I saw this article in my local paper yesterday, titled Pricey brand names doubling as modern baby names. This quote just blows my mind:
"ALICE HUNTER has had a long love affair with Chanel products. She bought her first bottle of Chanel Allure perfume at age 17 and the first in a long line of Chanel bags soon after. So when the Bradenton, Fla., mom-to-be was looking for a name for her first child, she felt the choice was easy.If she hasn't killed you in your sleep by then for sticking her with such a stupid name!
In 2001, right after her daughter was born, Ms. Hunter had the Chanel logo -- two intertwined C's -- tattooed on her neck and her husband got a matching tattoo on his chest. 'It's in honor of our daughter,' Ms. Hunter says. 'And I'll bet she'll want one when she turns 18.'"
About the tatoo thing - sure, I wear logo t-shirts; I don't see anything wrong with that. But I draw the line at BRANDING YOURSELF WITH A COMPANY LOGO! That's just plain stupid. It reminds me of the near-future setting of the novel Jennifer Government, where the US Government is just another corporation and everybody takes their employer's name as their own surname (incidentally, it's an interesting read; I guarantee you'll never look at Frequent Flyer programs the same way afterwards).
"For now, the mass marketing of certain upscale brands ensures an immediate link between a luxury product and a child named for it. Says baby name author Bruce Lansky: 'Here's the cool thing about names: At no cost to you, you can acquire the same designer and a part of that cachet.'"No, you don't. You identify yourself as a sad loser wannabe who will in all probability never own a Lexus (353 girls were given that name in 2000, according to the Social Security Administration) car or an Armani (298 girls, 273 boys in 2000) suit.
On the other hand, there is an upside to this - eighteen years from now, we'll have a whole new generation of strippers dancing under the names on their birth certificates.
Posted by Chris at January 3, 2004 10:35 PM