Richard Oliff: Nostalgia for the older brand names

Some change is just not necessary, thinks Richard
Some change is just not necessary, thinks Richard
0
Have your say

Change happens, whether we like it or not.

For better or worse, the winds that alter our everyday lives are relentless. But is it all absolutely necessary?

How much of what affects us is simply down to rebranding, shaping our lifestyles, attitudes, even perceptions?

Opal Fruits were made to make your mouth water, but apparently lacked a burst of stars in the mouth.

Oil of Ulay was to soften the skin, yet now sounds like a Spanish exclamation.

Neet helped remove unsightly hair, yet so desperately needed a ‘V’.

One squirt of Jif would help with the cleaning and a Marathon would fend off a hunger pang.

Headmasters and mistresses are, apparently, head teachers, while their pupils all became students: oh, and the football coach used to be for travelling from one pitch to another.

You may still be paying for shoes bought using Access, but now you’re repaying via MasterCard.

Parcels were collected and delivered without the involvement of “logistics’.

I’ve often wondered at what point did a plastic record become vinyl or the needle on a record player become a stylus?

When a friend says he’s using his tablet, I can think only of Scottish “fudge” that my Grandma used to make.

Peas came in pods and a Mac was worn by Harold Wilson.

PCs walked around in pairs, while our national sporting representatives may be members of Team GB instead of the British Team: almost mirror image and back to front.

All of this made me ask myself: how much of this is merely a case of international or national rebranding influence or, put simply, plain stupid?

Today we have boys, girls, women and men, which makes me wonder how long it will be before we have another collective, created by marketeers not scientists, to replace all people: all humans everywhere?