In many parts of the world, the health crisis is beginning to subside thanks to the coverage of vaccination campaigns. Just over a year ago the first laboratories announced the launch of the first immunizations for emergency use. However, almost at the same time as their presentation, public opinion began to make value judgments on them based on very varied elements. Among these, the country of origin was one of the most widely used. It was not for less.
On many other occasions in this blog we have pointed out that people resort to generalizations to make our decision-making process more efficient and faster. This tendency of the functioning of our mind inclines us to adopt biases and stereotypes that we acquire based on our life history and the environment in which we develop. However, not infrequently these prejudices are usually accompanied by misgivings and rejections of an almost irrational nature. In these years, a lot has been fought to fight them from many trenches with very different results.
Despite the fact that the most consumed brands in the world are usually transnational and the close relationship between the origin of the product or service and your brand has been blurred for several decades, certain ideas that escape the facts remain in the imagination. Some examples of these preconceptions may be that what comes from Japan is of high quality and great efficiency or that it comes from the United States always hides behind support for the latter’s world hegemonic system.
These correlations, often lacking real support, modify the perception of consumers and define the decisions they make. In some regions of the world there are campaigns to favor what is produced locally as a response to the actions of certain countries and to the consequences of globalization. Although the choice to consume something depends on many more factors, it is not a good idea to underestimate the weight that the link between the country of origin and the characteristics with which it is linked in people’s minds can play.
Returning to the situation described at the beginning of this blog post, groups quickly emerged that adhered to and rejected one and the other vaccine brands basing their choice on arguments such as «that such a country has such a history» or «everything that produces such country has such characteristics ”. In this case, the apprehension to ensure the biological one that would provide the most effective immunity added to this bias that is not infrequently repeated in many parts of the world. It did not help that with the passage of time certain States recognized some marks over others for various reasons.
At other times, virtuous relationships occur. This happens when the country brand joins in one way or another the adjectives admitted by a group to those of a brand that seeks shelter under its umbrella. An example of this is found when consumers in certain regions admit without much debate that what is produced in Germany has an implicit guarantee of high quality. Not infrequently some brands highlight in their promise of value the origin of what they offer to favor consumer preference.
One would expect that those who demand what the brands offer would make more objective judgments and stick to what is strictly demonstrable with evidence. This task demands an effort from the consumer that often involves investing time in finding out data and information. This investment can hardly be made by anyone due to a number of circumstances; ignoring from the beginning that the choices we make we seek to make as quickly and simply as possible.
At Acertiva we are aware of the biases that make the analysis of people a very complex and meticulous task. Thanks to our 18 years of experience analyzing the Latin American markets, we can put our team of experts in qualitative studies at your fingertips. Get in touch with us so you can tell us about your next project. Together we can write your next success story.