I assume by now you've heard what a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is about - a country provides a stipend or even living wages to its citizens in an effort to make sure they can pay their bills and survive.

So why should brands care about a UBI? For most people, it sounds like socialist dogma fit more for Copenhagen that a corporation. Here's the first reason which has the most pragmatic appeal for why brands should care about this issue when thinking about the inevitable rise of machine automation:

If people can't afford to buy your stuff, you go away.

Seems extreme, doesn't it? Don't you immediately start to think about selling your products or services to other markets, eschewing the people who may be struggling with poverty or debt? Sadly, automation is not limited to the U.S. or one particular industry.

To save us some time on the automation issue I'll have you watch this excellent 15-minute video, Humans Need Not Apply in case you're still saying things like the following:

"Automation has happened before. This time isn't any different."

"There will be just as many jobs created by automation as there are jobs being replaced."

"Humans and machines will work together versus simply replace us."

My assumption for this article is not if automation is going to replace multiple jobs around the world, but when and to what degree. Please also consider this article a thought experiment if you're convinced automation will never be a serious threat to jobs - my goal is to have you learn about how a Universal Basic Income would change the nature of how consumers buy and brands sell to them in an automation driven world.

To get a fantastic intro to UBI, please take the time to check out Scott Santens, (@2noame on twitter) a top thought leader in space. Here's some of his recent work:

If you're one of the people who automatically assume that if we give someone a UBI all they'll do is slack off and avoid work, check out this excellent article in Motherboard by Whitney Mallett, The Town Where Everyone Got Free Money. It tells the true story of what happened in Dauphin, Manitoba in Canada in their "Mincome" (Minimum Income) experiment in the 70's. Here's a quote from the piece:

Between 1974 and 1979, the Canadian government tested the idea of a basic income guarantee (BIG) across an entire town, giving people enough money to survive in a way that no other place in North America has before or since. For those four years—until the project was cancelled and its findings packed away—the town's poorest residents were given monthly checks that supplemented what modest earnings they had and rewarded them for working more. And for that time, it seemed that the effects of poverty began to melt away. Doctor and hospital visits declined, mental health appeared to improve, and more teenagers completed high school.

There are multiple other experiments along these lines (particularly in Scandinavian countries) testing how similar programs could replace existing welfare models. And it's intriguing to wonder if a UBI would ever be remotely possible in the U.S., although I can't see Donald Trump giving it a fair shake.

Why Brands Should Embrace Basic

Beyond the fact that people need money to buy things, they also need a sense of purpose to avoid depression. A common thread among many UBI experiments is that people didn't uniformly work less when getting their stipend but were actually able to focus more on doing work they loved (this also includes focusing more time on parenting). This means in the relatively near future (10-20 years), many employees may work at jobs primarily to increase their wellbeing. No money needed.

Brands will also have to seriously start thinking about how to market to people who may be out of work but receiving a stipend of some kind. We'll all need to get over stigmas regarding welfare or "the dole" if large swaths of the population don't have jobs in 10 years but are receiving a UBI of some kind. This is an idea my friend Tim and I are exploring in our upcoming talk at SXSW 2016, The Dispensables: Automation, Humans and Brands.

From a competitive standpoint, I'm assuming brands will try to have their products be favored by governments utilizing a UBI that might provide goods versus currency as forms of payments to its citizens.

But overall, the premise beginning this article still rings true now that I'm drawing to a close. Brands interested in having their products and services survive should have the greatest vested interest in facilitating the growth of a UBI for the U.S. and around the world. If everyone receives the same stipend, people wouldn't have to suffer the same stigma of living on welfare or using food stamps to buy their food as they do now. The brands that appealed to their new needs or experiences living in a country with UBI will also be winners in our automated future.

I look forward to seeing which brands embrace this idea and how. I'll make sure to buy from you in a #NewEconomy where I hope I'll have UBI to rely on to cover my expenses.