Picture an ordinary pantry. A box of pasta. Half a bag of rice clipped shut. A jar of peanut butter. A few reusable containers whose lids came from different sets over different years. Everything works. You can find the oats. The flour stays dry. The containers simply do not match.
Now imagine an advertisement for a matching storage container system. The first version says: “Stackable containers. Easy to see what you have.” Then the message changes: “Still living with pantry chaos?” Then it changes again: “Create a home you don't have to apologize for.”
The first message proposes a practical benefit. The second labels the present situation a problem. The third makes the state of the pantry relevant to a judgment about the person who owns it. The pantry has not changed. The standard you are being asked to judge it by has.
So before this advertisement asks you to buy the containers, what does it ask you to believe is wrong? This article, a companion to the Reclaiming Rhetoric video, looks at how advertising can sell the problem before it sells the product, and how to tell the difference between discovering a need and accepting an advertiser's definition of one.
Foundations Series · Volume 2
How to Analyze Any Argument
A visual guide to claims, evidence, assumptions, and reasoning.
Problem recognition: the gap that makes a product matter
Consumer researchers have a name for the moment a product starts to matter: problem recognition. A product becomes relevant when someone perceives a meaningful gap between their current condition and some preferable or expected state. Marketing scholars have long treated it as the first stage of the consumer decision process; Gordon Bruner and Richard Pomazal (1988) called it “the crucial first stage.”
M. Joseph Sirgy, in a 1987 social cognition model of consumer problem recognition, described it as a discrepancy between a person's perceived current state and a comparison standard. That framing is useful because it shows two separate levers. You can feel a gap because your current state got worse, or because the standard you compare it to got higher.
Back to the pantry. It might start to feel unsatisfactory for two very different reasons. Maybe ingredients really are difficult to find, and the cumin keeps disappearing behind the cereal. Or maybe the advertisement has introduced a new standard, one in which visually coordinated storage suddenly matters. Those are different roots.
An advertiser does not always have to make what you own look worse. It can make what counts as acceptable more demanding.
That framework helps explain how people come to perceive gaps. It does not prove that every advertisement is deliberately manufacturing dissatisfaction. Plenty of ads simply describe a product to people who already know they need it.
Three moves in the pantry ad
Rewind the ads and watch three things change in the argument. These are analytical moves for this example, not a universal formula that every advertisement follows.
1. The message changes the criterion
At the start, the questions are practical. Does the pantry work? Can you find things? Do the containers fit on the shelf? The revised ad makes visual uniformity central. Now mismatched containers can count against the pantry even when they function perfectly well.
Appearance can be a legitimate preference. Plenty of people enjoy a tidy row of identical jars, and there is nothing irrational about that. The issue is whether a preference is being presented as a requirement. This is a form of framing: the ad does not argue that uniformity matters; it simply makes uniformity the lens.
2. The message raises the stakes
Mismatched containers becomes pantry chaos. Then pantry chaos becomes a home you have to apologize for. The appeal moves from an observable feature to an interpretation, and then from that interpretation to a broader social judgment. A difference in appearance is being asked to carry a much larger claim about how you live. That escalation is where pathos enters: embarrassment and the fear of being judged do work the product description never could.
3. The message makes one remedy look especially relevant
Once the problem is defined as storage that isn't coordinated enough, a matching container system becomes the obvious-looking solution. But a different diagnosis could point somewhere else:
- Reorganizing the shelves.
- Labeling what you already own.
- Using up the three half-finished bags of brown sugar.
- Changing nothing at all.
How the problem is defined helps determine which solution appears to fit. In terms of the rhetorical situation, the ad constructs the exigence, the problem that seems to demand a response, and then offers itself as the fitting response.
What the research on comparison standards shows
In a 1991 study in the Journal of Consumer Research, Marsha Richins examined idealized advertising imagery and physical attractiveness. Her research, with female college students, suggested that exposure to idealized images in ads could raise comparison standards for attractiveness and lower satisfaction with one's own attractiveness.
The mechanism is what matters here. An advertisement can influence the benchmark people use for evaluation, not merely their opinion of a particular product. But that research concerned attractiveness and a particular group of participants. It does not show that storage ads make anyone dissatisfied with their pantry.
Later work adds a useful complication. Mary Martin and Patricia Kennedy (1993), studying preadolescent and adolescent girls, found evidence that exposure to idealized models could shift comparison standards without necessarily changing how participants saw themselves in the same way. An advertisement can influence what the ideal looks like. Whether you adopt that ideal, and what you do afterward, is a separate question.
When an ad makes the move in the open
Sometimes an ad makes this move in plain sight. A late-1920s Listerine advertisement, preserved in the Science History Institute's digital collections, ran with the headline “Are you unpopular with your own children?”
That is a remarkable question for a mouthwash advertisement to place in front of a parent. It does not begin with a product feature. It begins with the possibility that something is wrong in a relationship that matters deeply. The ad is not merely asking whether you want fresher breath. Its headline invites you to reconsider your social situation through a problem the product is positioned to address. Listerine's advertising of this era is often cited as a classic example of marketing that popularized “halitosis” as a social threat.
The existence of the ad does not tell us that it actually made parents insecure, or how much mouthwash it sold. It is evidence of a rhetorical strategy, not direct evidence of its psychological effect.
Not every problem an ad points to is invented
It would be a mistake to treat every problem an ad points to as invented. An unnoticed problem is not necessarily an invented one. So return to the pantry and separate three possibilities.
- An actual inconvenience. The owner regularly can't find ingredients and keeps buying a second jar of paprika because the first one vanished. A new storage system may genuinely help.
- A legitimate preference. The pantry works perfectly well, but the owner likes coordinated containers. That can be enough reason to buy them.
- An unsupported escalation. The ad implies that mismatched containers demonstrate incompetence, embarrassment, immaturity, or failure at adulthood. That broader judgment needs much more support than a photo of a shelf.
A preference does not have to be a necessity to be legitimate. But it should not have to become a personal failure before someone can sell you an improvement.
And the reverse matters too. An advertisement can reveal a genuine issue that someone simply hadn't noticed: a safety feature, a health screening, a better tool for a task you've been struggling with. The fact that a company profits from the solution does not prove the problem is imaginary.
Examine the diagnosis separately from the product
Here is a simple analytical move. Complete the sentence: This advertisement wants me to believe my problem is…
- …I can't find things.
- …I prefer coordinated storage.
- …my home makes me look inadequate.
Those are radically different diagnoses. Then ask a few follow-up questions:
- What makes this condition a problem?
- Whose standard is being used?
- How large is the problem, really?
- Does the product actually address it?
- Are there alternatives: a different product, a change in routine, or no purchase at all?
This is a compact version of rhetorical analysis applied to a single ad: identify the claim, the audience it constructs, and the appeals doing the work.
Persuasion knowledge without cynicism
The marketing researchers Marian Friestad and Peter Wright described something related in their persuasion knowledge model (1994). Audiences learn, over time, to recognize persuasive goals and tactics, and they use that knowledge when they interpret marketing. You already do this when you notice that a “limited time” banner is meant to rush you.
But recognizing persuasion shouldn't automatically turn into cynical disbelief. Research by Mathew Isaac and Kent Grayson (2017) found that accessing persuasion knowledge can sometimes increase credibility, when people conclude that the tactic itself is legitimate or appropriate. Knowing you're being persuaded is not the same as concluding you're being misled.
You can agree that a product is useful without accepting everything the advertisement says is wrong with you.
The same move beyond pantries
Once you can see the pattern, you will notice it well outside home storage. Productivity apps can make an ordinary to-do list look like a failure of discipline. Skincare ads can turn normal texture into a “concern.” Fitness content can make a perfectly healthy body look like a project that is behind schedule. Financial products can make a modest savings habit look like reckless unpreparedness.
In each case, the useful question is the same: is the ad pointing to a gap you actually experience, offering an improvement you would genuinely enjoy, or raising the standard until your ordinary life looks deficient? Sometimes the answer is the first or second, and the product is worth buying. The point is to decide that on the basis of your own diagnosis, not one that was handed to you along with the checkout button.
Social media makes this harder because the comparison standard often arrives without looking like an ad at all. A creator's perfectly organized pantry tour may be sponsored, affiliate-linked, or simply curated, but it still sets a benchmark. The same questions apply whether the standard comes from a brand or from someone you follow.
If you are the one making the ad
If you are the one writing the ad, the ethical principle runs the other direction: describe the problem accurately and proportionately, rather than making ordinary life defective by default.
- Lead with what the product does, and for whom.
- If you name a problem, name one your customers actually report.
- Let preferences be preferences; don't turn them into moral failures.
- Ask whether your headline would embarrass a reasonable customer who doesn't buy.
Ads built this way tend to attract the customers who will actually be satisfied, which is good ethics and good business.
The takeaway
Go back to the same pantry. Nothing about it physically changed while those ads were running. Maybe the new containers would genuinely help. Maybe the owner simply likes them. Either can be a sufficient reason. But those judgments are different from accepting the claim that the existing pantry represents a personal deficiency.
An advertisement can reveal a problem, redefine a problem, or make an optional improvement feel necessary. Before deciding whether you believe its solution, examine its diagnosis. Before asking whether the product solves your problem, ask who persuaded you that this was the problem.
To keep going, browse all articles, explore structured lessons on the Courses page, or see the illustrated guides on the Guides page.
Foundations Series · Volume 2
How to Analyze Any Argument
A visual guide to claims, evidence, assumptions, and reasoning. Stop reacting. Start diagnosing.
A visual method for seeing where an argument actually works, and where it does not. Name the claim, test the evidence, and find the assumption holding it all together.
Sources and further reading
- Sirgy, M. J. (1987). A social cognition model of consumer problem recognition. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15(4)
- Bruner, G. C., & Pomazal, R. J. (1988). Problem recognition: The crucial first stage of the consumer decision process. Journal of Services Marketing, 2(3), 43–53
- Richins, M. L. (1991). Social comparison and the idealized images of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 71–83
- Martin, M. C., & Kennedy, P. F. (1993). Advertising and social comparison: Consequences for female preadolescents and adolescents. Psychology & Marketing, 10(6), 513–530
- Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31
- Isaac, M. S., & Grayson, K. (2017). Beyond skepticism: Can accessing persuasion knowledge bolster credibility? Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 895–912
- Science History Institute Digital Collections, Listerine advertisement, “Are you unpopular with your own children?”
- Reclaiming Rhetoric, How Framing Changes What You Believe
Frequently Asked Questions
How does advertising create a problem to sell a product?
Ads can change the criterion you judge by, escalate an ordinary feature into a social judgment, and define the problem so their product looks like the obvious remedy.
What is problem recognition in consumer behavior?
It is the perception of a meaningful gap between your current state and a desired or expected state. Sirgy (1987) described it as a discrepancy between current state and a comparison standard.
Can ads raise our standards?
Research suggests they can. Richins (1991) found idealized ad images could raise comparison standards for attractiveness and lower satisfaction, though effects depend on the people and context.
What was the Listerine "unpopular with your own children" ad?
A late-1920s Listerine ad headlined "Are you unpopular with your own children?" It framed bad breath as a threat to family relationships, a classic example of selling the problem first.
What is the persuasion knowledge model?
Friestad and Wright's (1994) model of how people learn to recognize persuasion tactics and use that knowledge to interpret and respond to marketing messages.
Is every problem an ad mentions fake?
No. An unnoticed problem isn't necessarily invented, and profiting from a solution doesn't make a problem imaginary. Separate real inconveniences and preferences from unsupported escalations.
How can I evaluate an ad's claims?
Complete the sentence "This ad wants me to believe my problem is…" Then ask whose standard is used, how big the problem is, whether the product addresses it, and what alternatives exist.
Reclaiming Rhetoric is independent and reader-supported.
If this helped, you can help keep it free.
