Questions pertaining to the customer’s awareness of what impacts their purchases are

many. Is the customer consciously aware that they are being influenced by a series of marketing

decisions? Or, is the customer unaware that they have been swayed by a series of choices made

in how a particular object has been presented them? Indeed, it is the purpose of this paper to

explore that question through the lense of how such an item is being marketed, how it seems.

How an item looks, its image, creates a reaction in the mind of the consumer. There is a

fundamental dialogue occurring between the marketing departments of brands the world over,

and the consumers they are trying to purchase their products. Indeed, image and its impact

extends beyond the relationship between the consumer and the consumed. The producer, the

corporation, is intertwined with the image it conveys. How a consumer views the corporation

from which they purchase goods and services directly impacts the corporation's success. That

consumer’s view becomes, in effect, the corporation’s image. Therefore, it behooves the

corporation to spend a great deal of time tending not only to their specific product’s image, but

also their own. An interesting question to bear in mind is the same one at the top of this

paragraph: are corporation’s fully conscious of their image, or are they too being swayed by a

series of internal/external decisions and forces without much direct thought?

This paper shall be constructed of four parts. The first will be a section devoted to the

understanding of what the keywords of this paper are: image, consumer, product, and

corporation. The next section will tackle how a consumer comes to have an image of a product

or a corporation, and whether that image is extrinsic or intrinsic. Following this, the relationship

between a product’s image and how the product succeeds or fails will be examined. In order to

achieve this end, this paper will explore the relationship of body-image to product, and how

body-image is a consumer-constructed product. Finally, the paper will devote time into

understanding how image comes to affect corporations. Corporations engage with so many

different actors and forces capable of having individual impressions, or images, of the

corporation that the task of managing corporate image may seem gargantuan. That being said,

the rewards a corporation stands to gain from cultivating a good image are just as gargantuan.

Also, some notes on italics. The words image, product, consumer, and corporation will

be in italics when their semantic and lexical meaning is being discussed. For instance, as it

shown below, the image is in italics prior to its defining. When the words are just being used in a

standard sentence, such as, “the corporation’s interests in the product’s success seem non-

existent,” the words are left un-italicized. Their meaning is not at play. Image in particular will

be in italics quite often, as its semantics are part-and-parcel of this paper’s intended research

goals.

Defining Terms

The words image, product, consumer, and corporation require defining. Using Merriam-

Webster as a commonly accepted receptacle of lexical meaning for words, and then elaborating

on how that meaning is relevant to the needs of this paper will be the purpose of this section.

Perhaps turning to the dictionary is not the most elegant solution, but with basic definitions

sourced from a standard location like Mirriam-Webster, it becomes possible to explore how these

terms relate to each other through the lense of image and its correlations to the consumer and

corporations. Foundations are required before any edifices of interpretation might be constructed,

after all. Achieving this will look as follows: each term will receive its dictionary term; and

below that, how that term actually applies to this paper will be written.

Image is by far the most lexically ambiguous term of the four outlined. On account of

this, it necessitates definition first. Turning to Mirriam-Webster, the following definitions for

image are to be found:

1a: a visual representation of something: such as

(1): a likeness of an object produced on a photographic material

(2): a picture produced on an electronic display (such as a television or computer screen).

(Mirriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 2019)

For the purposes of this paper, the definition regarding image as a picture on an electronic

display may be discarded. What is important to note is the visual quality of image. It seems

obvious, and self-explanatory, but denoting the intrinsic relationship involved in image between

the seeing and the seen is paramount. Mirriam-Webster (2019) specifically uses the word

“likeness” for a reason. As things progress, it is important to note that image does not always

refer to the thing itself, but in how the thing appears when others view it. How a consumer sees a

product’s image might not always reflect the reality of the product. How a corporation is viewed

might not always reflect the reality of the corporation. The product and the corporation’s image

are things of mentality. Mirriam-Webster’s secondary definition of image sheds more light on

this:

(1): a mental picture or impression of something

(2): a mental conception held in common by members of a group and symbolic of a basic

attitude and orientation. (Mirriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 2019)

Aha! Now Mirriam-Webster has provided the lexical link between a simple matter of

visuals and the mental processes involved. A product or corporation’s image is the result of

mental construction happening in the minds of those who view it. It is a product of

consciousness, whether automated or otherwise. Finally, there is the group element to be

considered. Mirriam-Webster draws attention that image involves a commonality of conception

held by a group, and that group could be said to be either consumers or corporations (Mirrian-

Webster 2019). It cuts both ways.

The next term which requires definition is that which is purchasable and producible:

product. Products are most often that which an image is projected onto. The corporations,

another term which needs defining, diligently work to craft an image surrounding a product. The

consumers, the final term, perceive this image and react accordingly. Once again, it is time to

consult the dictionary. Product is defined as being:

a(1): something produced

especially : commodity

(2): something (such as a service) that is marketed or sold as a commodity. (Mirriam-

Webster’s Online Dictionary, 2019)

Clearly, the primary definition of product as something which is produced borders on the

tautological. The secondary definition clarifies the meaning of product in a manner relating to

this paper. A product may be both a physical item or a service provided “that is marketed”

(Mirrian-Webster, 2019). All shall be explored later, image-creation occurs in the marketing

stage. How the product is presented; and in turn, how it is received are the twining forces of

image-creation. Massive amounts of time and money are spent in this process; failure in image-

creation results in the failure of the product. Remembering that image does not explicitly refer to

an actual object, action, or any other manner of thing, it is well possible for a fantastic product to

fail because it has a poor image.

Nextly, as has been mentioned, the word consumer needs to be defined. It can be

exhausting to constantly turn to the dictionary for dependable lexicography, but vagueness in

definition leads to vagueness in conclusion. With that in mind, consumer may be defined as

follows, “one that consumes: such as one that utilizes economic goods” (Mirriam-Webster,

2019). Not a great deal of time must be spent pouring over the meaning of consumer and its

semantic relationship to the other terms at play. Consumers are the ones who are “utilizing,”

through purchasing the product. They are the audience, the target of the product’s crafted image.

In their role of the audience, they acquire a certain unique power. They decide whether the image

“works.” Does the image sponsored by the corporation successfully peak their interest? Will they

spend money on it? On a deeper level, what of the corporation’s image itself? The producer of

the product in turn has its own image, a meta-image which is imparted on all their products. A

beloved corporation imparts some spark of that love onto all which it makes. Maintaining that

beloved status, as shall be explored, requires a great deal of effort on behalf of a corporation.

Finally, the last term requires expounding. More than ever, defining what is meant by a

corporation is a tricky endeavor; it has become a highly politicized term in modern parlance. For

the purposes of this paper, having a clear definition of corporation helps dispel some of political

kerfuffle which abounds, and leaves a term which may be useful. Good old Mirriam-Webster

provides:

1a: a group of merchants or traders united in a trade guild

b: the municipal authorities of a town or city

2: a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although

constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and

duties including the capacity of succession

3: an association of employers and employees in a basic industry or of members

of a profession organized as an organ of political representation in a corporative

state. (Mirriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 2019)

Like the word image before it, corporation is a word which begs unpacking. The first

entry, about a corporation being a group of merchants or traders being united is obvious

(Mirriam-Webster, 2019). The second entry starts to provide some illumination. There’s a

legality and a multiplicity to a corporation. Binding one or more person’s or people’s actions and

capabilities into a singular agent distills to multiple into the singular. A corporation is the action

of several actors coalesced into one agent, one identity. As this relates to a corporation’s image, a

corporation is many kinds of decisions, decision-makers, ideas, and people all being viewed in

singular fashion. Inside a corporation, so to speak, there is a buzzing hive of activity. But, the

consumers really only see the honey.

Continuing a bit with that metaphor, the product is the honey. It is what is being produced

by the corporation. The corporation is the hive. For the sake of having some fun, the consumers

might be depicted as the bear. What then of the image? How does the bear perceive the hive

producing the honey it so craves? The whole scene, bear, honey, and hive are all elements of the

image. Image permeates everything in this metaphor. There is the bear’s (consumer’s) need/want

for the honey (product). The honey satisfies some desire on the part of the bear and therefore has

a favorable image. The bear knows the hive (corporation) is the source of what it craves, and

therefore also has a favorable image. The tableau of a sunlit meadow whereupon a bear finds a

hive filled with scrumptious honey is a metaphor used for explanative, and hopefully, humorous

effect. It is also the image in its totality, a microcosm of the web of relation and corollary in

which image is involved.

Critiquing this metaphor, it is obvious that the relationship between the bear who wants

honey and the hive which makes it is deeply rudimentary. The bear could not put into words why

it wants honey. It cannot say which hive produces a slightly finer honey. It cannot bargain with

the hive to receive honey at a lesser rate because it frequents that hive the most. After all, does

not the bear inflict grievous harm on the hive to receive its golden rewards? The bear does not

consult with other bears, declaiming one hive to simply be the bees-knees. The bear does not

write reviews, does not rush to make expensive honey-grabs during sales times, and does not

clamor for boycott if the hive has offended the bear’s sensibilities. All of this is true, but the

relationship between image, product, consumer, and corporation does exist on a fundamental,

rudimental level like this. Consumers have a want, a need. They perceive a corporation as

producing something which satisfies the want/need. The perception is the image. Both the

product and the corporation bear it. It is a somewhat lyrical thing to contemplate, but vast sums

of time and money are spent on it. This brings to a close this paper’s exploration of terminology.

Consumer Awareness of Image

With firm definitions in hand, it is time to move forward into examining just how the

consumer and image relate to each other. This paper opens with question regarding to what

extent may it be said that a consumer is aware of the forces affecting their decisions. Imagining a

spectrum of consciousness, there are two ends at which the consumer may find themselves. On

the one hand, they are totally unaware that the reason they have purchased a product is due to

how the image they hold of the product has swayed them. The efforts of a corporation to craft a

successful image pass successfully, but unnoticed. On the other, the consumer may be incredibly

aware of how the product’s image is affecting their decision-making. Even more so, the

consumer might be incredibly conscious of the corporation’s image, and the consumer’s view of

the corporation might consciously impact their desire to have anything to do with the corporation

at all.

The corporation’s lustrous image might be something the consumer is profoundly eager

to with which to engage. Regardless of the product, the corporation is so associated, in its image,

with something positive that the consumer will buy whatever. Usually, it is precisely just the

image that the customers are buying. To understand this, look to so-called prestige shoppers.

Vigneron and Johnson (1999) lay out a series of precepts which prove quite useful. Firstly,

Vigneron and Johnson (1999) address the question of consciousness in prestige-oriented

spending by laying out the following theory, which:

[R]ecognizes two types of self-conscious people. (a) publicly self-conscious persons are

particularly concerned about how they appear to others, and (b) privately self-conscious

persons are more focused on their inner thoughts and feelings. (Vigneron and Johson

1999, p. 2)

Going forward, the dichotomy between extrinsically-aware consciousness and

intrinsically-aware sheds a great deal of light on the question of consumer response to image.

Instead of the locus of consumer awareness happening at the pre-conscious or conscious stages,

it can be construed as a dialectic occurring within the consumer between extrinsic and intrinsic

forces. Some consumers are simply more motivated by what happens around them, and tune their

purchases to be in line with a public-facing image. Other consumers are more sensitive to their

own personal desires, and thus tune their purchases to be in line with an private-facing image.

Neither is exclusionary, though. A more public-image conscious person still might make

purchases which reflect their more private-image self, and vice versa. The consumer is

navigating their senses of either what they perceive others around them wanting, the public

image; or, how the consumer perceives themselves to be, the private image.

High-end luxury goods offer an excellent prism through which to reflect on the

involvement of consumer consciousness in purchasing. It also ties in with the role products play

in the relationship between the consumer and their reaction to image. The economic philosopher

Thorstein Veblen (1899) opined that consumers make expensive purchases with the intent to

assert status (p. 36). Veblen’s words are worth further exploration, as he provides both an

enumeration of the manner of purchases when he states a wealthy consumer, “becomes a

connoisseur in creditable viands of various degrees of merit...in seemly apparel and architecture,

in weapons, games, dancers, and the narcotics” (p. 36). Veblen also examines the underlying

strata providing motivation:

This growth of punctilious discrimination as to qualitative excellence in eating,

drinking, etc. presently affects not only the manner of life... He is no longer simply the

successful, aggressive male, — the man of strength, resource, and intrepidity. In order to

avoid stultification he must also cultivate his tastes, for it now becomes incumbent on

him to discriminate with some nicety between the noble and the ignoble in consumable

goods. (Veblen 1899, p. 36).

Veblen interestingly asserts a sort of imperative for the well-off to begin to make

purchases which flaunt wealth. It is a reflection of the extrinsic/intrinsic dichotomy of consumer

consciousness and image discussed earlier. Choosing the most expensive, most luxurious

products is not just an exercise in the consumer studiously presented an image of success and

wealth. There is an intrinsic image-consciousness involved. The consumer needs these purchases

to satisfy their own sense of self, to accurately tell themselves “they have made it.” Veblen

(1899) frames this as an “incumbency” in order to avoid “stultification” (p. 36). Certainly, the

choice of language is a reflection of the gilded age in which Veblen wrote. Using such floral

language when discussing how the purchase of luxury products intertwines with consumers’

image has a certain delightful irony. His meaning, despite that, is clear. Purchasing luxury goods

involves more than just the desire to flaunt wealth. The flaunting of wealth is, as has been

defined, an outgrowth of extrinsically-aware image-consciousness. Fast cars, expensive watches,

giant houses, and memberships to exclusive clubs all help align a consumer’s image they have of

themselves with the image they present to the outside world.

Image and the Image of the Product

Turning back to Vigneron and Johnson (1999), a distinction is made between the

perceived quality of a product versus its prestige. Quality, in Vigneron and Johnson’s (1999)

estimation supersedes prestige (p.13). Meaning, if the consumer believes a product has an image

of being one of fine craftsmanship, reliability, and excellent materials, the consumer will gladly

opt for the quality product rather than the one which might be exceedingly popular and

prestigious. This recalls to mind the previously discussed role extrinsic and intrinsic image-

awareness play into consumer choice. Indeed, quality over prestige is victory of intrinsic over

extrinsic image-awareness: the consumer purchases the product mostly for their own satisfaction.

This is but one example of the way the image a product have impacts how it succeeds or

fails. The relationship between the product and the image of the product is a thorny knot to

untangle. Even the consumer’s body might be construed as the product: the image consumer’s

present to others for consumption. Though, consumption here means more visual awareness,

social capital gleaned from physical attractiveness, and yes, sexual desirability. Consumption’s

more digestive connotations do not come into use. Bearing this in mind, the consumer develops

an image of their own body as a product: a body-image. A useful defining of body-image

follows:

Body image may be conceived in terms of a more visual sense of the image others have

of oneself, based upon a person’s appearance: the ‘look’ one has for others. This can be

referred to as ‘mirror-image’, in which the body’s visual appearance is central

(Featherstone 2010, p. 194).

Visuality once again becomes a signal feature of image. The product of the body is made

known, publicized, through the vector of vision. A consumer’s body-image is constructed of

other consumer’s visual responses to the consumer’s body. On account of this, whole industries

are born in pursuit of a more pleasing body-image. Between the consumer and their sense of

their body-image as a product to be consumed, a new linkage occurs, one that:

In its most extreme form it links beauty with moral goodness. The corollary in consumer

culture is that the modification and cosmetic enhancement of the body, through a range of

regimes and technologies, can be used to construct a beautiful appearance and thereby a

beautiful self. (Featherstone 2010, p. 195).

It bears repeating, this is a thorny knot to untangle. Choosing the self-as-product is a

complicated road down which to travel. Because it is not the true self that is on sale. The

consumer is not, in the instance of body-image, selling some ontological piece of themselves.

They are crafting an image of beauty, wellness, athleticism, or whatever to be made available to

other consumers. Other consumers buy into that image often diligently created through the use of

cosmetics, time spent in gyms, and Instagram and Snapchat filters to project a marketable body-

image. Image becomes overweening, so much so that Bloom (2005) warns, “ ‘It is the image

itself with which we are infatuated, and...may in the end be irrelevant in the larger context of our

general yearning for identification with the two-dimensional (p. 61). Bloom (2005) takes a dim

view of this desire to be the image and not the thing itself. When applied to the consumer, not

just as an actor in the marketplace, but as a human being in the world, it takes on a deeply

sinister tone. Consumers fall in love not thing a real thing, something which moves and acts and

is acted upon in the world, but an image of a product. When it is their own bodies, this is

troubling.

Not all literature falls in line with Bloom’s (2005) somewhat dire musings. Viewing the

body-as-product through the process of body-image has positive correlates for the consumer.

Instead of making purchases which go to enhance their body-image as being solely concerned

with the body-image’s stock in the eyes of others, they make purchases which alter their body in

such a way as to make their lives easier. The former is certainly an example of extrinsic image-

awareness, and the latter enters a place of intrinsic awareness. Budgeon (2005) finds in her

research on opinions regarding plastic surgery in Britain that:

these cases altering the body was about more than a modification of surface

appearance. Instead it was suggested that undergoing cosmetic surgery was about

transforming the way in which the body was lived – not how it looked. In most

cases the underlying concern was about confidence and how changing one’s body

would allow the self to enter into situations with an increased sense of efficacy. (Budgeon

2005, p. 46).

Budgeon (2005) found a differing motivation for cosmetic surgery than the one

previously assumed. Instead of altering the body explicitly for the extrinsically motivated goal of

pleasing others, changing the body becomes intrinsically motivated. The consumer is aware of

their body-as-product and body-image, but the consumer consumes the body-image for their own

benefit. The altering of body-image creates a seeming that the body is now more capable, more

functional than before. Budgeon (2005) highlights this when she uses the phrase, “increased

sense of efficacy” (p. 46). Whether or not there is some empiricism to the body becoming

something more able is not addressed. It is the image in the mind of the consumer that the body

is now better. The tension between the thing and the image of the thing remains. So much so that

cosmetics, gyms, and luxury apparel may be marketed on this “increased sense of efficacy.”

Just talking about it can be dizzying, but thus are the effects of image on how consumers

interact with products. Image can project itself onto the consumers; consumers can become

products. Who consumes the product might be other consumers, or even the original consumer.

The body is a screen onto which the consumer projects their perceived image. Others might find

that image pleasing, a happy audience sitting in a theater. Or the projection and the screen might

be entirely for the projector’s benefit. Either way, in this tangle of metaphor and meaning, there

is profit to be made. Perhaps the vaguer the social and cognitive forces at play, the greater the

chance to make gobs and gobs of money.

Corporation and Image

Terms have been defined. The tension consumers face between themselves and the

outside world has been delineated. Even a very tricky topic of just how truly anything, through

image, may become a product. Finally it is time to examine just how image impacts corporations.

Until now, it may seem as if corporations are shadowy agents, manipulating image so as to

coerce consumers to purchase their products. It might seem as if L’Oreal markets its cosmetic

products through a cunning image-conscious strategy. It might seem that way because it is true.

Of course the likes of L’Oreal in cosmetics, Apple in electronics, or Boeing in aviation all

actively participate in the process of image-creation with a profit motive in mind. They are not

charities. Certainly charities operate in similar fashion to corporations, and are subject to a

similar image-based forces, but charities are a topic for another time. But the idea that

corporations are the masters of image is wrongheaded. They are subject to the complexities of

image much the same way that consumers and products are. The purpose of this final section will

be to delve into just how corporations are affected by image, and the kinds of actions it leads

them to take.

An interesting note to bear in mind, if consumers come to view their own bodies as a

product, and thus develop a body-image in response, corporations do the same. The lexical

definition provided by Mirriam-Webster (2019) speaks of the unitariness of a corporation despite

its many components. It is one legal person, as is a regular consumer. So, a corporation’s

relationship to image might be one-and-the-same. Further exploration is required.

If this paper already has a definition of corporation and a definition of image, how then

might corporate image be construed? Gray and Balmer (1998) surmise that corporate image is,

“the immediate mental picture that audiences have of an organization” (p. 697). Keywords to

note are “mental” and “picture” as they recall to mind image’s lexical definition and reinforce

the whole visualality of the matter. Gray and Balmer (1998) find that corporation’s are recipients

of image the same way their products are. Just as a product requires effort to develop and

maintain a good image, so do corporations. Doing so becomes a business imperative. Yet a

corporation responds to far more actors than a consumer does. Scale changes the reality of the

corporation’s milieu:

The principal stakeholders with whom most large corporations must be concerned are:

customers, distributors and retailers, suppliers, joint venture partners, financial

institutions and analysts, shareholders, government regulatory agencies, social action

organizations, the general public, and employees. (Gray and Balmer 1998, p.697).

That is a lot of images to maintain, with each actor capable of having its own and

conflicting impression of the corporation.It is not unreasonable to suppose that different actors

could develop an unfavorable image, and that image could spread like a contagion. For instance,

social action organizations could take offense at a corporate practice, and work with customers to

enact a boycott. The boycott could draw the attention of both shareholders and governmental

regulatory agencies. Shareholders could either demand internal actions through their power as

part-owners, or sell their stock. Governmental regulatory agencies could start to issue new rules

meant to curtail the offending practice. Analysts could issue warners to potential investors that

this corporation is too risky. Everything could snowball into disaster if the corporation develops

an unfavorable image.

On the flip side, maintain a positive corporate image pays dividends. Working hard to

burnish a shining corporate image has tangible benefits. While previously sections of this paper

delved into more metaphysical notions which exist between image, product, and consumer, here

the relationship is measurable in cold hard cash. Karaosmanoglu and Melewar (2006) find that:

If organisations can constantly perform well in sustaining a consistent image over the

years, they can achieve a favourable reputation and hence, gain strategic and competitive

advantages such as high employee satisfaction and commitment, more familiarity with

company ’ s products and services, increase[s] in sales. (Karaosmanoglu and Melewar

2006, p. 197).

Karaosmanoglu and Melewar (2006) find that good corporate image works to multiple

advantages, reflective of a corporation’s multiple interests. Happier employees, glad to be

working for a corporation with a sterling image, work harder. Productivity increases. The

employees, especially the ones in sales facing roles, develop a deeper affinity for the product.

They are willing to work harder to increase sales. Consumers also take note of the corporate

image and become more willing to make purchases, sometimes very expensive purchases, based

on the corporation’s image.

Slowing down, how the employees become more familiar with the corporation’s products

deserves a second look. The corporation’s image and the quality, utility, and satisfactory nature

of the product are not one-in-the-same. Bad corporations, or at least corporations with bad

images, might make a great product. In the eyes of the consumer, however, such a product is

tainted. The product’s image is bound up with the image of the corporation. Conjecturally, a

corporation with a lustrous image might make one or two bad products that still sell reasonably

well. Consumer good will through the virtue of positive image allows the corporation to skate

by. Returning to the metaphor of the hive and the honey, if the bear thinks highly of the hive, it

will return frequently for the honey. And that honey is money, honey.

How might a corporation successfully cultivate a unified and successful image? The word

“unified” is used due to the fact that, in the face of all these separate actors, it becomes all too

easy for a corporation to fragment. A fascinating case study in successful image cultivation over

the years is the Catholic Church. While this might sound a bit heiratical, the Catholic Church

meets the lexical standard of a corporation as the unified action of many individuals into a

collective singular. As Balmer notes:

For instance, over many centuries, the catholic church has ho[n]ed its symbolism so that

it underpins, projects and reinforces its central doctrines via a plethora of symbolic forms

including architecture, festivals, language, music, rituals, and vestments: at more solemn

enactments of its rites the marshalling of a variety of symbolic forms results in a full

sensory experience. (Balmer 2008, p. 890)

The Catholic Church is a bit of a dramatic example, yet it is draped in symbols which are

easy to recall and can be mistaken for none other than the Catholic Church. The Sistine Chapel is

fantastic marketing. A picture of St. Peter’s Square is unlikely to be mistaken for a Quaker

Meeting House. The garments worn by a priest during mass clearly denote the priest’s role, and

even the time of year in the liturgical calendar. Each piece works in tandem with the other to

create a highly specified image of the Church: one of splendid godliness.

Splendid godliness is not the easiest image to get consumers to buy into, but the Church

has had centuries to build its image. This is where corporations’ relationship to image is

profoundly different than consumers’. Corporations have the capacity to build, amend, or fully

change their image potentially over the course of many lifetimes. Certainly it took the Church

generations to accrue its accoutrements of sanctity. More traditional corporations might not have

centuries, but their image often metamorphoses over time. Thirty years ago, Apple was a small,

up-start electronics firm selling computers which ran at odds with the trends in electronics at the

time. Nowadays, Apple is the sometimes most valuable company in the world, making

electronics which set trends for other manufacturers to follow. Their image as a precocious

upstart is long since cast aside.

Conclusion

This paper explored the definitions of image, consumer, product, and corporation. Once

firm lexical definitions were in hand, image’s relation to each began to be examined. The

consumer relationship to image is one of extrinsic/intrinsic awareness. Does a product satisfy the

desire to appeal to others or to appeal to oneself? As this consciousness relates to product, some

consumers purchase products for prestige, others for quality. Each correlates to an

extrinsic/intrinsic motive. Next, product came under the lense. Because of image’s protean

nature, anything might become a product, even the body. Finally, the paper delved into how

corporations are ultimately beholden to image, and how they cultivate a unified image in spite of

presented so many different faces to so many different actors. Corporations which do so

successfully are rewarded with a greater latitude in their fortunes than others. Small errors and

mistakes might be forgiven more readily. Products might inherit a bit of that corporation's good

image and thereby sell better.

Now it is time for some closing thoughts. Image stands at a slight remove always from

the thing which it is supposed to depict. It is not the depicted, but the depiction. These word

games, many of which are featured heavily throughout this paper, are necessary because it is

such a challenging concept to explore. How image impacts consumers, products, and

corporations is a place where abstract concepts reify and impact the mundane. Which is to say, it

is the place where difficult ideas that sound like a philosophy major had too many cups of coffee

meets money, time, and effort. Money, time, and effort are all spent to make sure that the image

a consumer has of a product or the corporation which makes it is positive. Consumers spend their

own money, time, and effort thinking (or not thinking) about how a product will affect them.

Consumers even commodify their own bodies through the process of image-making, purchasing

products bearing the image of self-improvement to improve the self.

References

Balmer, J. M. T. (2008). Identity Based Views of the Corporation. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 879–906. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560810891055 Blum, V. (2005) Flesh Wounds: The Culture of Cosmetic Surgery. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press Budgeon, S. (2003). Identity as an Embodied Event. Body & Society, 9(1), 35–55. doi: DOI: 10.1177/1357034X030091003 Consumer. In The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/consumer Corporation. In The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporation Featherstone, M. (2010). Body, Image and Affect in Consumer Culture. Body & Society, 16(1), Gray, E. R., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). Gray, E. R., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). Merging Corporate Image and Corporate Identity. Long Range Planning, 31(5), 695–702. Image. In The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/image Karaosmanoglu, E., & Melewar, T. C. (2006). Corporate Communications, Identity and Image: A Research Agenda. Journal of Brand Management, 196–206. doi: DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550060 Product. In The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/product Veblen, Thorstein B. (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/LCS/theoryleisureclass.pdf Vingeron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). A Review and Conceptual Framework of Prestige-Seeking Consumer Behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review, January 1999(1) , 1–15.