I’m fascinated by the way a product name can supplant a more general, neutral word in common usage. In some ways, it’s a testament to successful marketing, but it also seems like our response to a successful product – the product that does everything we want and expect a tissue, or mop, or clementine to do. It’s a strangely semiotic transition, an acceptance of new signifiers which both specify and become broad in their usage. Some interesting ideas here. 🙂
demitasse, Los Angeles
Soy latte, double espresso
Infinite Jest, David Foster Wallace
At lunch the other day, a coworker asked if I wanted one of her Cuties and handed me a clementine.
I mean, genericized trademarks aren’t anything new. We often ask for Advil when we just mean ibuprofen, or a Kleenex when any tissue would do. And in my house, we “Swiffer” the floor (even if we’re just mopping) and “Clorox” the counter (even when we use Target-brand wipes). How about ChapStick? Saran Wrap? Do we “Xerox” or “photocopy” a document?
The list goes on. But for some reason, it’s unsettling to see this standard marketing strategy applied to produce. Sure, “an apple a day keeps the doctor away” is obvious marketing. It’s a slogan — you can…
View original post 380 more words