What's in a name?

I’ve blogged before (The Stupid Advertisement Awards) about offensive advertising. News of a forthcoming talk by Trevor Beattie reminds me of a related issue: offensive branding.

Sometimes things change their names for reasons which are unclear. I could imagine a “Marathon” bar might give me the energy to run a marathon. “Snickers” (combining Sneakers and Knickers) merely evokes the sweat that the said activity will generate.

Sometimes the reason is clear enough. A new name is chosen in the hope of escaping the opprobrium attached to the old name. Sellafield and DR Congo spring to mind.

Again, the Royal Mail briefly tried out the name Consignia – an anagram of Gain Coins, highlighting that its priority was no longer to deliver mail but to make money. The Lib Dems have been though various anagrams of LSD. And Beattie, joining in the anagram game, re-branded French Connection as FCUK.

French Connection was (I imagine) named after the film. The worst one can say is that it’s a bit incongruous. (Although better than Scarecrow, if we’re naming clothing chains after Gene Hackman films.) But FCUK is no less incongruous, and a deal nastier.

Taking a rude word and reversing the middle letters isn’t clever or funny. Nor is it original. 1000 years ago, Canute purposely showed his fawning courtiers that he couldn’t control the sea: and they responded by re-branding him as Silly Cnut. (Apologies to the Private Eye cartoonist whose joke I seem to have pinched.)

Anagrams can be fun. Crossword setters have long rejoiced that “schoolmaster” can be found in “the classroom”: although it took the genius of Araucaria to point out that “Manchester City” is an anagram of “synthetic cream”. But pasting anagrams of rude words on the wall is just as puerile as shouting the words themselves.

Trevor Beattie, lest we forget, was the brain (or groin) behind the infamous “Hello Boys” advert. This was the one displaying Eva Herzigova’s cleavage, and inviting us to join Mr Beattie in his schoolboy sniggering. No surprise then that his name is an anagram of “Eva titter bore”.

FCUK? It's a load of carp.

Honey Monster

“Bin Laden has won,” says Richard Dawkins.

Strange headline! If (as Dawkins confidently assures us) God, heaven and hell do not exist - if this life is all there is - then Osama has broken even. On this point, Dawkins stands with Job and Mr Frisbee: “You come from nothing, you’re going back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!”

All right: maybe Dawkins means that by his death, Bin Laden has somehow gained kudos. In the same way, on hearing Captain Scott’s death, Amundsen said: “He’s beaten me.” It’s still not the kind of victory I can see Dawkins counting worthwhile.

Or maybe he won because he orchestrated the 9/11 murders, and because others have joined his murderous cause and are still active. That is the victory Osama himself might celebrate.

No: Dawkins has in mind a far more important and tangible victory. Forget the loved ones lost: Richard Dawkins is weeping for his honey. Airport security has responded to Bin Laden as Bin Laden intended: by confiscating infidels’ honey.

Some have found his reaction disproportionate. But I find it entirely consistent with his declared beliefs. Religion is said to have its eyes on jam tomorrow, although the Bible bangs on annoyingly about our neighbour's welfare: but Dawkins is concerned only with honey today.