Reklam Tasarımında Gözetim Kapitalizminin Görsel Dile Etkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, gözetim kapitalizminin reklam tasarımındaki görsel dile etkisini inceleyerek, dijital platform reklamlarının kişiselleştirilmiş estetik stratejiler yoluyla kullanıcı verilerini nasıl görünmez kıldığını açıklamayı amaçlamaktadır. Temel hedef, veri gözetiminin tasarımda nasıl estetize edildiğini ve bu sürecin kullanıcı-platform ilişkisini nasıl dönüştürdüğünü eleştirel bir çerçevede göstermektir. Yöntem olarak eleştirel görsel söylem analizi benimsenmiş; görsel metinlerin toplumsal, kültürel ve ideolojik bağlamlarda çözümlenmesiyle imgelerin üretim, dolaşım ve anlam rejimleri ortaya konmuştur. Renk, tipografi, kompozisyon ve imge seçimi gibi ögelerin gözetim mantığını nasıl gizlediği ya da meşrulaştırdığı sistematik biçimde incelenmiştir. Kapsam, 2023-2025 arasında amaçlı örnekleme ile seçilen reklamları içerir: Instagram’da Sephora ve Nike By You kampanyaları; TikTok’ta trendlere ve müziğe eklemlenen Dr Pepper reklamları; Google Ads’te arama geçmişine dayalı sağlık, seyahat ve finans görselleştirmeleri; YouTube’da içerik türüne göre hedeflenen teknoloji ve oyun reklamları; Meta Ads Library’de mikro hedeflemeli politik görseller. Veriler doğrudan gözlemle toplanmış; şeffaflık araçları ve güncel medya raporlarıyla desteklenmiştir. Analiz üç strateji saptamaktadır; kişiselleştirme, samimiyet ve güven inşası ile verinin estetize edilmesi. Bulgular, bu stratejilerin veri gözetimini estetik maskelerle görünmez kıldığını göstermektedir. “Performatif şeffaflık”, “kişiselleştirme illüzyonu” ve “estetik kamuflaj” kuramsal katkılar olarak önerilmektedir. Çalışma, gözetim kapitalizminin estetik bir rejim oluşturduğunu vurgulayarak, reklam tasarımında etik sorumluluk ve veri minimizasyonu önerileri sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Gözetim Kapitalizmi
• Görsel İletişim
• Dijital Platformlar
• Reklam Tasarımı

The Impact of Surveillance Capitalism on the Visual Language of Advertising Design

Abstract

This study examines the impact of surveillance capitalism on the visual language of advertising design, aiming to reveal how advertisements on digital platforms render user data invisible through personalized aesthetic strategies. The primary objective is to demonstrate, within a critical framework, how data surveillance is aestheticized in design and how this process transforms the user–platform relationship. Critical visual discourse analysis was adopted as the methodology; through the analysis of visual texts in their social, cultural, and ideological contexts, the regimes of production, circulation, and meaning of images are revealed. The ways in which elements such as color, typography, composition, and image selection conceal or legitimize the logic of surveillance were examined systematically. The scope of the study covers advertisements selected through purposive sampling between 2023 and 2025: Sephora and Nike By You campaigns on Instagram; Dr Pepper advertisements on TikTok embedded in trends and music; Google Ads visualizations of health, travel, and finance based on search history; technology and gaming advertisements targeted according to content type on YouTube; and micro-targeted political visuals in the Meta Ads Library. Data were collected through direct observation and were supported by transparency tools and recent media reports. The analysis identifies three strategies: personalization, intimacy and trust-building, and the aestheticization of data. The findings show that these strategies render data surveillance invisible through aesthetic masks. As theoretical contributions, the concepts of “performative transparency,” “personalization illusion,” and “aesthetic camouflage” are proposed. The study argues that surveillance capitalism constitutes an aesthetic regime and offers recommendations for ethical responsibility and data minimization in advertising design.

Keywords

• Surveillance Capitalism
• Visual Communication
• Digital Platforms
• Advertising Design

References

1. AdImpact. (2024, 1 Temmuz). Updated 2024 political projections. AdImpact Reports.
2. Andrejevic, M. (2020). Automated media. Routledge.
3. Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
4. Awisee. (2025, 4 Haziran). How food & beverages brands go viral on TikTok? Awisee Blog. https://awisee.com/blog/food-and-beverage-tiktok-marketing/ (02.09.2025).
5. Baldwin-Philippi, J. (2018). Data-driven campaigning. In N. Jomini Stroud & S. McGregor (Eds.), Digital discussions: How big data informs political communication (1st ed.). Routledge.
6. Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text. Fontana Press.
7. Benjamin, W. (2016). Tekniğin olanaklarıyla yeniden üretilebildiği çağda sanat yapıtı. Pasajlar (s. 50-87). Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
8. Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. BBC and Penguin Books.

9. Bucher, T. (2018). If...Then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.
10. Charan, K. (2024, 19 Eylül). Role of GDPR in social media marketing: Things to avoid. Sprinklr Blog. https://www.sprinklr.com/blog/gdpr-social-media-marketing/ (04.09.2025).
11. Chester, J., & Montgomery, K. C. (2019). The digital commercialization of US politics—2020 and beyond. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1443
12. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.
13. Deep Sync. (2025, 12 Şubat). Political advertising: The ultimate guide for 2024. Deep Sync. https://deepsync.com/political-advertising-ultimate-guide/ (04.06.2025).
14. Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3-7. http://www.jstor.org/stable/778828
15. Dupuis, R., Musicus, A. A., Edghill, B., Keteku, E., & Bragg, M. A. (2025). How TikTok influencers disclose food and beverage brand partnerships: Descriptive study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e60891. https://doi.org/10.2196/60891
16. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. Longman.
17. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon Books.
18. Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777-795. https://doi.org/10.1086/448181
19. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. International Publishers.
20. GroupM. (2024, 9 Aralık). This year next year 2024: Our global advertising forecast for 2024-2025. WPP Media. https://www.wppmedia.com/news/tyny-2025 (14.06.2025).
21. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82.
22. Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action, Volume 2: Lifeworld and system. Beacon Press.
23. Hoang, K. (2024, 20 Mayıs). How to boost bookings with Google Ads for travel agency. Mega Digital. https://megadigital.ai/en/blog/google-ads-for-travel-agency/ (14.06.2025).
24. Hoff, S. R. (2025, 24 Ocak). Meta’s new advertising rules: Key considerations for health and wellness businesses. Security, Privacy and the Law (Foley Hoag LLP). https://foleyhoag.com/news-and-insights/blogs/security-privacy-and-the-law/2025/january/meta-s-new-advertising-rules-key-considerations-for-health-and-wellness-businesses (19.06.2025).
25. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). Routledge.
26. Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2018). Technology firms shape political communication: The work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google with campaigns during the 2016 U.S. presidential cycle. Political Communication, 35(2), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1364814
27. Kung, Y., Wang, Y., Li, X., Hatrick, J., Liu, W., Wang, Q., Liang, J., & Liu, Y. (2025). Digital labor on TikTok and Douyin platforms: A scoping review. Review of Communication Research, 13, 212-227. https://doi.org/10.52152/RCR.V13.15
28. Lacan, J. (1998). The seminar of Jacques Lacan book XI: The four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis. W.W. Norton.
29. Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. MIT Press.
30. McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s mass communication theory (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
31. Meta Platforms Inc. (2025). Facebook Ads Library: health-related ads-Turkey. https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=active&ad_type=all&country=TR&is_targeted_country=false&media_type=all&q=sa%C4%9Fl%C4%B1k&search_type=keyword_unordered&sort_data[direction]=desc&sort_data[mode]=total_impressions (20.02.2026).
32. Mirzoeff, N. (2011). The right to look: A counterhistory of visuality. Duke University Press.
33. Nicols, V. C. (2024, 6 Aralık). Latino voters and political messaging in 2024. Wesleyan Media Project Post-Election Conference, Middletown, CT. https://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/2024/12/11/post-election-conference-probed-impact-of-political-ads-messaging/ (19.06.2025).
34. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.
35. Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials (4th ed.). SAGE.
36. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893-1907.
37. Singh, A., Halgamuge, M. N., & Moses, B. (2019). An analysis of demographic and behavior trends using social media: Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Social Network Analytics (pp. 87-108). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815458-8.00005-0
38. Silverman, C., & Bengani, P. (2024, 31 Ekim). Exploiting Meta’s weaknesses, deceptive political ads thrived on Facebook and Instagram in run-up to election. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-instagram-meta-deceptive-political-ads-election (14.06.2025).
39. Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. Yale University Press. Smythe, D. W. (1977). Communications: Blindspot of western marxism. Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1(3), 1-27.
40. Sriram, A. (2024, 4 Kasım). Meta to extend ban on new political ads after U.S. election. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/technology/meta-extend-ban-new-political-ads-after-us-election-2024-11-04/?utm_source (12.05.2025).
41. Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
42. Steyerl, H. (2012). The wretched of the screen. Sternberg Press.
43. TikTok Newsroom. (2024, April 4). Oxford Economics reports: SMB’s use of TikTok contributed $24.2 billion to U.S. economy in 2023. TikTok Newsroom. https://newsroom.tiktok.com/tiktok-economic-impact-report-2024-smb?lang=en (12.05.2025).
44. Vandewalker, I., Petry, E., Glavin, B., Franklin Fowler, E., Franz, M., Oleinikov, P., Floyd, B., & Ridout, T. (2024, December 19). Online ad spending in the 2024 election topped $1.35 billion. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/online-ad-spending-2024-election-topped-135-billion (12.05.2025).
45. Van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197-208.
46. Woolley, S. C., & Howard, P. N. (2019). Computational propaganda: Political parties, politicians, and political manipulation on social media. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190931407.001.0001
47. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
48. Zulli, D., & Zulli, D. J. (2022). Extending the Internet meme: Conceptualizing technological mimesis and imitation publics on the TikTok platform. New Media & Society, 24(8), 1872-1890. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820983603