The goodness in being evilly big

I am reading a lot about the evil of MNCs and how generations have been turned into consuming zombies by subversive media machineries – and, to be honest, I agree on a lot of points.

But, as is generally the case, these articles wholly ignore the positive fallout for the consumer in the brands being so big - when they have the Acts to safeguard them against monopolies and cartels, of course.

One aspect that occurred to me was liability.

MNC Brands are more liable for failing on their promise. Take the case of Mattel toys and the hullaballoo last year on toxic lead in their toys. Would a local toy maker in China been taken to task as thoroughly?
Closer home, if your new tyre bursts, which scenario has more probability of getting you a fast-track hearing – a Michelin-brand tyre with receipt or a local unknown manufacturer?
What chance do you have when your Nikki sneakers come apart on the second day? What when you have original Nike shoes with the proof of purchase?

MNCs by being bigger are more noticeable and are reliant on a mass market and a mass perception of their quality and service. In a third-world economy, where local standards of production are low and liability laws difficult to implement, the MNCs, by their standards that belong to the first-world and the fact that their actions, even in a remote third-world country, subject to closer scrutiny world-wide and capable of very wide repercussions, are usually more reliable for quality and processes.

Ask any Premier Padmini owner, or someone who’s shitted blood after eating a Zingo burger at a LFC – Lucknow Fried Chicken.