, like a company sending a product in exchange for an online video review, to practically anyone owning a social media account. Not only are the youth highly exposed to ads and marketing, but they themselves are becoming deeply involved in branding and marketing both consciously and unconsciously.

            This arises as a concern when the mental health implications of being exposed to publicization and branding are taken into consideration, particularly as they affect children and adolescents. Patel T references literature supporting the idea to prolonged exposure to marketing campaigns (particularly those constructed in careless or outright damaging manners) contribute to adverse mental health impacts in children; “Openness to specific promotional content, especially those containing savagery, dread-instigating upgrades, or genuinely charged accounts, can sincerely affect youngsters. Determined openness to sincerely troubling substances might contribute to increased degrees of tension, dread, and other pessimistic feelings, generally influencing mental prosperity” (Primack et al, 2017, as referenced in Patel T et al, 2024). If openness to ad campaigns and marketing efforts online makes children susceptible to tension dread and negative impacts on mental prosperity, then it may follow that Gen Z’s aversion to marketing is a “closedness” in response to these adverse effects.

            As previously mentioned, younger generations are not only the most saturation and inundated with branding media, but they also participate and interact with it in grander and more intimate ways than previously done or even conceived of. Due to this, they have received the brute force of the unconsidered consequences of oversaturation in marketing and publication of self. Many of these impacts, according to Patel T et al as well as Yang, include negative self-image and dangerous eating habits, particularly exasperated by pushed gender norms. Additionally, addiction and negative family relations are increased by oversaturation of marketing media aimed towards youth. Gen Z has witnessed and acknowledged these major downsides and risks of marketing media, strongly contributing to their adverse reaction to the paradigm. This instills a great distrust in marketing, exasperating the interconnected issue of lack of perception in authenticity.

            University of Warwick conducted a study with over 900,000 citizens across 27 European countries and found that over the course of 31 years, countries that had brands spend more money on ads had less happy citizens for the following two years. (Torres 2020). This shows the overwhelmingly adverse effect that oversaturation of marketing has on the public. This is not to say, necessarily, that there is no hope for brands to ever market again. Marketing is an essential tool to reach an audience and sustain yourself as a business. It is not even necessarily a net negative on society. Society depends on brands in its current structure to support social systems and uplift communities, and the public is generally open (and can become more open again) to allowing brands to partake in the groundswell. Currently there is a sense of broken trust and fatigue with the current state of marketing. This is in relation to this chapter as well as the previous one on Gen Z’s perception of brand authenticity in marketing, as the younger generations as a whole have a lack of trust and adverse reaction to marketing (particularly social media marketing) as they consciously or unconsciously recognize its overall negative impact on mental health and social dynamics, and have a stark reaction to the formulaic approach to marketing campaigns and trends.

            How Can We Mend Brand Relations with the Public?

            Is marketing culture dead? How can it persist if the younger generation is in mass downloading ad blocking software, pushing away from marketed content, demanding authenticity and rejecting attempts at authenticity, etc. The list goes on and on. Does this mean that we are at the end of marketing? How will businesses, particularly small and family-owned businesses survive? Despite our cultural desire to move away from corporate conglomerates, the pushback against media marketing may harm smaller/unknown companies more than the marketing machine that the younger generation wants to rebel against. Marketing is also a form of press, without competition being expressed in the market and the market itself being challenged, consumers are at risk. Often marketing, especially of emerging companies, is what calls attention to problems with the current industry. If your favorite chip brand has harmful chemicals in it you may never know, or even if the company is investigated by a major news organization, the problem is not necessarily fixed. However, if you are marketed a healthier option this may call attention to the issue while providing a potential solution. While the current state of media marketing and its relationship to the public is extremely unhealthy, and likely unsustainable, that does not necessarily mean that marketing needs to be banned forever.

            So, how can brands repair the relationship between companies and consumers? Authenticity is of course the first step. As stated at the start of this paper, however, this is not an easy thing to pull off or fake. The modern generations are becoming adept to ploys at authenticity. Fortunately, we are beginning to see into the consumer’s minds on what they want to see from brands and what they value.

“Consumers have shown a tendency to value authenticity more than brand heritage, leading to a perception that a brand's values and personality are more important to its future. The research also highlights differences in perceptions of inauthentic brand heritage between fast fashion and luxury fashion brands, with luxury brands relying on their history to shape authentic perceptions” (Viloma and Junge, 2023). Authenticity is the number one desire that modern generations have in brand marketing. Some even going as far as to prefer media marketing that insults a product over marketing that solely promotes its positives, as is traditional in ads and campaigns. This is a great way to incorporate the movement towards the publication of personal lifestyle.

One current sociocultural example of this phenomenon is in makeup branding on social media. With the rise of makeup tutorial influencers, social media has begun to dominate makeup marketing. As of this year, about 86% major makeup and beauty brands plan to incorporate social media partnerships in their advertisement efforts (Burchill, 2026). Like all marketing, authenticity is key in these brand deal’s public perception. One example of inauthentically perceived brand marketing that faced major backlash was a case when a TikTok creator Mikayla Nogueira posted a sponsored video showing herself applying L'Oréal's Telescopic Lift mascara. Mikayla Nogueira is known for makeup tutorials and suggestions, and prior to the incident was considered an authentic and honest critic of makeup products. In the video in question, Mikayla Nogueira is shown applying the Telescopic Lift mascara, interrupted by a noticeable cut in the video, allegedly displaying the creator wearing false eyelashes after the cut. Viewers zoomed in on the video to reveal the false eyelashes seemingly lifting off her of her lid, as she claimed that the visual effect was fully achieved by the mascara product, and saying it “changed her life”. #Lashgate soon went viral on TikTok, with hundreds of videos calling the creator out for false advertising of the product, sparking many makeup influencers to record their own reviews of the product, highlighting their own authenticity and honesty.

            One creator who responded to Nogueira’s video, was internet sensation Jeffree Star. Jeffree Star is notably known for his so-called “unbiased makeup reviews” (his own words), where fans often revere him for his transparency. He has been known to get free PR packages from popular makeup brands, despite often heavily criticizing their products and telling his audience that they are not worth buying. Beauty brands value his reviews, as his reputation holds a high authority and honesty in critiques. This makes it so that if Jeffree Star compliments your product, it is a more valuable review in the market than many positive reviews from influencers who do not have a history of perceived authenticity, like Nogueira.

            Negative reviews are not always bad for a brand, either. Of course, everyone in the marketing industry has heard the term “all PR is good PR”, and this can be an uncomfortable notion to sit with. If your product is poorly reviewed, who is still going to buy it? However, there is a great silver lining in negative reviews and pushbacks against campaigns. A negative reaction to a campaign opens the opportunity for a brand to respond to the complaint and redirect the public narrative into one of perception and accountability. For example, had the Telescopic Lift mascara been poorly reviewed for the recipe not lifting the lashes to satisfaction, then the brand could have pulled the product from the shelves and issued a statement letting their consumers know that they are working towards improving the product. Rereleasing the formula at a later date with feedback from consumers would likely greatly benefit the company’s public relations. Additionally, due to the nature of audience’s paying attention to negativity online, this brand move may even bring more attention to the new product than there would have been otherwise, ending the conversation on a positive note that makes consumers interested in buying the improved upon product.

            The model that beauty brands use when working with Jeffree Star may be a more effective and healthier model, for brands and their consumers. Many Gen Z individuals avoid videos marked as advertisement in general, if not downloading ad block software that manually avoids brand marked content in general. The model that Jeffree Star uses avoids brand marks entirely, and ethically. Rather than being paid to endorse a brand with a preapproved statement, he is able to speak freely without a script and deliver honest (often negative) reviews. The pay off for his brand is not only the views he gets directly for the review videos, but the establishment of brand authenticity with his audience that is repaid in loyal viewership. Additionally, he receives free product that he can utilize for his brand, as he often makes makeup tutorial and collection videos. This model is a win-win-win. The brand receives publicity at a low cost, the influencer they are working with receives free product and gains publicity and an authentic brand perception (which may even rub off on the brands they work with if they establish a continual relationship), and the consumers feel that they have advertisement that they can trust and rely on.

            Another, radical form of repairing brand and public relations may be antithetical to everything people are taught in advertising. Rolling back advertising may be the best avenue to repaired trust and relationships between the public and a brand. “The University of Warwick’s Andrew Oswald and his team compared survey data on the life satisfaction of more than 900,000 citizens of 27 European countries from 1980 to 2011 with data on annual advertising spending in those nations over the same period. The researchers found an inverse connection between the two. The higher a country’s ad spend was in one year, the less satisfied its citizens were a year or two later. Their conclusion: Advertising makes us unhappy.” (Torres 2020). The more a nation’s brand pour into advertising in a year, the more unhappy the average citizen is. This supports the notion that we are being oversaturated with advertisement, and that it is negatively impacting the public’s mental health. Rolling back on efforts to advertise as brands might be the only way to regain trust from the public. This does not need a brand must go invisible, however. There are multiple strategies that can be effective for this effort besides moving a brand completely off the grid and having zero communication with the public.

            Question the Current Visibility of the Brand

            Many of the top spenders in marketing are already household names. While their marketing often has a positive impact on consumer spending, if we look to repair the relationship between the public and advertisement we must make some sacrifices. Companies with legacies consistently perform well in sales, with or without major marketing campaigns. A roll-back by these companies may increase the general population’s mental health, along with brand authenticity perception.             “In 2026, the retail and consumer packaged goods (CPG) industries, which consist primarily of household names, provide roughly 34.3% of all TV ad spending. In contrast, social media spending is increasingly driven by millions of small-to-medium businesses (SMBs) and the rising ‘creator economy’” (Cramer-Flood, 2025). Household names flooding the market has the potential to largely contribute to the experience of over-saturation in marketing. If you see a new start-up brand marketing their new cereal brand on social media, there is often not a strong reaction to this. However, if Cheerios has 5 ads a week on your local channel or before your Netflix binge, you may feel that you are being over-marketed to. This criticism often arises as well in blockbuster movies that feature widely known brand names as product placement. The psychological tactic of inundating consumers with reminders of brands they are already aware of feels inauthentic. They are not honestly attempting to inform the public of their existence; they are trying to remind them enough times that they will invade their subconscious the next time that they are walking through the supermarket. Their default when they think of cereal may become: Cheerios, if they are repeated the mantra of cheerio campaigning enough. Rolling back on the insistence of these reminders and only making major advertising campaigns when they have something new to offer (like a twist on their usual branding or a new type of product, e.g. protein cereal) may increase their brand authenticity perception.

            If a brand is still small-medium sized and needs to inform the public of their existence, brand efforts and marketing campaigns remain one of many exceptions to this movement, as they rely on marketing to get their name into the public sphere. Focusing on a ground-up authentic marketing strategy is the best thing to do for companies starting out. Less over-producing of content, and more centralized focus on truth, transparency, and authenticity. Luckily, many small companies are making the switch to these campaigns: showing the workers behind the product in commercials, prioritizing customer relations, and providing avenues for authentic reviews of their products rather than simple placement and reminders.

            Bigger companies taking a step back and allowing for more competition in marketing at major marketing events and locations (like Superbowl commercials, which are currently inundated with household name-brands) will also allow the market to be freer. Gen Z in particular recognizes the ever-growing monopoly of industries, with influencers trending posting content like how much of an entire grocery isle being filled with brands owned by 1-2 parent companies. This is often colloquially referred to as “the illusion of choice under capitalism”. Eliminating the problem will eventually eliminate the perception. Trust in brands begins with dismantling the problematic systems that exist within our current financial situations that directly impact consumers.  

Focus on Other Communication Efforts with Your Audience

There are many ways to market outside of classic TV advertisement and product placements. Interacting in more interpersonal and authentic ways with one’s audience builds trust and loyalty. Rather than funneling money into commercials to reach wider audience’s (particularly for companies that the entire country is already aware of), they can refocus their energy into their existing clientele.

One company that achieves this very effectively is Mojang, the creators of Minecraft. They incorporate customer feedback into all of their official websites, even having one entirely dedicated to feedback. They often do pulls asking their fans to vote on which elements will be added to the next game update, and consistently incorporate community-created designs into the official Minecraft gameplay. They also concentrate the majority of their marketing efforts on their own social media platforms and websites. This makes it so that the primary audience is people who are opting in to see their campaigns, and are loyal fans. Therefore, their marketing is not flooding platforms that uninterested individuals will constantly see. They do not often do paid ads or TV advertisements, unless they are releasing something outside of the norm (like the Minecraft movie).

Focusing on community engagement and building upon the fanbase that they already have as a gigantic company makes them feel more authentic, as they are not constantly trying to convince people to use their product. The product and the community speak for themselves in return for the support and loyalty that Mojang provides them. This is a wonderful alternative to traditional marketing that many big companies lean towards that is a healthy balance for both the brand and consumers.

Invest Into Grassroots Methods as Alternatives to Marketing Campaigns

            For smaller businesses, traditional marketing is not the only answer to growing their brands. Grassroot methods still work, often times the best. Getting involved in the local community spread awareness and loyalty for your brand. This can look like a small bookstore partnering with other local bookstores for small bookstore day in April, posting and tagging each other in content and providing a public mutual respect and support for one another. These symbiotic relationships not only raise awareness for both brands, but leave viewers feeling like the owners are non-competitive and authentically interested in supporting the love of literature, authenticating their own brand and actions.

            Similarly, partnering with local non-profits through donations, fundraisers, events, etc. raises positivity in public perception naturally. Many non-profits will automatically post about generous donations, like foodbanks posting on social media about local restaurants donating food to their pantry, or announcing names of companies which helped with their fundraiser drives. This is a feel-good post to see for the average person, that both does not feel like they are being marketed towards and shows the values of a company they might choose to support.

            Physically involving a brand within a community is another avenue of marketing outside of traditional corporate advertisement. Things like attending and helping to fund local food festivals and other community events physically putting your brand within visibility in a way that is none offensive nor draining to the public.

            These grassroot approaches to getting the name out for a brand have been undermined in many recent advertising initiatives and trainings, due to the overwhelming growth of brand scale. Brands have grown beyond the means of grassroots initiatives, and while many do still implement some of their practices, many companies have moved towards more corporate marketing that feels disconnected from the public, driving it to feel inauthentic. This may be why the younger generation has a general distaste towards advertisement, as older generations grew up with smaller scale corporations that heavily involved themselves within the communities and established their brand values. Younger generations are used to major companies spamming corporate marketing with copy and paste jargon that establishes little connection with their audience, and little cause to believe that they care beyond a profit margin.

            Conclusions

            Gen Z’s pushback against corporate advertisement campaigns through adblocking software, disinterest, and even anger, stems from a lack of trust and low authenticity perception from brands. This is the result of a long era of corporations becoming conglomerates that inundate every aspect of daily life with over-saturation of advertisement. Inauthenticity in branding can arise from a multitude of factors, including manipulation tactics in marketing, paid advertisements with copy and paste scripts, and lack of reception to the public’s wishes and concerns.

            This over-saturation has real and direct impacts on mental health, particularly in youth. Exposure to advertisements can negatively affect one’s body image, personal relationships, and sociological understandings of the world (including but not limited to unhealthy gendered expectations). Studies referenced in this paper even go as far as to show that countries with higher money spent into advertisement have an inverse relationship with the general population’s mental health.  

            Authentic marketing perception is one of the highest valued qualities by the public, if not the highest, only in competition with brand legacy. Based on the research highlighted within this paper, suggestions were made to repair trust between corporations and consumers to alleviate Gen Z’s current perception on low authenticity in marketing. These suggestions were to pull back on corporate traditional marketing methods if brand has risen to be a majorly acknowledge name, focus on different methods of communicating with one’s audience, and prioritize grassroot approaches to marketing. Evidenced by the research within the literature review, these methods would be effective in improving brand authenticity perception within the current climate, particularly with younger generations who have a tendency to avoid advertisement as a whole, benefitting both the consumer and the brand.   

References

Barnett, D. (2026). ASA Names Influencers Who Break Disclosure Rules. Influencer         Intelligence.

Beverland, M., Farrelly, F., & Quester, P. (2010). Authentic subcultural membership: Antecedents and consequences of authenticating acts and authoritative performances. Wiley.

Burchill, E. (2026). Influencer marketing statistics to know in 2026. Dash.

Conti, E., Camillo, F., & Pencarelli, T. (2023). The impact of digitalization on marketing     activities in manufacturing companies. The TQM Journal.

Dietz, G., & Gillespie, N. (2012). The Recovery of Trust: Case studies of organisational failures and trust repair. Institute of Business Ethics.

Grannon, Z., & Lawson, N. (2022). The Advertising Effect. Compass.

Grayson, K., Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer Perceptions of Iconicity and Indexicality and Their Influence on Assessments of Authentic Market Offerings. Journal of Consumer Research.

Hamid, R., et al. (2023). The Effects of Social Media Marketing on Trust and User Satisfaction. Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Muhammadiyah Palopo.

Karl. (2026). How Many People Use TikTok: Number of Users in 2026. Dreamgrow.

McEnery, T. (2020). Jamie Dimon drops into Mt. Kisco Chase branch, takes a knee with staff. New York Post.

Patel, T., Chauhan, K., & Jignesh, V. (2024). A Study on the Effects of Ads on the Mental Health of Children. Journal of Advanced Research in Quality Control and Management.

Pragathi, A., et al. (2021). Investigating An Inducement, Of Gen-Z Behavior – Avoiding Social Media Advertising. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education.

Sjöstrand, M., & Lungwitz, S. (2022). Real or Fake? The Thin Line Between Consumers’  Perceived Brand Authenticity and Scepticism. Master’s Programme in International            Marketing and Brand Management.

Smith, S. (2023). The Dialectic of TikTok: Fakeness and Authenticity in the New Digital Age. College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University.

Spiggle, S., Nguyen, H., & Caravella, M. (2012). More Than Fit: Brand Extension Authenticity. Journal of Marketing Research.

Stafford, M., & Pounders, K. (2021). The power of advertising in society: does advertisinghelp  or hinder consumer well-being? International Journal of Advertising. Torres, N. (2020). Advertising Makes Us Unhappy. Business and Society.

Viloma, R., & Junge, K. (2023). Genuine or Misleading? Master’s Programme in International Marketing and Brand Management. 

Yang, J. (2023). The Physical and Mental Impact of the Advertisements on Youth. Atlantis Press.

Zhou, Y. (2023). Branding in the Digital Age: How Influencers Marketing and Authenticity    Reshape Brand Perceptions. Highlights in Business, Economics and Management.