A blog post today on a site targeted at new mothers notes a trend toward naming babies after luxury brands.
This practice is, and always has been, relatively commonplace. But what’s interesting is how “Chanel” has recently appeared on the list, at number 139 for girls. “Dior” is number 148, and “Armani” is number 150 for boys. All are luxury fashion brands that make products no one would mind owning.
As a branding professional, I should be delighted, but I find this disturbing. Maybe it’s because I’ve seen how once popular brands can slide down the rabbit hole to obscurity (Pan Am, Studebaker, Burma-Shave)–or worse for a child, uncoolness (Jordache, Levis, Members Only).
Or maybe it just reminds me too much of Idiocracy’s U.S. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.
My brother named his dog Prada because he was told it was Greek for “strength.” For some reason, I just can’t get used to yelling out “Prada” across a field full of pheasant hunters. Just doesn’t work. 🙂
I might consider naming my kid Gatorade (or Brawndo) though, because it has electrolytes in it.
It’s what plants crave! 🙂
When I think of brand names as people names, two questions always comes to mind: Do brand names mean more to people than family names? Or, are we just as concerned about marketability as fidelity? My two children weren’t named after brands, but there names were something of great intention. My last name is a mouthful and hard to spell. If my children ever were in the limelight, they could chop it off and use their middle names as their last names. These middle names were chosen (at least in part) for that reason. Does that make me disrespectful, or tactful?
I think it makes you thoughtful–thinking ahead to the issues your kids might have around their names, and providing an easy solution. Good plan!