Brand

Brand (pronounced brand)

(1) The kind, grade, or make of a product or service, as indicated by a stamp, trademark, or such.

(2) A mark made by burning or otherwise, to indicate kind, grade, make, ownership (of both objects and certain animals) etc.

(3) A mark formerly put upon slaves or criminals, made on the skin with a hot iron.

(4) Any mark of disgrace; stigma.

(5) A kind or variety of something distinguished by some distinctive characteristic.

(6) A set of distinctive characteristics that establish a recognizable image or identity for a person or thing.

(7) A conflagration; a flame.  A burning or partly burned piece of wood (now rare except regionally although the idea of brand as “a flaming torch” still exists as a poetic device).  In the north of England & Scotland, a brand is a torch used for signalling. 

(8) A sword (archaic except as a literary or poetic device).

(9) In botany, a fungal disease of garden plants characterized by brown spots on the leaves, caused by the rust fungus Puccinia arenariae

(10) A male given name (the feminine name Brenda was of Scottish origin and was from the Old Norse brandr (literally “sword” or “torch”).

(11) To label or mark with or as if with a brand.

(12) To mark with disgrace or infamy; to stigmatize.

(13) Indelibly to impress (usually in the form “branded upon one’s mind”)

(14) To give a brand name to (in commerce including the recent “personal brand).

Pre 950: From the Middle English, from the Old English brond & brand (fire, flame, destruction by fire; firebrand, piece of burning wood, torch (and poetically “sword”, “long blade”) from the Old High German brant, the ultimate source the primitive Indo-European bhrenu- (to bubble forth; brew; spew forth; burn).  It was cognate with the Scots brand, the Dutch & German Brand, the Old Norse brandr, the Swedish brand (blaze, fire), the Icelandic brandur and the French brand of Germanic origin.  The Proto-Slavic gorěti (to burn) was a distant relation.  Brand is a noun & verb, brander is a noun, brandless is an adjective, branded is a verb and branding is a noun & verb; the noun plural is brands.  Forms (hyphenated and not) like de-brand, non-brand, mis-brand & re-brand are created as required and unusually for English, the form brander seems never to have been accompanied by the expected companion “brandee”.

Some work tirelessly on their “personal brand”, a term which has proliferated since social media gained critical mass.  Lindsay Lohan’s existence at some point probably transcended the notion of a personal brand and became an institution; the details no longer matter.

The verb brand dates from the turn of the fifteenth century in the sense of “to impress or burn a mark upon with a hot iron, cauterize; stigmatize” and originally described the marks imposed on criminal or cauterized wounds, the used developed from the noun.  The figurative use (often derogatory) of “fix a character of infamy upon” emerged in the mid-fifteenth century, based on the notion of the association with criminality.  The use to refer to a physical branding as a mark of ownership or quality dates from the 1580s and from this developed the familiar modern commercial (including “personal brands”) sense of “brand identity”, “brand recognition”, “brand-name” etc.  Property rights can also attach to brands, the idea of “brand-equity”.

Although it’s unknown just when the term “branding iron” (the (almost always) iron instrument which when heated burned brands into timber, animal hides etc) was first used (it was an ancient device), the earliest known citation dates only from 1828.  The “mark made by a hot iron” was older and in use since at least the 1550s, noted especially of casks and barrels”, the marks indicating variously the maker, the type of contents, the date (of laying down etc) or the claimed quality..  By the early-mid nineteenth century the meaning had broadened to emphasise “a particular make of goods”, divorced from a particular single item and the term “brand-name” appears first to have been used in 1889, something significant in the development of the valuable commodity of “brand-loyalty” although that seems not to have been an acknowledged concept in marketing until 1961.  The idea of “brand new” is based on the (not always accurate) notion a brand was the last thing to be applied to a product before it left the factory.

BMC ADO16 brands, clockwise from top left: Wolseley 1300, Riley Kestrel 1300, MG 1300, Austin 1300 GT, Morris 1100 and Vanden Plas Princess 1300.

The British Motor Corporation's (BMC) ADO16 (Austin Drawing Office design 16) was produced between 1962-1974 and was a great success domestically and in many export markets, more than two million sold in 1.1 & 1.3 litre form.  The Austin & Morris brands made up the bulk of the production but versions by Wolseley, Riley, MG & Vanden Plas versions were at various times available.  All were almost identically mechanically with the brand differentiation restricted to the interior trim and the frontal panels.  This was the high (or low) point of the UK industry's “badge engineering”.  The abbreviation ADO is still sometimes said to stand for “Amalgamated Drawing Office”, a reference to the 1952 creation of BMC when the Austin & Morris design & engineering resources were pooled.  Like many such events subsequently, the amalgamation was more a “takeover” than a “merger” and the adoption of “Austin Drawing Office” reflected the priorities and loyalties of Leonard Lord (later Lord Lambury, 1896–1967), the former chairman of Austin who was appointed to head the conglomerate.  The appearance of “Amalgamated Drawing Office” appears to be a creation of the internet age, the mistake still circulating.

US market 1964 MG Princess 1100 brochure.  The advertising theme may have been ambitious but BMC also described MG's other US market ADO16 (a LHD (left-hand-drive) version of the home market MG 1100) as a "sports sedan" which, although legally "mere puffery", seems at least misleading.

BMC's six-brand spread for ADO16 is well-known and often used as a case-study for the way the approach should and should not be pursued.  A neglected footnote however also existed: the MG Princess 1100, sold in the US between 1964-1966.  The MG Princess was the by then familiar Vanden Plas 1100 (all with a manual transmission, no automatic ever offered) modified to the extent of being adorned with an MG badge on the boot (trunk) lid and hubcaps although it must have been though that wasn't getting the message across because in mid-1964 the octagonal symbol was added also to the Vanden Plas grill.  The rationale behind this curious hybrid was the perception the US market would respond well to a “luxury version” of the basic vehicle (and how the US industry would handle that notion in the next two decades proved the idea was sound) but the “Vanden Plas” name was essentially unknown in the US whereas MG had strong “brand recognition” because of the post-war success of first the updated pre-war “square riggers” (the TC, TD & TF (1945-1955)) and the later MGA (1955-1962) & MGB (1962-1980) sports cars.  Thus the MG Princess 1100 was introduced in February 1964 at the New York Motor Show but while the MGB and smaller MG Midget (1961-1979) enjoyed strong demand, BMC shifted a paltry 156 of the MG Princess and in 1966 the model was withdrawn from the US market.

Since the beginnings of mass-production made possible by powered industrial processes and the ability to distribute manufactured stuff world-wide, brand-names have become (1) more prevalent and (2) not of necessity as distinctive as once they were.  Historically, in commerce, a brand was an indication of something unique but as corporations became conglomerates they tended to accumulate brands (sometimes with no other purpose than ceasing production in order to eliminate competition) and over time, it was often tempting to reduce costs by ceasing separate development and simply applying a brand to an existing line, hoping the brand loyalty would be sufficient to overlook the cynicism.  The British car manufactures in the 1950s use the idea to maintain brand presence without the expense of developing unique products and while originally some brand identity was maintained with the use of unique mechanical components or coachwork while using a common platform, by the late 1960s the system had descended to what came to be called “badge engineering”, essentially identical products sold under various brand-names, the differences restricted to minor variations in trim and, of course, the badge.

Grounds of the Mercedes-Benz factory decorated in honor of a visit to Stuttgart by Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945), the display visible from his aircraft (1936, top left), a Mercedes-Benz showroom in Munich, Lenbachplaz (1935, top right) and 1938 Mercedes-Benz W125 Rekordwagen (bottom).  Although, tucked away in a corner of the corporate website there is a single page which contains a rather perfunctory acknowledgement of company’s complicity in some of the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazi regime between 1933-1939 there’s little attempt to discuss the matter, an understandable reticence and quite a gap in the otherwise extensively documented history which dates back to 1886 with the debut of what is claimed to be the world’s “first automobile”.  Brand-management can be as much about what is left unsaid or hidden as what is projected. 

When used in events other straight-line speed record attempts (ie where corners needed to be negotiated) the streamlined version of the W125 Formel-Rennwagen (race car built in accord with defined rules) didn’t use the spats (fender-skirts) covering the wheels.  It was used thus on Berlin’s high-speed Avusrennen with its two, uniquely long straights and differed from the conventional W125 in that it was powered by V12 engine rather than the usual big-bore straight-eight, the lower hood (bonnet) line further reducing drag.  Fitted with the spats, W125 Rekordwagen (record car) was used in 1938 to achieve a speed of 432.7 km/h (269 mph) over the flying kilometre, then the fastest timed speed achieved on a public road and a record which stood until 2017.  It’s now on display in the Mercedes-Benz Museum in Stuttgart, although, the swastika with which it was once adorned has been removed from the aluminum skin (displays of the swastika banned in Germany except as authorized).

Australia Day vs Invasion Day: The case for a re-brand

Although it came to be known as “Australia’s national day” and in some form or other had been celebrated or at last marked since the early nineteenth century, as a large-scale celebration (with much flag waving) it has been a thing only since the 1988 bi-centennial of white settlement.  What the day commemorated was the arrival in 1788 in what is now Sydney of the so-called “First Fleet” of British settlers, the raising of the Union Flag the first event of legal significance in what ultimately became the claiming of the continental land-mass by the British crown.  Had that land been uninhabited, things good and bad would anyway have happened but in 1788, what became the Commonwealth of Australia was home to the descendants of peoples who had been in continuous occupation sine first arriving up to 50,000 years earlier (claims the history extends a further 10,000 remain unsupported by archaeological evidence); conflict was inevitable and conflict there was, the colonial project a violent and bloody business, something the contemporary records make clear was well understood at the time but which really entered modern consciousness only in recent decades.

What the colonial authorities did was invoke the legal principle of terra nullius (from the Latin terra nūllīus (literally “nobody's land”)) which does not mean “land inhabited by nobody” but “land not owned by anyone”.  The rational for that was the view the local population had no concept of land “ownership” and certainly no “records” or “title deeds” as they would be understood in English law.  Given that, not only did the various tribes not own the land but they had no system under which they could own land; thus the place could be declared terra nullis.  Of late, some have devoted much energy to justifying all that on the basis of “prevailing standards” and “accepted law” but even at the time there were those in London who were appalled at what was clearly theft on a grand scale, understanding that even if the indigenous population didn’t understand their connection to the land and seas as “ownership” as the concept was understood in the West, what was undeniable by the 1830s when the doctrine of terra nullius was formally interpolated into colonial law was that those tribes understood what “belonged” to them and what “belonged” to other tribes.  That’s not to suggest it was a wholly peaceful culture, just that borders existed and were understood, even if sometimes transgressed.  Thus the notion that 26 January should better be understood as “Invasion Day” and what is more appropriate than a celebration of a blood-soaked expropriation of a continent is there should be a treaty between the colonial power (and few doubt that is now the Australian government) and the descendants of the conquered tribes, now classified as “first nations”.  Although the High Court of Australia in 1992 overturned the doctrine of terra nullius when it was recognized that in certain circumstances the indigenous peoples could enjoy concurrent property rights to land with which they could demonstrate a continuing connection, this did not dilute national sovereignty nor in any way construct the legal framework for a treaty (or treaties).

The recognition that white settlement was an inherently racist project based on theft is said by some to be a recent revelation but there are documents of the colonial era (in Australia and elsewhere in the European colonial empires) which suggest there were many who operated on a “we stole it fair and square” basis and many at the time probably would not have demurred from the view 26 January 1788 was “Invasion Day” and that while it took a long time, ultimately that invasion succeeded.  Of course, elsewhere in the British Empire, other invasions also proved (militarily) successful but usually these conflicts culminated in a treaty, however imperfect may have the process and certainly the consequences.  In Australia, it does seem there is now a recognition that wrong was done and a treaty is the way to offer redress.  That of course is a challenging path because, (1) as the term “first nations” implies, there may need to be dozens (or even hundreds according to the count of some anthropologists) of treaties and (2) the result will need to preserve the indivisible sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia, something which will be unpalatable to the most uncompromising of the activists because it means that whatever the outcome, it will still be mapped onto the colonial model.

As the recent, decisive defeat of a referendum (which would have created an constitutionally entrenched Indigenous advisory body) confirmed, anything involving these matters is contentious and while there are a number of model frameworks which could be the basis for negotiating treaties, the negotiating positions which will emerge as “the problems” are those of the most extreme 1% (or some small number) of activists whose political positions (and often incomes) necessitate an uncompromising stance.  Indeed, whatever the outcome, it’s probably illusory to imagine anything can be solved because there are careers which depend on there being no solution and it’s hard to envisage any government will be prepared to stake scare political capital on a venture which threatens much punishment and promises little reward.  More likely is a strategy of kicking the can down the road while pretending to be making progress; many committees and boards of enquiry are likely to be in our future and, this being a colonial problem, the most likely diversion on that road will be a colonial fix.

One obvious colonial fix would be a double re-branding exercise.  The New Year’s Day public holiday could be shifted from 1 January to December 31 and re-branded “New Year’s Eve Holiday”, about the only practical change being that instead of the drinking starting in the evening it can begin early in the day (which for many it doubtless anyway does).  Australia Day could then be marked on 1 January and could be re-branded to “Constitution Day” although given the history that too might be found objectionable.  Still, the date is appropriate because it was on 1 January 1901 the country and constitution came into existence as a consequence of an act of the Imperial Parliament, subsequently validated by the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (an institution created by the London statute).  It’s the obvious date to choose because that was the point of origin of the sovereign state although in the narrow technical sense, true sovereignty was attained only in steps (such as the Statute of Westminster (1931)), the process not complete until simultaneously both parliaments passed their respective Australia Acts (1986).  The second re-branding would be to call 26 January “Treaty Day” although the actual date is less important than the symbolism of the name and Treaty Day could be nominated as the day on which a treaty between the First Nations and the Commonwealth could be signed.  The trick would be only to name 26 January as the date of the signing, the year a function of whenever the treaty negotiations are complete.  The charm of this approach is the can can be kicked down the road for the foreseeable future.  Any colonial administrator under the Raj would have recognized this fix.

Caprice

Caprice (pronounced kuh-prees)

(1) A sudden, unpredictable change, as of one's mind or the weather.

(2) A tendency to change one's mind without apparent or adequate motive; whimsicality; capriciousness; a disposition to be impulsive.

(3) In music, as capriccio, a term for a kind of free composition.

(4) A brief (and hopefully torrid) romance; a fling

(5) A model name used by General Motors (GM) in several markets.

1660-1670: From the French caprice (whim) & capricieux (whimsical), from the Italian capriccioso from capriccio (a shivering), possibly from capro (goat), from the Latin capreolus (wild goat).  Another theory, drawn from folk etymology, connects the Italian compound capo (head) + riccio (hedgehog) suggesting a convulsive shudder in which the hair stood on end like a hedgehog's spines.  The application in musical composition to describe a kind of free composition dates from the 1690s, the sense drawn from the Italian capriccio (the music characterized by a “sudden start or motion”); earlier it meant "a prank, a trick".  The closest synonym is probably whim but vagary, notion, fancy & fling can, depending on context, summon a similar meaning.  An act of caprice differs from a fiat in that the latter, although it may be arbitrary, is an authoritative sanction issued by those vested with a certain legal authority.  The descendents include the Danish kaprice, the German Caprice and the Romanian: capriciu.  Caprice & capriciousness are nouns, capricious is an adjective and capriciously is an adverb; the noun plural is caprices.

Infamously capricious in her youth, Lindsay Lohan is now a mature and responsible mother.

Ford, and the rest of the industry, learned much from the Edsel debacle of the late 1950s.  Although unlucky to be launched into the teeth of the worst recession of the post-war boom, mistakes in conception, design and production had been many and may anyway have been enough to kill the thing.  The lessons learned had been expensive, depending on the source, a loss between US$250-300 million is usually quoted and that was at a time when a million dollars was a lot of money although how much of that loss was real or a product of taking advantage of accounting rules has never been clear.  None of the most expensive aspects to design and build (1) engine, (2) transmission, (3) suspension, (4) body platforms and (5) assembly plant production lines were unique to the Edsel, all being shared variously with other Ford, Mercury and Lincoln models; surprisingly little was exclusive to the Edsel, indeed that sameness was one of the complaints about a car which Ford had puffed-up as “all new”.  That essentially left interior and exterior trim, body panels, marketing and the distribution network to pay for.  Ford certainly lost a lot of money on the Edsel but perhaps not quite as much as the books suggest.  Still, it was a big loss and the corporate capriciousness wasn’t repeated in the 1960s.  The Edsel had been a bad implementation of a sound concept: a spread of brand-identities across a market with a wide price-spread so a corporation can achieve economies of scale using many of the same resources to produce products which to compete both at the low-end on cost-breakdown and in segments where prestige or exclusivity matters.  Ford’s notion was that General Motors (GM) and Chrysler were at the time better able to cover the market because both had more brand-names, GM having five: Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick & Cadillac as did Chrysler: Plymouth, Dodge, De Soto, Chrysler & Imperial.  Ford had only three: Ford, Mercury & Lincoln (the short-lived Continental Division (1956-1957) a failure).

Thus the attraction of adding another, an idea which worked well with products like washing powder although, in the auto industry, costs tended to be higher and the model wasn’t essential to cover a broad market, Mercedes-Benz for decades successfully using the one brand for diesel taxis, trucks small and large, Formula One racing cars and cars up to the grandest limousines.  Indeed, the idea by Daimler-Benz to resurrect adopt the long moribund Maybach name to sit atop the range was a failure, reflecting the misunderstanding by the MBA-types involved of the value of the Mercedes-Benz brand which had been acceptable for kings, queens, popes, presidents and potentates.  Only salesmen with no background would think dotcom millionaires and the other newly-rich would be more attracted to Maybach than Mercedes.  Another brand might not have been a bad idea but Maybach should have been positioned as a platform for the front wheel drive and other categories which, frankly have only devalued the three-pointed star; while some have been good cars, they simply were not Mercedes-Benz as they once were understood. 

Nor is the idea infinitely scalable.  GM at one time had nine divisions and the pattern evolved that the brand names tend to appear in times of economic buoyancy (al la Edsel) and disappear during or after recessions (Edsel & De Soto after 1958; Imperial after the first oil shock, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Mercury and Plymouth in the wake of the global financial crisis from 2008).  So, while the 1960s were about the most buoyant years yet, Ford didn’t repeat quite the mistake though they certainly repeated one aspect of the Edsel debacle although the implications of that wouldn’t play out for decades.

1965 Ford LTD.

In 1965, Ford reverted to the business model which had worked in pre-Edsel times and introduced the LTD as an up-market option for their full-sized Galaxie.  It seemed a good idea at the time and it was, the option proving popular with customers and lucrative for Ford, the option package costing about US$175 to install yet it added some US$335 to the sticker price and the psychology of turning the mainstream Ford into a “luxury car” seemed also to exert a pull on the buyers’ wallets because it was possible to work through the option list and add some 30% to the bottom line.  Unlike most Galaxie customers, LTD buyers were inclined to tick the boxes.  Even at the time, although generally impressed with the thing (and in fairness to Ford much attention had been devoted to some basic engineering to ensure it was quieter and smoother than before), reviewers did ponder quite what the effect of moving a Ford up-market would be on the companion Mercury Division, positioned since 1938 as up-market from Ford, yet well short of Lincoln.  The corporation aimed to solve that problem by maintaining some differentiation between the two brands and to some degree this worked for decades but eventually the point of maintaining three distinct layers had ceased to have value for Ford and in 2011 Mercury was shuttered.

1965 Ford LTD.

The LTD (it apparently meant “Lincoln Type Design” and not “Limited”) did though have quite an effect on the completion with the entry level ranges of others soon augmented with similar options.  Chevrolet called their effort the “Caprice”, Plymouth, like Ford” preferred a TLA (three letter acronym) and opted for “VIP” while AMC used “DLP” which apparently stood for “Diplomat”.  Of them all, only the Caprice and the LTD endured but the concept overtook the industry which switched increasingly to adding variations of their basic models with as many “luxury” fittings added as the budget would permit.  There were critics at the time who criticized all this as “gingerbread” but buyers responded and soon tufted, pillowed upholstery in crushed velour or even leather could be had in even the most humble showrooms.  A popular name for such models was “Brougham”, borrowed from a nineteenth century horse-drawn carriage named after a member of the UK’s House of Lords and even if most weren’t aware of the etymology, they knew it sounded suitably aristocratic which was all that mattered.  What came in retrospect to be known as the “brougham era” lasted into the 1980s.

1969 Chevrolet Caprice four-door hardtop.

While never the biggest sellers, dealers liked to have four-door hardtops on display because of the perception they generated showroom traffic and although the collector market prefers two-doors (especially convertibles), the four-door hardtops were often Detroit’s most ascetically successful coachwork for full-sized cars.  In 1969, Chevrolet restricted the Caprice range to two & four door hardtops because the more elaborate interior trim (compared to the cheaper Biscayne, Bel Air & Impala) was more susceptible to sun damage which precluded offering a convertible.  That may have been the reason why in the same era some European manufacturers switched from timber veneer to leather for some vulnerable surfaces in a few convertibles although the published explanations were sometime different.  Improvements in the durability of materials meant that when the revised range was released in 1973, a convertible Caprice was added to the range.

1981 Holden WB Caprice.

Holden, the General Motors operation in Australia began selling their own Caprice in 1974.  In the usual way it was a more elaborately-appointed version of an existing model and in GM tradition replaced an existing badge as the top-of-the-range, the Statesman de Ville relegated to become the entry-level of the long-wheelbase cars, the basic Statesman (always aimed at the hire-car business) retired, mirroring Ford which dropped its Fairlane Custom and, added the Marquis (a name borrowed from Mercury) as a Caprice competitor atop the Fairlane 500.  The early Statesman & Caprice never quite matched the appeal of the competition but it did go out in surprisingly fine style, the WB range (1980-1984) a remarkably successful re-styling of the HQ-HJ-HX-HZ platform (1971-1980) which endured for almost half a decade after the smaller, Opel-based Commodore had replaced the mainstream models.  Developed in unusual secrecy, Holden were miffed to learn Ford’s ZJ Fairlane & FC LTD (released in 1979) had beaten them to the market by six months and included the additional side window they’d hoped would make such a splash on the WB.  Instead, they made much of the Caprice having a grill made from steel.  Not that long before, all grills had been made from steel but most had long switched to extruded plastic so to have one genuinely hand-assembled in steel was a point of differentiation although the public response was muted.  Despite the age of the platform, the attention to the underpinnings which began to be taken seriously after 1977 meant the thing was a capable, if thirsty road car and among the dedicated customer base, there was genuine regret when production ended in 1984.  In 1990, Holden revived the name for a stretched Commodore (some of which were even exported to the US and the Middle East to be sold as Chevrolets) and production continued until the Australian operation was shuttered in 2017.

Simonize

Simonize (pronounced sahy-muh-nahyz)

(1) To polish the exposed surfaces of an automobile (specifically using Simoniz brand products; later used generically).

(2) To shine or polish something to a high sheen, especially with wax.

Circa 1921: A creation of US English meaning "polish by the application of Simoniz wax”, from Simoniz, the registered trademark for a brand of car polish invented by George Simons who, in association with Elmer Rich of the Great Northern Railway, in 1910 formed the Simons Manufacturing Company (Chicago) to produce and sell the products.  The construct was Simoniz + “e”, the addition an emulation of the –ize prefix  Said to have been in oral use since circa 1921, lexicographers began to add simonize (as a verb with the noted meaning) to dictionaries in 1935.   In the English-speaking world, the word often appeared (outside North America) as simonise.  Simonize, simonizes, simonized & simonizing are verbs.

The –ize suffix was from the Middle English -isen, from the Middle French -iser, from the Medieval Latin -izō, from the Ancient Greek -ίζω (-ízō), from the primitive Indo-European verbal suffix -idyé-.  It was cognate with other verbal suffixes including the Gothic -itjan, the Old High German –izzen and the Old English -ettan (verbal suffix).  It was used to form verbs from nouns or adjectives which (1) make what is denoted by the noun or adjective & (2) do what is denoted by the noun or adjective.  The alternative form is –ise.  Historically, the –ize suffix was used on words originating from Greek while –ise was preferred (most prevalently as -vise, -tise, -cise and –prise) on words derived from various roots, many of which entered English via French.  In the nineteenth century, under the influence of French literature, in the UK and other parts of the British Empire, -ise often replaced –ize even when there was a long tradition of the latter’s use.  The authoritative Oxford English Dictionary (OED) never changed its spellings which meant that throughout the Empire (and later the Commonwealth), both forms appeared and before the advent of spell-checkers (which ensured that at least within a given document there was consistency) use was mixed although, under the Raj and beyond, India tended to stick to –ise.  The –ize has always been the preferred form in North America.

Spa day service station, Connecticut Avenue. Washington DC, September 1940.

Although simonize had by then entered the language as verb meaning “to shine or polish something to a high sheen, especially with wax”, one of the early conditions imposed to permit the advertising of “Simonizing” as a service was the exclusive use of genuine Simoniz brand products.

One reason companies registered trademarks used to be a wish to control the use of the name, businesses wishing to prevent their exclusive brand becoming so popular it came to be used to describe, and to some extent even define, all similar products.  The process was called genericide by the experts in business and marketing, the idea being that in becoming a generic term, some of the value invested in the product and its name was transferred to competitors.  The classic example was the vacuum cleaner made by Hoover, the word catching on to the extent that within years, just about all vacuuming came to be called “hoovering”, regardless of the manufacturer of the device doing the sucking.  The problem was that while trademark holders could restrict their use by corporations, what the public did was beyond their control and language just evolved by popular use.

The early Xerox photocopiers were always advertised as devices to be used by women.

The literature often cites Xerox as an example of the problem of the public perception of a corporation being defined in their imagination by its best known product.  The phrase “xerox it” had by the late 1960s become the default expression meaning “photocopy it” and was of concern to the corporation because they feared their differentiation in the market place would be lost.  Time however change and now, Microsoft would doubtless be delighted if “bing it” became as much a term of everyday speech as “google it”.  That is of course a little different because “Bing” is one of Microsoft’s many trademarks rather than the corporate name but the modern view now generally is that the public “verbing-up” a trademark is a very good thing and an easy way to extend the prized “brand awareness”.

The perfect secretary did much "xeroxing" but according to Xerox, would never say "xerox it".

Twitter’s case is a variation on the theme and a case study on how such matters must be managed.  The verb form “to tweet” became a verb through popular use which induced Twitter to trademark the term in 2009.  From there, the company announced they would not seek to restrict its use by third parties using “tweet” for Twitter-related services and apps but warned they would seek both injunctive relief and damages were there evidence of a “confusing or damaging project” to “to protect both our users our brand."  What Twitter wanted to do was ensure “tweet” was used in a way beneficial and not detrimental to them.

The Great Crash of 2005

Crashed and towed, Los Angeles, 2005.

In October 2005, Lindsay Lohan went for a drive in her Mercedes-Benz SL 65 AMG roadster.  It didn’t end well.  Based on the R230 (2001-2011) platform, the SL 65 AMG was produced between 2004-2012, all versions rated in excess of 600 horsepower, something perhaps not a wise choice for someone with no background handling such machinery though it could have been worse, the factory building 400 (175 for the US market, 225 for the RoW (rest of the world)) of the even more powerful SL 65 Black Series, the third occasion an SL was offered without a soft-top and the second time one had been configured with a permanent fixed-roof.  A production number of 350 is sometimes quoted but those maintaining registers insist it was 400.

Fixed and simonized, Texas, 2007.

By 2007, the car (still with California registration plates (5LZF057) attached) had been repaired, detailed & simonized and was being offered for sale in Texas, the odometer said to read 6207 miles (9989 km).  Bidding was said to be “healthy” so it was thought all's well that ends well but once the vehicle's provenance was brought to the attention of the repair shop, it was realized the celebrity connection might increase its value so it was advertised on eBay with more detail, including the inevitable click-bait of LiLo photographs.  However, either eBay doesn't approve of commerce profiting from the vicissitudes suffered by Hollywood starlets or they'd received a C&D (cease & desist) letter from someone's lawyers and the auction ended prematurely.  It proved a brief respite, the SL 65 soon back on eBay Motors but with the offending part of the blurb limited to "previously owned by high profile celebrity", leaving it to prospective buyers to join the dots.

Mercury

Mercury (pronounced mur-kyuh-ree)

(1) In chemistry, a heavy, silver-white, highly toxic metallic element (uniquely liquid at room temperature), once widely used in barometers & thermometers and still a component of pesticides & pharmaceutical preparations.  In industrial use it provides the reflecting surface of mirrors, can still be a part of dental amalgams and is used in some switches, mercury-vapor lamps, and other electric apparatus.  It’s also used as a catalyst in laboratories.  Symbol: Hg; atomic weight: 200.59; atomic number: 80; specific gravity: 13.546 at 20°C; freezing point: −38.9°C; boiling point: 357°C.  It’s known also as quicksilver or hydrargyrum.

(2) In clinical pharmacology, the metal as used in various organic and inorganic compounds, used usually to treat infections of the skin.

(3) In mythology, the Roman god who served as messenger of the gods and was also the god of commerce, thievery, eloquence, and science, identified with the Greek god Hermes (initial capital letter).

(4) In astronomy, the planet nearest the sun, having a diameter of 3,031 miles (4,878 km), a mean distance from the sun of 36 million miles (57.9 million km), and a period of revolution of 87.96 days, and having no satellites; the smallest planet in the solar system (diameter and mass: respectively 38 and 5.4% that of earth) (initial capital letter).

(5) Borrowing from mythology, a messenger, especially a carrier of news (largely archaic).

(6) In botany, any plant belonging to the genus Mercurialis, of the spurge family, especially the poisonous, weedy M. perennis of Europe.  Historically, it was most associated with the annual mercury (Mercurialis annua), once cultivated for medicinal properties (the fourteenth century French mercury or herb mercury).

(7) In botany, a similar edible plant (Blitum bonus-henricus), otherwise known since the fifteenth century as English mercury or allgood.

(8) In botany, in eighteenth century US regional use, the poison oak or poison ivy.

(9) In the history of US aerospace, one of a series of U.S. spacecraft, carrying one astronaut and the first US vehicle to achieve suborbital and orbital manned spaceflights (initial capital letter).

(10) Liveliness, volatility (obsolete since the mid-nineteenth century).

1300–1350: From the Middle English Mercurie, from the Medieval Latin, from the Classical Latin Mercurius (messenger of Jupiter, god of commerce) and related to merx (merchandise),  Mercury, mercuriality & mercurialist are nouns, mercurial is a noun & adjective, mercurous, intramercurial & mercuric are adjectives and mercurially is an adverb; the noun plural is mercuries.

The late fourteenth century adjective mercurial (pertaining to or under the influence of the planet Mercury) evolved by the 1590s to include the sense “pertaining to the god Mercury, having the form or qualities attributed to Mercury (a reference to his role as god of trade or as herald and guide)”.  The meaning “light-hearted, sprightly, volatile, changeable, quick” was in use by the 1640s and was intended to suggest the qualities supposed to characterize those born under the planet Mercury, these based on the conduct of the god Mercury (which seems a generous interpretation given some of his antics), probably also partly by association with the qualities of quicksilver. A variant in this sense was the now rare noun mercurious, in use by the 1590s.  The adjective mercuric (relating to or containing mercury) dates from 1828 and in chemistry applied specifically applied to compounds in which each atom of mercury was regarded as bivalent.  Mercurous was by the 1840s applied to those in which two atoms of mercury are regarded as forming a bivalent radical. 

In the mythology of Antiquity, the Roman Mercury (or Mercurius) was identified with the Greek Hermes, protecting travelers in general and merchants in particular.  He was depicted as the messenger of Jupiter and in some tales even as his agent in some of Jupiter’s amorous ventures (famously in Amphytrion (circa 188 BC) by the playwright Titus Maccius Plautus (circa 254–184 BC)).  The location of Rome’s first Temple of Mercury was chosen because it was so close to both the port and the commercial precinct, the god of commerce thus well-placed.  Although it’s not entirely certain, the structure was thought to date from 496 BC and historians note the sanctuary was built outside the pomerium (the city’s religious boundary), leading to speculation the cult may have been of foreign origin.  Mercury’s attributes included the caduceus (the wand), a variety of very fetching broad-brimmed hats, winged sandals (essential for one so “fleet of foot” and the purse (symbolizing the profits merchants gained from their trade).  The tales from Antiquity are not consistent (and in some cases contradictory but Mercury in some traditions was the father of Evander or of Lares (charged with the supervision of crossroads and prosperity); Lares was born after Mercury raped Lara, the water Nymph in the kingdom of the dead.  The identification of Mercury with the Greek Hermes was ancient but in the early medieval period he was linked also with the Germanic Woden and noting his role as a messenger and conveyor of information, since the mid-seventeenth century Mercury was often used as a name for newspapers although has been a common name for a newspaper and some critics have adapted it for their own purposes: In Australia the Hobart Mercury was in the 1980s sometimes derisively called the “Hobart Mockery”.

Vintage wall thermometer: As the temperature increased, the mercury expanded in volume and rose (hence "mercury rising").  The red colour was achieved with the addition of a dye.

The origin of the chemical name of mercury (Hg) reflects the influence of Scientific Latin on early-modern chemistry; Hg is an abbreviation of the Latin name of the element: hydrargium (literally “water-silver”), from the Ancient Greek hydrargyros (liquid silver), an allusion to its unique quality of being a silvery liquid when at room temperature (all other metals being solid).  The older English name was quicksilver (still prevalent in literary & poetic circles) which was coined in the sense of “living silver”, a reference to the liquid tending to move “like a living thing” when provoked with the slight provocation.  The “quick” referred not to speed but “alive” in the sense of the Biblical phrase “the quick and the dead”.  Alchemists called it azoth and in medical and sometimes chemical use that’s still occasionally seen.  As late as the fifteenth century, in mainstream Western science the orthodox view was that mercury was one of the elemental principles thought present in all metals.  In Antiquity, it was prepared from cinnabar and was then one of the seven known metals (bodies terrestrial), coupled in astrology and alchemy with the seven known heavenly bodies (the others: Sun/gold, Moon/silver, Mars/iron, Saturn/lead, Jupiter/tin, Venus/copper.  In idiomatic use, (with a definite article), because of the use in barometers & thermometers, “the mercury” was a reference to temperature thus “mercury rising” meant “warmer”, the use dating from the seventeenth century and it has persisted even as the devices have moved to digital technology.  The name mercury was adopted because the stuff flows quickly about, recalling the Roman god who was the “swift-footed messenger of the gods”.

The same rationale appealed to the astronomers of Antiquity who noted the swift movement of the planet which required only 88 days for each solar orbit.  Mercury is sometimes visible from the Earth as a morning or evening star and in our solar system and is the both the smallest and the closest planet to the Sun.  Second in density only to Earth, it’s a lifeless (as far as is known or seems possible) place with a cratered surface which makes it not dissimilar in appearance to Earth's Moon.  It behaves differently from Earth in that the rotational period of 58.6 days is two-thirds of its 88-day annual orbit, thus it makes three full axial rotations every two years.  The atmosphere is close to non-existent, something which, combined with the rotational & orbital dynamics and the proximity to the Sun produces rapid radiational cooling on its dark side, meaning the temperature range is greater than any other planet in our solar system (466°-184°C (870°-300°F)).  Being so close to the Sun, Mercury is visible only shortly before sunrise or after sunset, observation further hindered by Earth’s dust & pollution, this distorting the planet’s light which obliquely must pass through the lower atmosphere.  It wasn’t until circa 1300 that the Classical Latin name for the planet was adopted in English while a (presumably hypothetical) resident of the place was by 1755 a Mercurian or a century later as Mercurean.  The novel adjective intramercurial (being within the orbit of the planet Mercury) was coined in 1859 to describe a hypothetical planet orbiting between Mercury and the Sun.  The idea had existed among French astronomers since the 1840s but became a matter of some debate between 1860-1869 until observations of solar eclipses finally debunked the notion.  The origin of the noun amalgamation (act of compounding mercury with another metal), dating from the 1610s, was a noun of action from archaic verb amalgam (to alloy with mercury), the figurative, non-chemical sense of “a combining of different things into one uniform whole” in use by 1775.

Genuinely different and obvious a cut above a Ford: 1939 Mercury 8 Coupe.

Reflecting the philosophy of Henry Ford which put a premium on engineering and price, concepts like product differentiation & multi-brand market segmentation came late to the Ford Motor Company.  Unlike General Motors (GM) which in the 1920s fielded as many as nine brand-names (and even by 1940 still had six), it wasn’t until 1938 that Ford added a third, using until then just Ford and Lincoln and even they operated as separate companies whereas GM maintained a divisional structure.  The debut in 1938 of the Mercury label, sitting on the pricing scale between Ford and Lincoln made sense in a way that twenty years on, Edsel never did and, until internal cannibalization began in the 1960s, the Mercury brand worked well.  Even after that, the marketing momentum accrued over decades maintained Mercury’s viability and it wasn’t shuttered until 2011, a victim of the industry’s restructuring after the Global Financial Crisis (GFC 2008-2012).  Debatably, the Mercury brand may yet prove useful and, should a niche emerge, there may be a resurrection, Ford maintaining registration of the trademark.

A (slightly) better Ford LTD: 1969 Mercury Marquis Brougham four-door hardtop.

Perhaps it was the experience of GM which had discouraged Ford.  Although Harvard had begun awarding MBAs since 1908, history unfortunately doesn’t record whether any of them were involved in the brand-name proliferation decision of the mid 1920s which saw the introduction of companion offerings to four of GM’s five existing divisions, only the entry-level Chevrolet not augmented.  The new brands, slotted above or below depending on where the perceived price-gap existed, mean GM suddenly was marketing nine products in competition with Ford offering two and one probably didn’t need a MBA to conclude only one approach was likely correct.  As things turned out, GM’s approach was never given the chance fully to explore the possibilities, the effects of the Great Depression of the 1930s suppressing demand in the economy to an extent then unknown, necessitating downsizing in just about every industrial sector.  Axed by GM in 1931 was Viking (Oldsmobile’s companion), Marquette (added to Buick) and Oakland (actually usurped by its nominal companion, Pontiac).  LaSalle (a lower-priced Cadillac) survived the cull… for a while.

Ford in the late 1930s had clearly been thinking about how to cover the widely understood "price-points" in the market, most of which existed between the mass-market Fords and the Big Lincolns, then a very expensive range.  One toe in the water of brand-proliferation was the creation in 1937 of "De Luxe Ford" which, despite some of the hints in the advertising, was neither a separate company nor even a division; it was described by historians of the industry as "a marque within a marque".  Structurally, this seems little different to the approach the company had been using since 1930 when it introduced a “Deluxe” trim option for certain models which could be ordered to make the “standard” Ford a little better appointed but the 1937 De Luxe Fords were more plausibly different because some relative minor changes to panels and detailing did make the two “marques” visually distinct.  The Deluxe vs De Luxe spelling was perhaps too subtle a touch to be noticed by many.

1968 Mercury Cougar GT-E 427.  The tennis court hints at the target market.

A long wheelbase Food Mustang with a higher specification, the original Mercury Cougar (1967-1970) was the brand's great success story.  The 1968 GT-E 427 was a tiny part of that but is remembered as the last use of the Le Mans winning 427 cubic inch (7.0 litre) V8 and the corporation's only 427 pony-car.  Civilized with hydraulic valve lifters and an automatic transmission, it was a glimpse of what might have been had Ford, as it once planned, put the 427 in a Mustang.     

The De Luxe Ford line was deliberately positioned between Ford and Lincoln but intriguingly, at the same time, Ford introduced both a new, lower priced V12 Lincoln called the Lincoln-Zephyr and the Mercury range, all three of these ventures contesting the same, now crowded, space.  The De Luxe Ford “marque” would last only until 1940 although Ford’s Deluxe option remained on the books; it’s doubtful many outside Ford’s advertising agency noticed.  It would seem Ford was hedging its bets and may have decided to persist with whichever of Mercury and De Luxe Ford proved most successful and as things transpired, that was Mercury so as the 1941 model year dawned, in the dealers’ brochures there were Fords, Mercurys, Lincoln-Zephyrs & Lincolns.  World War II of course intervened and when production resumed after the end of hostilities, that was simplified to Fords, Mercury & Lincoln, remaining that way until the mid-1950s when in a booming economy, the temptation to proliferate proved irresistible and the exclusive Continental division was created, followed by the infamous Edsel, the model spread of which over-lapped the pricing of both Ford and Mercury, an approach which seems to go beyond hedging.  The Continental experiment lasted barely two seasons and the Edsel just three, the latter a debacle which remains a case study in marketing departments.

A natural Mercury: 1955 Ford Thunderbird.

So by 1960 the corporation again offered just Fords, Mercurys & Lincolns but it was a troubled time for the latter, the huge Lincolns of the late 1950s, although technically quite an achievement in body engineering, had proved so unsuccessful that Ford’s new management seriously considered closing it down as well but it was saved when handed a prototype Ford Thunderbird coupé which was developed into the famous Lincolns of 1961-1969, remembered chiefly for the romantic four-door convertibles and being the cabriolet in which John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US president 1961-1963) was assassinated.  That was one of the Thunderbird’s footnotes in corporate history, the other being that when introduced in 1955 it was the first Ford blatantly to intrude on what, according to marketing theory, should have been the domain of Mercury, home of the up-market offerings.

Cannibalizing the corporation: 1965 Ford LTD.

The Thunderbird though was just the first act of trespass and fancier Fords continued to appear, the landmark being the LTD, which began in 1965 as a luxury trim-package for the Galaxie, something which proved so popular it soon became model in its own right, encouraging a host of imitators from the mass-market competition, the most successful of which was Chevrolet’s Caprice (that innovation in retrospect the first nail in the coffins of the now shuttered Pontiac & Oldsmobile).  However, like Pontiac & Oldsmobile, Mercury would endure for decades, all three surviving before being sacrificed in the wake of the GFC and between the debut of the LTD and the end of the line, there were many successful years but the rationale for the existence of Mercury which had been so well defined in 1938 when there was genuine product differentiation and a strict maintenance of price points, gradually was dissipated to the point that with the odd exception (such as the wildly successfully Mercury Cougars of the late 1960s), Fords and Lincolns were allowed to become little more than competitors in the same space and the brand never developed the sort of devoted following which might have transcended the sameness.  By the twenty-first century, there were few reasons to buy a Mercury because a Ford could be ordered in essentially identical form, usually for a little less money.

Xylo-punk band Crazy and the Brains performing Lindsay Lohan, recorded live, Mercury Lounge, New York City, 2013.  Punk bands are said still not widely to have adopted the xylophone.