Brand Icks: The winners of Style Invitational Week 1140
In Week 1140 we repeated a 2004 contest in which we asked you to name a real brand and pair it with a product or other entity that that brand name would be bad for. Even though we begged you to look at the Week 547 results so you wouldn’t send in the same answers again, the Empress received umpteen and a half entries — amid a total of some 2,000 — suggesting that Microsoft would be a bad name for an ED drug, gigolo, etc., and IBM a bad name for a laxative. There were also dozens of clever other ideas that didn’t get individual ink because they were offered by too many Losers: Sanka as a cruise ship; Planters for a funeral home; Jack in the Box for a mortuary; Sears for a tanning salon; iPad for an accountant. Some of the names submitted — including at least one of the examples for this week’s contest — were called bad names but were actually pretty good ones. It’s a fine line sometimes. If you entered Week 1140 and think one of your non-inking entries might fit the new contest, sure, send it again.
One-a-Day is a good name for a vitamin, but not for toilet paper. (Kristin Rahman, Silver Spring)
Dum Dum Pops are a good name for candy but a bad name for a sperm bank. (Jane Auerbach, Los Angeles)
2nd place and the notepad depicting $20 bills:
Bumble Bee is an okay name for tuna but a much too accurate one for a presidential debate. (Frank Osen, Pasadena, Calif.)
And the winner of the Inkin’ Memorial
Facebook is a good name for a social network, but a bad name for the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. (Drew Bennett, West Plains, Mo.)