I agree that the primary mechanism of ads is to affect the "landscape of cultural meanings" so that a product is associated with a broader meaning or image, but

I agree that the primary mechanism of ads is to affect the "landscape of cultural meanings" so that a product is associated with a broader meaning or image, but I don't think this is so different from the Mad Men philosophy, or that making purchasing decisions to feed your external image is so much more rational, and more relevant, than feeding your self-image. Maybe you choose your household cleaners just to impress your guests. You wear Axe Body Spray because of what it communicates about you ("Hey girl, I'm wearing Axe Body Spray right now"). I don't need bystanders while I drink Corona in order to feel like I'm the kind of guy who'd rather be chilling on a beach far from the daily grind. I'm making a statement to myself about the kind of person I am, one who endorses those values or that fantasy. There's got to be a way to take the bystander out of the equation. If we want to maintain the idea that we are all rational thinkers -- only "culture" is irrational, or other people's subconsciouses! -- how about: the advertiser is selling us a bit of meaning, thereby increasing the value of the product. Meaning is hard to obtain, and making purchasing decisions based on advertisements is one way for rational individuals to obtain this scarce resource.