Being or Appearing? Are we increasingly judging people by their value – or by their marketability?

A few days ago, an advertisement for an online course on optimising one’s self-presentation when looking for a job popped up on my computer screen. It said, among other things: “You know what you can do. But the moment you have to put it into words, it sounds like everyone else.” And: “You’ve tried it before. Maybe more than once. Booked coaching sessions. Spent money. Spent hours refining your positioning statement – and it still doesn’t feel right.” And: “Reworded it again and again. Adjusted it again and again. And yet, when someone asks what you do, the answer still somehow feels wrong. Not because you don’t know what you do, but because that sentence isn’t you.”

Apparently, many people today feel that professional competence alone is no longer enough. They experience that they not only have to apply for jobs, but also present themselves in an optimised way, position themselves strategically and deliberately, and portray themselves as streamlined as possible in order to be noticed at all. The advertisement reveals the sad human side of the problem: People looking for work turn to courses like these because they feel that their natural selves are no longer enough.

The advertisement in question appears neither dubious nor aggressive – quite the opposite. It addresses a problem that apparently concerns many people, and there is clearly a demand for these algorithm-compatible self-optimisation courses. Perhaps it is worth questioning this from an ethical perspective. How and why have we reached a point where the society we have created practically demands these kinds of “fine-tune-your-positioning-statement” coaching programmes?

We live in a time in which attention has become one of the most valuable currencies. Companies compete for attention. Politicians vie for attention. The influencers who seem to be springing up everywhere live from attention – although influencers are, in essence, also advertisers, except that they turn their own person, their own life, or at least the image they project to the outside world, into part of the advertising medium itself. And increasingly, ordinary people are competing for attention too: on social media, on dating platforms, on LinkedIn and, of course, when looking for a job.

That in itself might not yet be a problem. It becomes problematic when visibility becomes a prerequisite for economic and social participation, when competence alone no longer seems to be enough, and when people begin to feel that they not only have to show what they can do, but above all how attractive their marketability appears to be.

Of course, we all present ourselves. We choose our clothes consciously, we speak differently to children than we do to colleagues, and in fact, we almost never show the entirety of our inner selves. That is part of human interaction. But something else is new: More and more people feel compelled to present a version of themselves that they believe will appear more successful, more interesting or more likeable than their actual personality. Not necessarily because they consciously want to deceive others, but because they fear that otherwise they will be overlooked and become losers in the system. And isn't this precisely where an ethically significant boundary lies? The person does not change into what we hope will be a better version of themselves. Rather, their outward presentation is changed, as a supposedly more attractive version of their economic marketability is constructed and performed for an audience instead of their actual abilities being allowed to speak for themselves.

This reveals a pattern that extends far beyond the search for employment. We optimise our bodies to appear more attractive, our personalities to seem more interesting, our biographies to appear more successful, and our language to sound more professional. In the end, the human being themselves risks becoming a project that must be constantly improved, evaluated and marketed. It becomes less and less about who we are and increasingly about which version of ourselves promises to achieve the highest value in a particular market.

Perhaps we should therefore ask ourselves some fundamental questions:

Why is competence increasingly not enough?

Why is visibility becoming more important than substance?

Why does everyone today have to become their own advertising product, their own brand?

Why do people have to learn to constantly sell themselves just to be noticed at all?

And when does authenticity itself become a marketing strategy?

This development is particularly concerning when we consider young people. They are growing up in a world in which reach, likes and followers appear to be a second currency – or perhaps even the main currency. Every day they are exposed to perfectly staged bodies, perfectly staged homes, perfectly staged relationships, perfectly staged careers and perfectly staged lives. Of course, most people know that much of this is staged. And yet we constantly compare ourselves. Is that healthy?

Young people, in particular, are at a stage of life in which their identities are still developing. They need guidance, encouragement and the freedom to develop into themselves, rather than living under constant pressure to conform to a supposedly successful role. Doesn't society also have a responsibility to prepare young people not only for the labour market, but for a self-determined life? This requires media literacy, but above all, the ability to distinguish between genuine value and mere impact.

“Ordinary” advertisers and influencers are not the actual problem. They are rather an expression of a system that economically rewards attention. Some act responsibly, others less so. Yet all of them constantly direct our attention towards incentives that promise quick rewards and, in doing so, trigger our psychological reward systems. Digital platforms are no longer neutral spaces in which we simply happen to spend time: Their algorithms are designed to capture attention, make social rewards such as likes and reach visible, and thereby encourage repeated engagement. The more strongly visibility is rewarded, the more compelled we feel to make ourselves visible – and to do so in precisely the way the system rewards. When attention becomes the most important currency, a market for attention inevitably emerges. When reach is paid for, reach is produced. When certain personality traits acquire economic value, the pressure grows to present those traits as effectively as possible. This affects all of us.

The answer, therefore, can hardly be to condemn individual groups or to abolish social media. Companies need to make their products known, self-employed people need to be able to explain what they offer, and good ideas need visibility too. The real question is therefore not: How do we end self-presentation? Rather: How do we create a society in which excessive self-presentation does not become a prerequisite for human dignity and economic participation?

Perhaps the answer begins with a change in perspective. Good communication remains important. Clear and understandable language creates trust, connects people and helps prevent misunderstandings. But there is a fundamental difference between understandable communication and strategic self-promotion. Perhaps, in the long term, companies should once again build trust more strongly through quality, transparency and responsibility than through psychological manipulation. Perhaps schools should not only teach young people how to present themselves, but also how to recognise manipulation, think critically and preserve their own dignity. Perhaps digital platforms could reward other forms of success: trustworthiness rather than mere reach, constructive dialogue rather than polarisation, long-term quality rather than short-term attention. And perhaps we could all begin to judge people more often by their actual contribution rather than by their ability to market themselves convincingly and extensively.

At the same time, however, we should not forget that changing today's rules of the game also affects those who make their living from them. If we call for a more ethical form of advertising and communication, we must therefore also consider what alternatives we can offer people whose economic success currently depends on precisely these mechanisms. Influencers, advertising and social media agencies, and other actors have developed skills that could also be valuable in a more responsible economy: communication, creativity, storytelling, community building and the ability to reach people. The question is therefore not only what we want to abolish, but above all what we want to put in its place.

Perhaps specialists in capturing attention could increasingly become mediators of knowledge, culture, science or social engagement. Perhaps companies could learn to sell their products through quality, transparency and clearly articulated values. Perhaps digital platforms could reward different forms of success: trustworthiness rather than mere reach, constructive exchange rather than polarisation, long-term quality rather than short-term attention. Because if we want to change the rules of the game, we should not simply turn those who are successful under today's rules into losers. An ethical transformation also needs to provide them with new perspectives and realistic opportunities to earn a living.

Perhaps, therefore, genuine progress does not lie in constantly finding new ways to turn attention into money through sales-driven manipulation at any cost. Perhaps progress lies in bringing value creation and appreciation closer together again. Wouldn't a society be more successful – and, above all, mentally healthier – if people received recognition and economic security primarily because they make a genuine contribution, rather than because they feel compelled to present themselves ever more effectively than others in order to be found by some artificial algorithm?

Ethics is not about searching for simple answers. Ethics begins where we ask not only what is successful, but also what serves human beings and life in general. The central question, therefore, is what kind of society we want to create together: a society in which people must primarily convince others through their outward appearance, or a society in which competence, integrity, responsibility and human dignity once again carry greater weight.

Communicating less is not necessarily the solution. But shouldn't we simply learn again to see the person behind the presentation? And perhaps we should, as a society, think about what kind of value we actually want to reward: the value that can be sold and marketed in the most highly optimised way – or the value that genuinely exists? Do we want to continue rewarding appearances above all, or do we want to place greater value on what is real?

We look forward to your thoughtful reflections and comments.

References

American Psychological Association. (2023). Health advisory on social media use in adolescence. https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/health-advisory-adolescent-social-media-use 

European Commission. (2023). Influencer Legal Hub: European consumer law and influencer marketing. https://commission.europa.eu/topics/consumers/consumer-rights-and-complaints/influencer-legal-hub_en 

Fioravanti, G., Bocci Benucci, S., Ceragioli, G., & Casale, S. (2022). How the exposure to beauty ideals on social networking sites influences body image: A systematic review of experimental studies. Adolescent Research Review, 7, 419–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-022-00179-4 

Fortunato, L., Gullo, S., Muscolino, A., La Tona, A., Rodgers, R. F., & Lo Coco, G. (2026). Relation between social media use and body image concerns and disordered eating in adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Adolescent Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-026-00285-7 

Montag, C., Lachmann, B., Herrlich, M., & Zweig, K. A. (2019). Addictive features of social media/messenger platforms and freemium games against the background of psychological and economic theories. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(14), 2612. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142612

Orben, A., Meier, A., Dalgleish, T., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2024). Mechanisms linking social media use to adolescent mental health vulnerability. Nature Reviews Psychology, 3, 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00307-y 

Revranche, M., Biscond, M., & Husky, M. M. (2022). Investigating the relationship between social media use and body image among adolescents: A systematic review. L'Encéphale, 48(2), 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2021.08.006 

Further Reading

Alter, A. (2017). Irresistible: The rise of addictive technology and the business of keeping us hooked. Penguin Press.

Eyal, N. (2014). Hooked: How to build habit-forming products. Portfolio.

Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann.