Talk:List of fictional brands

I had listed the

Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster - Douglas Adams The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy [1] (http://hhgproject.org/entries/pangalacticgargleblaster.html)

but now I wonder - that isn't a *brand*, it is just a drink *recipe*. So it doesn't count, right?Jorge Stolfi 23:40, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Hmm. This is dicey. All drinks (barring water and pure alcohol and a few others) are mixtures of some kind, brand-wise or not. On the other hand, you can have, say, the Shirly Temple or the Bloody Mary, both highly famous and both mixtures, not brands. Famous, yes, but also not really 'brands'. When something like that comes up in a book then it's even harder to tell. -Litefantastic 11:16, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I've removed Loch Lomond Whisky because according to this page [2] (http://www.tintin.com/uk/doss_fr/ecosse_fr.html), it is/was a real brand (there's even a picture). - Lee (talk) 23:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Wow! Score one for Wikipedia... However, it doesn't seem to be a case of product placement because the bottle and logo do not match. But then I can't see the point of replacing a real brand by another real one. I would think that either the publisher did not know about the real Loch Lomond, or the real brand did not exist at the time the album was revised. Either way, the brand would surely count as "fictional". So methinks that the case is still open...Jorge Stolfi 00:01, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Because I am so very, very sad... I dug a little deeper. OK, according to this site [3] (http://www.francetv.fr/jeunesse/momes/tintin/en/aventures/albums/ile.html) the english translation of The Black Island (I'm presuming this was the first mention of Loch Lomond whisky) was made in 1966. According to this site [4] (http://www.scotchwhisky.net/distilleries/loch_lomond.htm) the Loch Lomond Distilleries opened in 1965/6 - ever so slightly earlier. I would argue that the publisher did know about it, and that it was a deliberate localization and not a switch to a believed fictional brand name. The mismatching labels would have been because of the Hergé's unfamiliarity with the whisky, considering after all, that he thought it was ficticious. But like you say, we'll probably never know for certain. - Lee (talk) 01:21, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • As such, do we leave it there? Make a note? -Litefantastic 22:01, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

On Seinfeld there was a running gag about the play turned movie "Rochelle, Rochelle." Does that count as a brand? Probably not, since then every TV show about the making of a fake TV show would count as being a fictional brand. Still, it's kind of relevant... Thoughts? --Carl 19:45, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Questionable 2 Mini-Projects 3 Edsil spoof from the Simpsons 4 Dapper Dan 5 Leftorium? 6 Futurama underwear 7 Another 8 Addendum 9 A Cold One 10 Why create fictional brands 11 Victory Gin 12 "Jooky - it's a party in a can"

Questionable

How sure are we that:

• In & Out Burger - The Big Lebowski
• Ori-dent electric toothbrushes - Seinfeld

Are not real? There is an In-N-Out chain of burger stores, and Oradent is a real brand name for dental stuff. - Nunh-huh 04:02, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• You know, that might make a great "See Also" article-- brands people think are fictional, but are actually real...--Carl 19:09, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• I love In-N-Out Burger. Regarding other real brands that people think are fake, howabout "Fruit Brute" from Pulp Fiction? Apparently once a real cereal, although for years I thought it was a funny joke. - Eisnel 06:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mini-Projects

Various works have lots of fictinoal brands and other things; we could do little projects on Lake Wobegon and the other Prairie Home Companion show, Firesign Theatre, compiling stuff rather than plinking away at it as they occur to us. I'll consider doing Firesign cuz I have a lot of the records.

• There's also The Truman Show - since they were mocking product placement in that film, all the brands being blatantly plugged weren't real. Average Earthman 11:40, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Edsil spoof from the Simpsons

On a Simpsons episode, Homer discovers that he has a long lost brother that owns a car manufacturing company. His brother allows Homer to design a new car. Can anyone remember the name of that car? mydogategodshat 15:45, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• That's easy. Much like the Edsel was named after a Ford family member (Henry Ford's son, and Henry the 2nd's father), Herb Powell's "monstrosity" was named after his brother: it was called "the Homer". --YoungFreud 21:41, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dapper Dan

Isn't Dapper Dan pomade a real product? RickK 15:01, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

here's what I found

  By metroshane on Tuesday, August 07, 2001 - 9:34 am:Edit Post
  Dapper Dan was a real product, just not pomade. 
  In the early 50's (I think) there was a Doll that you could dress up in different suits and stuff. 
  His name was dapper Dan. 

on http://www.gretschpages.com/discus-archive/messages/28/1885.html?997724342

which I got to by googling "dapper dan" pomade ;Bear 05:32, 2004 Apr 23 (UTC)

Leftorium?

Does the Leftorium count as a brand, since there's only one store, and it doesn't heavily market itself (at least as far as we've seen on the show)? --Carl 14:02, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Although we popularly think of branding as something done only by large corporations, its actual definition is not so restricted. Branding is the sum of all activities designed to promote a unified image for a product, product line, or company. It is the process of creating expectations about what the product or company stands for. When a small business operator chooses a name for its company or product, designs a logo, designs labels and packaging, decorates a store, or engages in any form of advertising or promotion, they are doing branding. As for whether the Leftorium is a brand, to answer that, you just have to ask yourself, "Do the people of Springfield have any image in their minds about what to expect if they were to go to the Leftorium to purchase goods?" If Springfielders do have expectations, and the expectations were created by the company, then branding has occured. mydogategodshat 14:44, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Futurama underwear

The following entry caught my attention:

• Faster Than Light Briefs - underwear, shares abbreviation with Fruit of the Loom - Futurama

Are FTL briefs distinct from Lightspeed Briefs, perhaps a case of product one-upmanship?

Anville 14:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another

Twentyman Tea is a real company (http://www.twentymantea.com); although I've never read the Christie novel, the company seems to have been around for quite some time.

Addendum

Whoops: Twentyman Tea is mentioned in a Dorothy Sayers novel, not an Agatha Christie; I screwed up the HTML; and it's an older novel than I had thought. The web site is down right now but I'm pretty sure that the Twentyman family has been in the tea business since the 19th century in Ceylon. It's been a long day... :-/

A Cold One

Is there any evidence that the cold ones on Homestar Runner are actually alcoholic? -Branddobbe 05:56, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Why create fictional brands

I think that there is some misinformation in the paragraph that begins "However, unauthorized use of real trademarks...". As I understand it (IANAL), there is a "fair use" exemption under trademark law that would allow a writer to use trademarks in works of fiction without permission of the trademark owner. A writer still needs to be careful. If the writer portrays a particular trademarked product in a bad light (and has a best seller) he may still attract the attention of corporate lawyers. And if he writes some thing in bad faith, or is libelous, he will probably be sued. But if I said in a story "Sue made plans to meet Gary at Starbucks", I don't need permission from Starbucks. (see [5] (http://inta.org/info/faqsU.html) for more info.) gK ¿? 13:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bottom line, it often depends on real-life factors beyond what the law seems to say should happen! For any non-incidental, commerical use without permission, you could become tomorrow's headlines, even if you might win the issue at trial (a million dollars from now). Even a 'fair use' defense has to be proven, and that costs money. Even a 'classic' fair use could upset the wrong people. Why take the risk with a company that may stop at nothing to appear to be zealously protecting its brands? Lupinelawyer 09:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Victory Gin

I feel obliged to point out that Victory Gin is indeed a true brand - produced by Richmond Distillers of Cheshire.

I took a picture as proof - here (http://img222.exs.cx/img222/2087/victorylabel4pt.jpg)

I have no idea if they know about Orwell, but I really hope that they do, and this is all a big joke. Either way, it's good cheap gin.

• Huh. I was the one who added victory gin (as well as Victory Cigarettes, Victory Pencil Erasers, Victory pool accesories, etc.) and I have to confess that is odd. -Litefantastic 17:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Jooky - it's a party in a can"

The "Jooky" commercials weren't for 7 Up; they were for Sprite [6] (http://slate.msn.com/id/1606/). But if I remember correctly, I don't even think Jooky was carbonated but instead more like an artificially flavored fruit punch a la Hawaiian Punch. The jingle specifically referred to "fruity" taste. I just wanted to get a heads-up on this before I move it from Carbonated Beverages to Other beverages. --Damian Yerrick 00:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)