On brands and conspicuous consumption

I have had this debate on many an occasion with different people, and never seemed to be satisfied with any of the explanations/arguments I heard - Why is a brand so important? Especially when it comes to articles of consumption. At some level, I believe that advertising/branding often ceases to be what it is supposed to be - informative and begins to encroach upon the territory of mental subversion and manipulation. I have seen a number of instances where products brazenly appeal to a subconscious vulnerability that people might have and feed on their weakness. Some societies even regulate advertising to vulnerable groups like children and rightly so. But it is surprisingly easy to influence the minds of some adults too. Personally, I deem falling for such machinations as an insult to one's intelligence.

I have seen a number of instances where an individual chooses Product X over Product Y simply because he (often she) wants to be seen using the former, not because it ranks higher on utility in the pure sense of the term. If, therefore, the same person were to objectively evaluate the 2 products in terms of their utilitarian aspects - any or more of the qualities such as effectiveness, durability, ease of use and then also include cost into the equation, the choice would seem obvious. Instead, I see many otherwise perfectly rational individuals assigning an overwhelmingly large weight to a fuzzy criterion called 'brand' in their decision making, which then distorts the entire process of choice. The reason I have a problem with that - such irrational impulsiveness is meant for lesser mortals. Those of us who have been endowed with the ability to reason, go beyond image management and choose objectively, have the responsibility of putting such faculties to good use, not fall for clever tricks called brands.

Perhaps brands are meant to serve the need for conspicuous consumption. People say things such as 'the ownership of this product makes you part of a select group.' Of fools, I often think. Each of whom is falling prey to mass-hysteria and collective ignorance. Rich people often find innovative ways of cheating each other by inventing such things as 'labels' and segments such as 'premium' and 'ultra'. I don't really have a problem with that. More money changing hands is good for economic activity (can't say the same for economic progress). When the bourgeois begins to behave with such aspirational impetuosity, it pains me. If only we thought for ourselves before giving in to such depravity.

Why Pranab Mukherjee is one of the worst FMs in recent history

With GDP growth at 5.3%, one would expect panic, firefighting, or at the very least, concern from the highest echelons of government. Not so in India. It is almost as if in its quest for political posturing, our government would be more concerned because this is now being referred to as the 'Hindu' rate of growth. Sacrilege for those who swear by secularism. Pranab Mukherjee, the man at the helm of affairs in the Finance Ministry (and some say the whole government), is, I think, one of the worst FMs India has seen in recent history. Not only  did he deliver a toothless budget when a bold one was expected, he is also personally responsible for the deteriorating investment climate in India.

At a time when growth is collapsing, the current account deficit is running high, one would at least expect the FM to support Balance of Payments by encouraging capital flows. His conjuring of the Vodafone tax specter to haunt investors (past, present and future) has been particularly damaging. In his desperate quest for bridging a fiscal deficit (which by the way is his own government's creation, thanks to Sonia Gandhi's pseudo socialist policies a la NREGS), he seems to have unleashed his sniffing taxman on all unsuspecting corporates.

"We cannot declare India a tax haven to attract FDI," he said. Very soon, Mr Mukherjee, you may not have any FDI left to tax. In your gold-rush, you have killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. Good luck with your revenue targets. 

What scares me most, is that Pranab Mukherjee, at some level, also refuses to acknowledge the situation that his government has created - time and again, when he would have been expected to stand up and take responsibility, he has instead conveniently passed the buck to the Europe crisis, coalition compulsions and market volatility. In other words, to anything but his own incompetence and apathy.

The arrogance of entitlement is apparent, when your Finance Minister claims in Parliament that "When we had no FDI, we did not eat lizards." Nice to know what your worst case scenario is, Mr FM. We shall be prepared. Even now, after the latest GDP figures have been released, a number of government advisers are choosing to hide behind a paltry Fixed Capital Formation growth (which some people have already claimed is due to a one-off).

Pranab Mukherjee is touted to be the next President of India. I think that would do just as well - it could offer some much needed relief and a welcome change in the Finance Ministry. Only, I wish this was applicable with retrospective effect.