May. 20th, 2004 06:01 pm
Creatively challenged
Today, I spotted a poster for an outfit called Creativá (spelled exactly so, with the t underlined and an acute accent on the a; I guess I should just be thankful it begins with a capital letter). I had the same thought I did the first time I spotted it: My god, if there's a less creative name for a business out there, I've never seen it. Seriously; I've been thinking about it for several minutes now and I can't come up with something more banal.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Perhaps you could argue that those names are more creative, but I find them less so because they are exercises in seeking meaninglessness. It is creativity applied in what I find to be a profoundly unwholesome direction.
no subject
Perhaps you could argue that those names are more creative, but I find them less so because they are exercises in seeking meaninglessness. It is creativity applied in what I find to be a profoundly unwholesome direction.
I don't really blame them, though, since they're following the incentives laid out by present trademark law (where it's a lot easier to broadly trademark something "fanciful" than something that has actual meaning). You can use real words, of course, it's just that no one is ever going to put out an Accenture line of plush toys only to find out that Joe Accenture has been making such toys in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin since the 1950's, and it's harder (though not impossible) for "Accenture" to slip into generic status by accident.
Admittedly, there does seem to be a difference between modern names like Accenture and older ones like Kodak. But that may just be because we all grew up with the old ones.
www.shinolas.com
I seem to recall that Geoffrey Nunberg (resident linguist for NPR) is one of Shinola judges...