7 ms·

This raises the perennial question of whether product placement is a legitimate source of funding for fundamental scientific research. After placing an ice-cub

This raises the perennial question of whether product placement is a legitimate source of funding for fundamental scientific research. After placing an ice-cube in my delicious glass of refreshing coca-cola brand carbonated beverage, I yelled Eureka! and jumped out of the bath. Is that really how it happened? Is it not inconsistent with the pursuit of truth?

skilled 7y ago
What truth?
soganess 7y ago
It's really natural, on first mention, to refer to something using a member of the degenerate set of its most unique identifier, right? From that point on, to avoid repetition, mix in antecedents or generic names. Brands exploit this mechanic in language so that any time a, thereto unknown, good has to be addressed, that identification become advertising. It shifts from being a unique identification of an object/item/thing to a conjuring of the ethos/identity that contextualizes that good as being different from all the others (un)like it. I'm sure the dude was just having some hazelnut spread and that's how they recalls it but us, like them, are getting hacked. Now if you'll excuse me, the rey--, I mean tinfoil, is starting to get itchy, I need to switch it out.
- xtiansimon 7y ago
  >> It's really natural, when first mentioning it, to call something using by a member of the degenerate set of its most unique identifier, right? Huh? ‘degenerate set’ being what, the brand placement? I likes me some Semiotics, though not sure what this passage refers to. In the context of a photography site, brand mentions must be a hazard. The author has no problem name dropping an Ancient Greek, Newton, Leibniz, Huygens. Why not Nutella? Rather than increasing the cognitive gap between the auditor (us) and the subject (2000 year old problem), Nutella seems to take the shining brilliance of those luminaries down a notch and in line with the form of writing—a neutral density filter? Haha. Or maybe it’s just a laugh and some color.
  - soganess 7y ago
    I don't know any Semiotics! But, in an effort to drive the conversation, I can be more precise with what I'm trying to say. I'm working with this informal idea that there is always a relationship between the audience and the speaker. That relationship define a shared knowledge space. If I am speaking to a group of my friends and need to refer to my brother the set of identifiers that uniquely conveys his identify to my friends might be {brother, Joe, Joe Blow, brother-man, etc}. Any of those identifiers coming from to me specify exactly one person, my brother. The degeneracy is that they equally identify him to the audience. If you were not that close to me, and I say "brother", you might wonder if I have more than one brother. If you did not know me at all I might say Dr. Joe Blow to identify him and why he might be relavent in some area of expertise. As the relationship between speaker and and audience grows more distant the set size decreases. Inversely, the context-free uniqueness of the identification provided by the remaining identifiers has to be greater, with proper names maintaining greater uniqueness (sorry to the John Smiths of the world!) than nicknames and so forth. To return to my point, the scientist in question called it Nutella because he does not have a deep relationship with his audience and that is the most unique way of identifying it. I don't believe he was doing anything atypical or nefarious. If he knew the audience well, he could have just said "breakfast", and they would know exactly what he meant because he has the same thing for breakfast most mornings. The problem is that brands, unlike most proper names(obviously famous people are an exception), have a greater ethos associated with them. If my brother was named Joe Blow or Jim Deal, my unique referencing of him doesn't do much to color the statement around it. This is contrast to how much extra you get when you call a car a Ferrari vs a grand tourer. My point is that advertisers recognize this linguistic norm and exploit it, this is what brand identity is. As such, just the natural mention of a good becomes advertising.
    - xtiansimon 7y ago
      There is a lot to unpack in your response, but I guess it’s your use of the term ‘degenerate’ which confuses me. It’s not common in the Semiotic cannon, and so you say it’s not something you’ve studied. From your original comment: “...contextualizes that good as being different from all the others (un)like it.” This is textbook Semiotics. Meaning is not derived from the designation (‘apple’ is the red fruit with the thin skin and firm ...eh flesh. Rather, Apple is not a banana; not a kiwi; not a tomato; not beef; ad infinitum.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  Hazelnut spread is one of those things that is much more commonly referred to as the brand name. No one says "Reynolds wrap" they say "aluminum foil". No one says "hazelnut spread", they say Nutella. No one says "resealable sandwich bags", they say ziploc bags.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Most people would just say "sandwich" unless the spread is somehow critical to the tale. I know it's a quote, but it sounds most odd to me as most people I know don't really brand drop in conversation. Coke is probably the big exception there... TIL what ziploc bags are. Just called "sandwich bags" here. Cling film isn't "sarran wrap" here either. :)
    - kragen 7y ago
      There used to be a distinction in the US: Saran Wrap was made of Saran and was much less oxygen-permeable than other cling films as a result. In a development that represents some kind of evidence about trademark law, Saran Wrap in the US is no longer made of Saran, due to concerns about plasticizers leaching into food; but it is still sold as "Saran Wrap". Here in Argentina, I can still get cling film made of PVDC, just not Saran-brand PVDC.
    - Izkata 7y ago
      > Coke is probably the big exception there... Even then, it may not be. There are plenty of places where Coke has become the generic name for pop, and doesn't necessarily refer to the brand.
  - nuxi 7y ago
    Nutella though is a sugar-and-palm/vegetable-oil spread, which - probably accidentally - contains traces of hazelnuts, powdered milk and cocoa.
    - richardhod 7y ago
      I don't understand the downvoting of the parent here, which is factually correct and worth noting. It's incredibly unhealthy and this is just down to marketing that anybody eats it. You can make really nice chocolate spreads with your own hazelnuts
- aasasd 7y ago
  It's just a writing device, in this case. The contrast of mundane detail and the high calling. Used all the time, e.g. NYT's style has pretty much devolved to the formula “begin with the details, then introduce the central topic.”
- Terr_ 7y ago
  Under the US system, at that point the term is now generic, no longer trademark-able, and anybody can use it. In other words, Brands by definition must be distinct from regular language.
hiccuphippo 7y ago
Do we know the brand of the chocolate that melted when the microwave was discovered? Maybe it's not that important.
andrewflnr 7y ago
> This raises the perennial question ... Not really, no. There's no scientific funding riding on your reading this article in a photography magazine. Specificity is almost always recommended in any creative writing from song lyrics to infotainment like this. It enhances humor and mental imagery, which enhance general enjoyment. That's all that's happening here. Hanlon's razor is your friend.
arendtio 7y ago
Indeed. That is why I like the Nikon product placement a lot better because it just highlights what kind of a problem they create with the decision to have only one card slot.
webreac 7y ago
My eurekas are generally in front of the mirror while using my gillet razor. I do not think the brand of the razor has any influence.

skilled 7y ago

What truth?

soganess 7y ago

It's really natural, on first mention, to refer to something using a member of the degenerate set of its most unique identifier, right? From that point on, to avoid repetition, mix in antecedents or generic names. Brands exploit this mechanic in language so that any time a, thereto unknown, good has to be addressed, that identification become advertising. It shifts from being a unique identification of an object/item/thing to a conjuring of the ethos/identity that contextualizes that good as being different from all the others (un)like it. I'm sure the dude was just having some hazelnut spread and that's how they recalls it but us, like them, are getting hacked. Now if you'll excuse me, the rey--, I mean tinfoil, is starting to get itchy, I need to switch it out.

xtiansimon 7y ago
>> It's really natural, when first mentioning it, to call something using by a member of the degenerate set of its most unique identifier, right? Huh? ‘degenerate set’ being what, the brand placement? I likes me some Semiotics, though not sure what this passage refers to. In the context of a photography site, brand mentions must be a hazard. The author has no problem name dropping an Ancient Greek, Newton, Leibniz, Huygens. Why not Nutella? Rather than increasing the cognitive gap between the auditor (us) and the subject (2000 year old problem), Nutella seems to take the shining brilliance of those luminaries down a notch and in line with the form of writing—a neutral density filter? Haha. Or maybe it’s just a laugh and some color.
- soganess 7y ago
  I don't know any Semiotics! But, in an effort to drive the conversation, I can be more precise with what I'm trying to say. I'm working with this informal idea that there is always a relationship between the audience and the speaker. That relationship define a shared knowledge space. If I am speaking to a group of my friends and need to refer to my brother the set of identifiers that uniquely conveys his identify to my friends might be {brother, Joe, Joe Blow, brother-man, etc}. Any of those identifiers coming from to me specify exactly one person, my brother. The degeneracy is that they equally identify him to the audience. If you were not that close to me, and I say "brother", you might wonder if I have more than one brother. If you did not know me at all I might say Dr. Joe Blow to identify him and why he might be relavent in some area of expertise. As the relationship between speaker and and audience grows more distant the set size decreases. Inversely, the context-free uniqueness of the identification provided by the remaining identifiers has to be greater, with proper names maintaining greater uniqueness (sorry to the John Smiths of the world!) than nicknames and so forth. To return to my point, the scientist in question called it Nutella because he does not have a deep relationship with his audience and that is the most unique way of identifying it. I don't believe he was doing anything atypical or nefarious. If he knew the audience well, he could have just said "breakfast", and they would know exactly what he meant because he has the same thing for breakfast most mornings. The problem is that brands, unlike most proper names(obviously famous people are an exception), have a greater ethos associated with them. If my brother was named Joe Blow or Jim Deal, my unique referencing of him doesn't do much to color the statement around it. This is contrast to how much extra you get when you call a car a Ferrari vs a grand tourer. My point is that advertisers recognize this linguistic norm and exploit it, this is what brand identity is. As such, just the natural mention of a good becomes advertising.
  - xtiansimon 7y ago
    There is a lot to unpack in your response, but I guess it’s your use of the term ‘degenerate’ which confuses me. It’s not common in the Semiotic cannon, and so you say it’s not something you’ve studied. From your original comment: “...contextualizes that good as being different from all the others (un)like it.” This is textbook Semiotics. Meaning is not derived from the designation (‘apple’ is the red fruit with the thin skin and firm ...eh flesh. Rather, Apple is not a banana; not a kiwi; not a tomato; not beef; ad infinitum.
jjeaff 7y ago
Hazelnut spread is one of those things that is much more commonly referred to as the brand name. No one says "Reynolds wrap" they say "aluminum foil". No one says "hazelnut spread", they say Nutella. No one says "resealable sandwich bags", they say ziploc bags.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Most people would just say "sandwich" unless the spread is somehow critical to the tale. I know it's a quote, but it sounds most odd to me as most people I know don't really brand drop in conversation. Coke is probably the big exception there... TIL what ziploc bags are. Just called "sandwich bags" here. Cling film isn't "sarran wrap" here either. :)
  - kragen 7y ago
    There used to be a distinction in the US: Saran Wrap was made of Saran and was much less oxygen-permeable than other cling films as a result. In a development that represents some kind of evidence about trademark law, Saran Wrap in the US is no longer made of Saran, due to concerns about plasticizers leaching into food; but it is still sold as "Saran Wrap". Here in Argentina, I can still get cling film made of PVDC, just not Saran-brand PVDC.
  - Izkata 7y ago
    > Coke is probably the big exception there... Even then, it may not be. There are plenty of places where Coke has become the generic name for pop, and doesn't necessarily refer to the brand.
- nuxi 7y ago
  Nutella though is a sugar-and-palm/vegetable-oil spread, which - probably accidentally - contains traces of hazelnuts, powdered milk and cocoa.
  - richardhod 7y ago
    I don't understand the downvoting of the parent here, which is factually correct and worth noting. It's incredibly unhealthy and this is just down to marketing that anybody eats it. You can make really nice chocolate spreads with your own hazelnuts
aasasd 7y ago
It's just a writing device, in this case. The contrast of mundane detail and the high calling. Used all the time, e.g. NYT's style has pretty much devolved to the formula “begin with the details, then introduce the central topic.”
Terr_ 7y ago
Under the US system, at that point the term is now generic, no longer trademark-able, and anybody can use it. In other words, Brands by definition must be distinct from regular language.

hiccuphippo 7y ago

Do we know the brand of the chocolate that melted when the microwave was discovered? Maybe it's not that important.

andrewflnr 7y ago

> This raises the perennial question ... Not really, no. There's no scientific funding riding on your reading this article in a photography magazine. Specificity is almost always recommended in any creative writing from song lyrics to infotainment like this. It enhances humor and mental imagery, which enhance general enjoyment. That's all that's happening here. Hanlon's razor is your friend.

arendtio 7y ago

Indeed. That is why I like the Nikon product placement a lot better because it just highlights what kind of a problem they create with the decision to have only one card slot.

webreac 7y ago

My eurekas are generally in front of the mirror while using my gillet razor. I do not think the brand of the razor has any influence.