Destination: The darker side of Disney?

A visit to Disney World would not be complete without numerous unnecessary purchases.  Let’s just say that we narrowly escaped coming home with a pith helmet in tow (and you know I’m using the term “we” generously).  One of Disney’s more charming inducements to purchase is its ten-year tradition of pin trading.  You buy a lanyard and a character or attraction-themed pin, and the World is your trading oyster.  Our oldest had started a lanyard on an earlier visit, and both girls were eager to acquire and trade pins this time, especially after I’d bribed them with the promise of a pin for each book completed by the end of the trip.

Disney’s always busy cross-marketing, and this time there was a lot of Tinkerbell merchandise to be found in the stores – apparently Tinkerbell is the new “hot” character being promoted in her own movie and all over a wide variety of clothing and accessories

Apparently Tink has undergone a metamorphosis to become less mute and decorative and more sassy and empowered.  While in theory that’s a laudable goal, the Tinkerbell pin I found suggests that she might have gone a bit overboard with the sassy.  Yes, I think Disney’s moved into at least the PG-13 realm with this one – Introducing Truckstop Hooker Tink:

Well, at least that’s what we called her for the duration of the trip.  But Morning-after Tink would work, don’t you think?  How about Amsterdam Red-light Tink (my precocious 13 year-old’s suggestion)? Place Pigalle Tink?

For my money, she’s way more fun than a pith helmet.  But seriously, Disney, did you think about this?  Did you look at her?  If this is sassy, I don’t think sassy means what you think it means.

Follow-up

Was it only a year and a half ago that we experienced the trauma of the opening day of Heathrow’s Terminal 5 in London on our way to Paris?  Oy.  In the words of Samuel Goldwyn, we’ve all passed a lot of water since then.  Anyway, after that trip I wrote a post about the ACNE Jeans display we saw at Le Bon Marche in Paris, and for those who don’t feel like clicking on the link to reread it, suffice to say I expressed great derision for the mark.

Well, lo and behold, the New York Times has an article today about exactly that Acne Jeans company.  The Times, kinder than I am, merely dubs the name “off-putting.”  But what they do reveal is the etymology of the name: It is an acronym for “Ambition to Create Novel Expressions.”  Yes, take a deep breath.  It’s that lame. 

My mission now?  To create an award that will serve as the anti-Alt-0174 award for the crappiest name.  Whatever it will be named, I think Acne wins, with bonus points for its clunky acronym.

Snap Judgment

Just got an email from The Walking Company touting a Danish clog called Sanita. 

 

I’m sorry, that mark sounds like the brand of something I’d use to unclog, not wear as a clog. 

When the work is done for me

The commenters on this Jezebel post about Kate Moss’s new perfume Velvet Hour really say it all – except for the fact that it appears that an ill-advised layout can sabotage the impact of a good mark. 

Suggesting flatulence?  Not really the best idea for a fragrance ad.

Sublime and Ridiculous in One Convenient Location!!!!!!

Pedicure time!  And you know that means a hefty dose of magazines.  Hit the jackpot today reading Marie-Claire (not nearly as good as the original French magazine, but fine for my purposes) where I learned about Ralph Lauren’s new fragrance, Notorious.

                                                                                    

Evocative, sexy, brooding – just the right kind of name for a perfume.  And then, while researching Notorious, I found he’s also got one out called Pure Turquoise, which, IMHO is pure genius.  But then I learned more.

Here’s the deal.  I don’t for a moment begrudge Mr. Lifshitz’s having changed his surname.  I think “Lauren” balances out Ralph nicely, and the full name has obviously acquired tremendous cachet.  Certainly naming a perfume “Lauren” was a no-brainer.  But “Ralph” alone?  Sorry, not the equivalent of “Lauren.”  This is one case where the whole is definitely greater than the sum of its parts.  I’m at a loss to understand how a name that is slang for “vomit” can form the anchor of a line of perfume marks.  Yes, there’s not only Ralph, Ralph Hot and Ralph Wild, there’s also Ralph Rocks.                                                                                           


I’m all over vanity marks in the perfume biz – I see nothing wrong, for example, with Michael Kors naming his fragrance line Michael.  (A scent l can actually wear without succumbing to migraine, in fact.)  But that’s Michael, and not Ralph.  My guess here is that the Ralph Lauren brand has such cachet and draw for the young adult market that the slang meaning is irrelevant to the purchasing decision.  I can just envision that unfortunate conversation though:

    A:    What’s that perfume you’re wearing?
    B:    Ralph.  
    A:    That makes sense.
    B:    Why?
    A:    Because that’s what it makes me want to do. 

UPDATE: In discussing this post with my brother-in-law Paul, aka the Funniest Uncle on the Planet, we came to the horrifying realization that Ralph Rocks would be a great name for a brand of petrified vomit . . . that is, if such product existed.

___________________________________________________________________________
Fun fact: A family friend almost married the then-Mr. Lifshitz.  Her parents discouraged her, however, as he was in the shmatte business and they thought he wouldn’t amount to anything.  Oh well.