A case in point is Walmart. Walk into a store in Laval, Quebec (my neck of the woods) and you’ll see vastly different merchandise than what you’ll find in a W store in St. Petersburg, Florida. What the two have in common is huge selection, low prices and bang-up customer service.

Anyway, here's a metaphor: when one song like My Bloody Valentine becomes popular, different musicians interpret and play it with their own techniques, emotions etc. Compare Sara Vaughn's version to Coltrane's. Wow!

That's what cultures do with brands, even products.

Brazil is a living evidence. American brands are everywhere in the Brazilian marketplace. But very few of them reach the 'top of mind.' In retail and services industries, including airlines, they are minor players. Coca-Cola is strong, but Ambev brands are stronger. Marlboro is a niche choice for upscale smokers. And the 'Brazilian way of living' does not include American brands even if Nike is trying to get a place among football players. Big American banks tried to expose their flags at High Streets and they failed.

What is now enforced brand imperialism, in the last century was enforced commercial imperialism, and before that, enforced military imperialism.

But if history teaches us one thing (other than that we never learn anything from history) it is that empires fade, and that there will arise another dominant culture. And with that may another medium, other than brands, for that culture’s imperialistic endeavours.

As brands establish relationships with a broader audience their market exposure grows increasing their need to deliver on consumer wants & needs. Therefore it is probably only those brands that have been able to clearly define & maintain what their relation ship with their consumers is that are the brands which become juggernauts. Not just American brands will be able to achieve this, but it is predominantly American brands that do because of the experience American marketers have.

Interestingly, as the globe becomes smaller & people’s field of experience grows, there is a move to focus on smaller groups. Where people identified with their city or country they are now identifying with smaller groups based on interests & personal aspirations. So as cities & countries become more homogenised & part of the global market, people are shifting their cultural focus to sub cultures. Groups like skateboarders, footballers, people who like jazz music, etc are now becoming the main cultural reference.

Brands will succeed by targeting as large a market as they are now able to but they will be reaching a more & more diluted demographic as they do this. This growth is making room for far more precision targeted brands.

Yeah, right. This is just some arrogant thing the Americans cooked up in their egotistical minds. That's why all your foreign press is constantly whining about American brands taking over and that's why the anti-globalists are out in such force whenever there's a G7 meeting. The alternative local brands that you think are going to rise up to compete are already being wiped out!

Mr Rezende (below) is absolutely right. The perception is greater than the reality. Consider -- in Interbrand’s own list of Valuable Brands, only 3 out of the Top Ten brand portfolios is of US origin. (The others include Nestle, Unilever, L’Oreal etc.). Only two of the world’s top automotive brands. Etc etc.

This is not said to deny US importance in the brand world. But this simply reflects economic status : and as we all know (especially those nations that once wielded empires, be that the UK or Italy or whatever), economic status when you are at the top can only go in one direction.

Talk of homogenising the planet is simply Chicken-Licken stuff : “Turkey-Lurkey!!! The sky is homogenising!!”

And yes, it's creating a monoculture. A bloody boring world we all live in when every block has a Gap, Starbucks and Burger King.

The reason why so many are pissed at the fact that the Americana brands are globalizing the world's culture is because they cannot stand the fact that their own cultures are being assimilated into a global culture of McDonalds-eating, Coke-drinking, Gap/Nike-wearing people.

Whilst there are numerous similarities in Australian and US cultures and standards, there are significant differences. We take ourselves less seriously, have a different sense of humour and have a more laid back outlook. This is changing rapidly. With the flood of US TV shows there has been a marked cultural shift to the US outlook on life.

Monoculture has invaded and conquered our country and we are powerless to stop it.

I believe that America has been at the receiving end of a branding whiplash. While clearly the repository of some very powerful brands -- Coke, McD, Jordan, Nike, (..), it has hardly resulted in unleashing a coercive, MONOculture. One must recognise that European brands such as adidas, Ikea, Nestle, L'Oreal, have embarked on their very own brand dynamic -- borrowed/plagiarised/inspired by none other than the USA, and are now transcending the same with new & innovative methods to communicate & identify with consumers. Therefore, I contend that the US is clearly the world leader in imposing a 'branding process' that has seen a considerable growth and husbandry globally. Culture does tend to transcend the holistic branding mechanism -- the failure of Kelloggs in India is but one such example, a complete absence of Starbucks in France is another . However, a majority of countries and their willing consumers are as much defined by market trends that are empirically laid down in the US as they are ignorant about their own culture. They have embarked on a consumerist spree to buy that which brings good 'VALUE' to them: the counter-point in this debate. The only 'monoculture' that is prevalent is consumerism -- inspired by branding, but not running contrary to it. The local 'shop around the corner' is still very much in existence in Europe, and I don't believe that the US should be held responsible for that. Reading Ms. Klein, though clearly eye-opening, does tend to focus our views largely on continental American brands with overseas subsidiaries that are guilty of sweat-shop labour with little that spills over into Europe.

Sure we've got the formula for building great brands, and the money to burn on keeping them hip. But that's how it works. You build, retool and invest to keep your brands powerful and real.

We as a species wish to be identified by our local “tribe” on regional, national and international territories, and even this is changing as more and more cultures mix, and so grows a new identity. For the better I might ad – as this gives rise to new cultures and ideas, which are then embraced by the brands.

Branding allows different tribes to show off their culture - by bearing Nike to Adidas - Pepsi to Coca-Cola – verging on war mongering…

Brands are the new religions / icons of 21st century earth. We all need an identity whether it's the Brand “You” or the Brand “Us” – we all need a feeling of being part of something – part of something identifiable, recognized for being the strongest, wisest, sexiest - dictating “the x brand” way as best – brand crusades, like religious crusades?

Every culture (both local and global) in history has wanted some kind of dominance- branding is the same! And as with religion people will fight against another brand/ icon/ belief - in South Central LA if you wear the wrong “American” football colors in the wrong neighborhood you can be shot dead!

In 1992 I saw a news feed from Bosnia of a teenager shouting anti-American slogans - and to my bewilderment he was wearing a Nike baseball cap - how much does that say? Is it worn to confirm anti-Americanism – or is it worn to confirm his allegiance to the global culture Nike?