In the first part of this article, I argued there was a explanatory gap in our understanding of the effectiveness of marketing in determining consumer behaviour. While it’s widely accepted that the technical mainstay of modern advertising - the association made between products and symbolic imagery - is extremely effective, no one seems able to explain the cognitive dissonance created in consumers. On the one hand they reject any suggestion that the advertisement has produced any effect on them, yet the billions of dollars spent on marketing every year attest to the exact opposite. I concluded by suggesting that the gap in the explanation was ‘us’ - that the symbolic associations are reinforced as a result of various ingrained social dynamics that commonly exist within social groups. In this part of the article I would like to demonstrate how this can be possible. The task is to give an account of some of the social dynamics that might play a role in this process. I will argue that one of the most significant arises out of agressive and competitive instincts that exist within social groups. While in most contexts these behaviours would be considered relatively harmless, nevertheless they do much to reinforce the advertising message. The picture we get then, is one in which we ultimately deliver ourselves over to the corporations, irrespective of the degree to which we originally felt aloof from their designs.