CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 111Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigital Marketing and Social MediaConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification

Algorithmic consumer culture

Open access
Airoldi, Massimo, Rokka, Joonas·2022·Consumption Markets & Culture
DOI 10.1080/10253866.2022.2084726
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article conceptualizes algorithmic consumer culture, and offers a framework that sheds new light on two previously conflicting theorizations: that (1) digitalization tends to liquefy consumer culture and thus acts primarily as an empowering force, and that (2) digitalized marketing and big data surveillance practices tend to deprive consumers of all autonomy. By drawing on critical social theories of algorithms and AI, we define and historicize the now ubiquitous algorithmic mediation of consumption, and then illustrate how the opacity, authority, non-neutrality, and recursivity of automated systems affect consumer culture at the individual, collective, and market level. We propose conceptualizing “algorithmic articulation” as a dialectical techno-social process that allows us to enhance our understanding of platform-based marketer control and consumer resistance. Key implications and future avenues for exploring algorithmic consumer culture are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10253866.2022.2084726

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Nations with weak AI infrastructure face digital marginalization because their cultural material is underrepresented in model training data, leading to systematic distortions or silence in the categories consumers see.

    “Nations with weak AI infrastructure face digital marginalization because their cultural material is underrepresented in model training data, leading to systematic distortions or silence in the categories consumers see (Airoldi & Rokka, 2022).”

    From Marketing to the Machine: Rethinking Global Marketing for the AI Era (2026) · cites this paper as Airoldi & Rokka, 2022

    The Non-neutrality section says cultural biases in training and input data can be amplified in algorithmic outputs. The Market Level: Representing/Contesting section says algorithms classify and rank cultural material, shaping what consumers see; section 4 adds that content judged irrelevant can become invisible. These passages do not establish that nations with weak AI infrastructure are digitally marginalized because their cultural material is underrepresented in training data. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Over time, consumers may experience fatigue or a desire to reclaim control, prompting a correction phase shaped by individual values and by local norms around authority, automation, and risk.

    “Over time, consumers may experience fatigue or a desire to reclaim control, prompting a correction phase shaped by individual values and by local norms around authority, automation, and risk (Airoldi & Rokka, 2022).”

    From Marketing to the Machine: Rethinking Global Marketing for the AI Era (2026) · cites this paper as Airoldi & Rokka, 2022

    The section on individual-level encoding and decoding describes consumers resisting automation, including by blocking ads or refusing cookies. The Concluding Remarks likewise describe resistance that may limit marketers’ control. Neither passage supports fatigue as the trigger, a subsequent correction phase, or the claim that such a phase is shaped by individual values and local norms around authority, automation, and risk (pages unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • AI personalizes, but it also governs and mediates; in some markets it may even help create the representations through which consumption is understood.

    “AI personalizes, but it also governs and mediates.In some markets it may even help create the representations through which consumption is understood (Airoldi & Rokka, 2022).”

    From Marketing to the Machine: Rethinking Global Marketing for the AI Era (2026) · cites this paper as Airoldi & Rokka, 2022

  • At the actor level, hybrid human-AI configurations reshape how preferences emerge.

    “At the actor level, hybrid human-AI configurations reshape how preferences emerge, extending prior work on the extended self in digital environments (Belk, 2013) and algorithmic consumer culture (Airoldi & Rokka, 2022).”

    From Marketing to the Machine: Rethinking Global Marketing for the AI Era (2026) · cites this paper as Airoldi & Rokka, 2022

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 79

  1. Airoldi, Massimo. 2022. Machine Habitus: Toward a Sociology of Algorithms. Cambridge: Polity.
  2. Airoldi, Massimo. 2021b. "Digital traces of taste: methodological pathways for consumer research." Consumption Markets & Culture 24(1):97-117.
  3. Akdevelioglu, Duygu, Sean Hansen, and Alladi Venkatesh. 2021. "Wearable technologies, brand community and the growth of a transhumanist vision." Journal of Marketing Management, doi:10.1080/0267257X.2021.2001559. · DOI
  4. Amoore, Louis, and Volha Piotukh. 2016. Algorithmic life: Calculative devices in the age of big data. London: Routledge.
  5. Ansari, Asim, Skander Essegaier, and Rajeev Kohli. 2000. "Internet Recommendation Systems." Journal of Marketing Research 37(3): 363- 75.
  6. Ansari, Asim, Skander Essegaier, and Rajeev Kohli. 2000. "Internet Recommendation Systems." Journal of Marketing Research 37 (3): 363-75.
  7. Arnould, Eric J. 2007. "Should Consumer Citizens Escape the Market?" The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 611(May): 96-111.
  8. Arvidsson, Adam, and Alessandro Caliandro. 2016. "Brand public." Journal of Consumer Research 42(5): 727-748.
  9. Arvidsson, Adam, Alessandro Caliandro, Massimo Airoldi, and Stefania Barina. 2016. "Crowds and value. Italian Directioners on Twitter." Information, Communication & Society 19(7): 921-939.
  10. Bajde, Domen. 2013. "Consumer culture theory (re)visits actor-network theory: Flattening consumption studies." Marketing Theory 13(2): 227-242.
  11. Ball, Kirstie. 2017. "All consuming surveillance: surveillance as marketplace icon." Consumption Markets & Culture 20(2): 95-100.
  12. Bardhi, Fleura, and Giana M. Eckhardt. 2017. "Liquid Consumption." Journal of Consumer Research 44(3): 582-597.
  13. Bardhi, Fleura, Eckhardt, Giana M., and Eric J. Arnould. 2012. "Liquid Relationship to Possessions." Journal of Consumer Research 39(3): 510-30.
  14. Bauman, Zygmunt. 2007. Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
  15. Beer, David. 2009. "Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious." New Media & Society 11(6): 985-1002.
  16. Beer, David. 2013. Popular culture and new media: The politics of circulation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  17. Beer, David. 2016. Metric Power. Bakingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  18. Belk, Russell W. 2013. "Extended Self in a Digital World." Journal of Consumer Research 40(3): 477-500.
  19. Benjamin, Ruha. 2019. Race after technology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
  20. Bruns, Axel. 2019. Are Filter Bubbles Real?. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
  21. Bucher, Taina. 2012a. "The friendship assemblage: Investigating programmed sociality on Facebook." Television & New Media 14(6): 479-493.
  22. Bucher, Taina. 2012b. "Want to Be on the Top? Algorithmic Power and the Threat of Invisibility on Facebook." New Media & Society 14(7): 1164-80.
  23. Bucher, Taina. 2017. "The Algorithmic Imaginary: Exploring the Ordinary Affects of Facebook Algorithms." Information, Communication & Society 20(1): 30-44.
  24. Burns, Anne L. 2015. "Self(ie)-discipline: social regulation as enacted through the discussion of photographic practice." International Journal of Communication 9: 1716-1733.
  25. Canniford, Robin, and Domen Bajde. 2016. Assembling Consumption: Researching Actors, Networks and Markets. London: Routledge.
  26. Campbell-Kelly, Martin, William Aspray, Nathan Ensmenger, Jeffrey R. Yost, and William Aspray. 2013. Computer: A History of the Information Machine. Third edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  27. Chabert, Jean-Luc. 1999. A History of Algorithms: From the Pebble to the Microchip. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
  28. Cluley, Robert, and Stephen D. Brown. 2015. "The dividualised consumer: sketching the new mask of the consumer." Journal of Marketing Management 31(1-2): 107-122.
  29. Crawford, Kate. 2016. "Can an algorithm be agonistic? Ten scenes from life in calculated publics." Science, Technology, & Human Values 41(1): 77-92.
  30. Darmody, Aron, and Detlev Zwick. 2020. "Manipulate to empower: Hyper-relevance and the contradictions of marketing in the age of surveillance capitalism." Big Data & Society 7(1): 2053951720904112.
  31. Deighton, John. 2019. "Big data." Consumption Markets & Culture 22(1): 68-73.
  32. Denegri-Knott, Janice, Detlev Zwick, and Jonathan E. Schroeder. 2006. "Mapping Consumer Power: An Integrative Framework for Marketing and Consumer Research." European Journal of Marketing 40(9-10): 950-71.
  33. Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge.
  34. Firat, A. Fuat, and Nikhilesh Dholakia. 2006. "Theoretical and philosophical implications of postmodern debates: some challenges to modern marketing." Marketing Theory 6(2): 123-162.
  35. Firat, A. Fuat, and Alladi Venkatesh. 1995. "Liberatory postmodernism and the reenchantment of consumption." Journal of Consumer Research 223 (1995): 239-267.
  36. Fisher, Eran, and Yoav Mehozay. 2019. "How Algorithms See Their Audience: Media Epistemes and the Changing Conception of the Individual." Media, Culture & Society 41(8): 1176-91.
  37. Fourcade, Marion, and Fleur Johns. 2020. "Loops, Ladders and Links: The Recursivity of Social and Machine Learning." Theory and Society, doi:10.1007/s11186-020-09409-x · DOI
  38. Giesler, Markus, and Fischer, Eileen. 2017. "Market system dynamics". Marketing Theory 17(1), 3-8.
  39. Gillespie, Tarleton. 2014. "The relevance of algorithms." In Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society, edited by T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski, and K. Foot, 167-193. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  40. Hagberg, Johan, and Hans Kjellberg. 2020. "Digitalized Markets." Consumption Markets & Culture 23(2): 97-109.
  41. Hall, Stuart. 1996. "On postmodernism and articulation", in Morley, D. and Chen, K.-H. (eds) Stuart Hall: critical dialogues in cultural studies, London, Routledge.
  42. Hall, Stuart. 1997. "The Work of Representation", in S. Hall (ed.) Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, London: Sage and The Open University.
  43. Hallinan, Blake, and Ted Striphas. 2016. "Recommended for you: The Netflix Prize and the production of algorithmic culture." New Media & Society 18(1): 117-137.
  44. Holt, Douglas B. 2002. "Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding." Journal of Consumer Research 29(1): 70-90.
  45. Kedzior, R., Allen, D., and Jonathan E. Schroeder. 2016. "The selfie phenomenon -consumer identities in the social media marketplace." European Journal of Marketing 50(9/10): 1767-1772.
  46. Kitchin, Rob, and Martin Dodge. 2011. Code/space: Software and everyday life. Cambridge, MA: Mit Press.
  47. Kozinets, Robert V., Patterson, Anthony, and Rachel Ashman. 2017. "Networks of desire: How technology increases our passion to consume." Journal of Consumer Research 43(5): 659-682.
  48. MacCormick, J. 2012. 9 Algorithms that changed the future: The ingenious ideas that drive today's computers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  49. Mackenzie, Adrian. 2015. "The production of prediction: What does machine learning want?" European Journal of Cultural Studies 18(4-5): 429-445.
  50. Mager, Astrid. 2012. "Algorithmic ideology: How capitalist society shapes search engines." Information, Communication & Society 15(5): 769-787.
  51. Mellet, Kevin, and Thomas Beauvisage. 2020. "Cookie monsters. Anatomy of a digital market infrastructure." Consumption Markets & Culture 23(2): 110-129.
  52. Milan, Stefania. 2015. "When Algorithms Shape Collective Action: Social Media and the Dynamics of Cloud Protesting." Social Media + Society 1(2): 205630511562248.
  53. Molesworth, Mike, Rebecca Watkins, and Janice Denegri-Knott. 2016. "Possession work on hosted digital consumption objects as consumer ensnarement." Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 1(2): 246-261.
  54. Morris, Jeremy Wade. 2015. "Curation by Code: Infomediaries and the Data Mining of Taste." European Journal of Cultural Studies 18(4-5): 446-63.
  55. Mühlhoff, Rainer. 2020. "Human-Aided Artificial Intelligence: Or, How to Run Large Computations in Human Brains? Toward a Media Sociology of Machine Learning." New Media & Society 22(10): 1868-1884.
  56. Neyland, Daniel. 2019. The Everyday Life of an Algorithm. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
  57. Negus, Keith. 2002. "The work of cultural intermediaries and the enduring distance between production and consumption." Cultural Studies 16(4), 501-515.
  58. Noble, Safiya Umoja. 2018. Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York: NYU Press.
  59. Pasquale, Frank. 2015. The black box society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  60. Pasquinelli, Matteo. 2017. "Machines that morph logic: Neural networks and the distorted automation of intelligence as statistical inference." Glass Bead 1(1): 1:13.
  61. Rokka, Joonas. 2021. "Consumer Culture Theory's future in marketing." Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 29(1), 114-124.
  62. Rokka, Joonas, and Massimo Airoldi. 2018. "Cambridge Analytica's 'secret' psychographic tool is a ghost from the past." The Conversation, theconversation.com/cambridge- analyticas-secret-psychographic-tool-is-a-ghost-from-the-past-94143
  63. Rokka, Joonas, and Robin Canniford. 2016. "Heterotopian selfies: how social media destabilizes brand assemblages." European Journal of Marketing 50(9/10): 1789-1813.
  64. Ruckenstein, Minna, and Julia Granroth. 2020. "Algorithms, advertising and the intimacy of surveillance." Journal of Cultural Economy 13(1): 1-13.
  65. Schau, Hope Jensen, Albert M. Muñiz Jr, and Eric J. Arnould. 2009. "How brand community practices create value." Journal of Marketing 73(5): 30-51.
  66. Scherer, Jay, and Steven J. Jackson. 2008. "Cultural Studies and the Circuit of Culture: Advertising, Promotional Culture and the New Zealand All Blacks." Cultural Studies - Critical Methodologies 8(4): 507-526.
  67. Seaver, Nick. 2017. "Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems." Big Data & Society 4(2): 2053951717738104.
  68. Siles, Ignacio, Andrés Segura-Castillo, Ricardo Solís, and Mónica Sancho. 2020. "Folk Theories of Algorithmic Recommendations on Spotify: Enacting Data Assemblages in the Global South." Big Data & Society, doi:10.1177/2053951720923377. · DOI
  69. Storey, John. 2003. Inventing popular culture. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  70. Striphas, Ted. 2015. "Algorithmic culture." European Journal of Cultural Studies 18(4-5): 395-412.
  71. Summers, Christopher A., Robert W. Smith, and Rebecca Walker Reczek. 2016. "An audience of one: Behaviorally targeted ads as implied social labels." Journal of Consumer Research 43(1): 156-178.
  72. Thompson, Craig J. 2004. "Marketplace mythology and discourses of power." Journal of Consumer Research 31(1), 162-180.
  73. Thompson, Craig J. 2019. "The 'big data' myth and the pitfalls of 'thick data' opportunism: on the need for a different ontology of markets and consumption." Journal of Marketing Management 35(3-4): 207-230.
  74. Tiidenberg, Katrin, and Edgar Gómez Cruz. 2015. "Selfies, image and the re-making of the body." Body & Society 21(4): 77-102.
  75. van Dijck, José. 2013. The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
  76. Velkova, Julia, and Anne Kaun. 2019. "Algorithmic Resistance: Media Practices and the Politics of Repair." Information, Communication & Society, doi:10.1080/1369118X.2019.1657162. · DOI
  77. Wilson-Barnao, Caroline. 2017. "How algorithmic cultural recommendation influence the marketing of cultural collections." Consumption Markets & Culture 20(6): 559-574.
  78. Zwick, Detlev, and Janice Denegri-Knott. 2009. "Manufacturing customers: The database as new means of production." Journal of Consumer Culture 9(2): 221-247.
  79. Zwick, Detlev, and Nikhilesh Dholakia. 2004. "Whose identity is it anyway? Consumer representation in the age of database marketing." Journal of Macromarketing 24(1): 31- 43.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Airoldi, M., & Rokka, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Milan (IT)
  • École de management de Lyon (FR)
Corresponding author
Airoldi, Massimo
ORCID
Venue
Consumption Markets & Culture
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2022-06-03
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
411-428
ISSN
  • 1025-3866 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-223X
DOI
10.1080/10253866.2022.2084726
OpenAlex
W4281994800
Cited by
111
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 2
FWCI
20.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Consumption Markets & Culture (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca (Universita Degli Studi Di Milano) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Keywords
consumerism, digitalization, big data surveillance, consumer autonomy, algorithmic opacity, consumer resistance, artificial intelligence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review