BRAND Love & Socio-Economics

A couple years ago I watched a movie about love and affects of socio-economic conditions, yesterday I happened to see it again. While I sat through the early part of the movie the episodes and dialogs sprouted thoughts and ideas. As soon as I had a moment to myself I decided to do some of my own hokey research and pen down my thoughts about BRAND love & socio-economics.

My obvious first destination was Lovemarks© (Saatchi & Saatchi), then InterBrand® (& Businessweek), followed by BrandZ© (MillwardBrown & FT) the order was just a coincidence. I ran up and down the various lists on these sites only to notice a strikingly polar insight around predominance of Brands in developed countries and regions of the world. Thats not to say that the developing countries/regions of the world don't respond to brands (having lived in one for many years I have experienced DEFAULT brands myself-Singer Sewing Machine, Mercedes Benz, Colgate Toothpaste, etc.) & not to argue that the metrics that assess equities are biased any more in favor of developed countries/regions. One of the most powerful weighted element PPP of the consumers in BRIC countries certainly stands to skew results in favor of the developing world.

Then why are brands linked to a countries of origin and its organizations HQ location? In a world where we have global brands is it fair to think of brands with a country of origin? Over a 100 yrs ago Singer Sewing Machines had one of the most global brands! Although Singer closed shop during the 80's, Singer is now assimilated and acculturated in most countries to an extent that it would be tough to argue Singer is a US Brand having started since the late 19th century.

Love has no boundaries that true as much for people as Brands and it is obviously independent of socio-economics! Socio-economics is a sales fundamental (for a shopper) that very marketers needs to remember and rise above and beyond to connect and communicate with the consumer.