Oblivious to Childhood Branding

Apparently I have been living a life of denial.  It never occurred to me that companies are evil (or extremely intelligent?) enough to target children.  And not even children, infants and toddlers. I am still trying to figure out how I missed this strategic marketing.  Reflecting now.... I can see it everywhere.

This past Christmas I volunteered with Secret Families.  For this event, you shop for families in need in the Muncie area for Christmas.  I usually picked out the gifts for the young children.  Many of the toys for the boys were Harley Davidson motorcycles, CAT construction vehicles, and of course LEGO's.  Harley Davidson and CAT are adult brands that have secretly (or not so secretly to others) slid into the children's market.  

What I find even more interesting is that this article we read for class "Branded for Life?" was written in 2002.  In 2012, Forbes wrote a similar article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bridgetbrennan/2012/03/12/why-kids-and-parents-now-aspire-to-the-same-brands/

This article describes how women and their daughters desire the same products.  The author mentions that it has a lot to do with the child growing up around the brands the parent likes.  Sounds familiar...
"Branded for life?" mentions that future generations often inherit the loyalties of their parents.  The study referenced was of mothers and their daughters.  I find it very fascinating that both articles emphasize mother and their daughters.  I wonder if anyone would know why that relationship is emphasized rather than children and their parents in general.  

Many of the ideas in Branded for Life ring very true to me now that I am reflecting on them.  I have inherited MANY brands from my parents, but both my mother and father.  My brother also has inherited some brands from my parents, but I am not quite sure if he has inherited as many as I have.  Does this have to do with age difference, birth order, or something entirely different?