Talk:Fictional brand

Fictional brands

Another reason for a fictional brand occurs when a radio disk jockey, most often in a top-40/patter format, goes to a sponsor break and suddenly realizes he can't find the ad copy on his desk. To avoid "dead air", they would create a fictional brand. You rarely if ever hear this any more because of automation and voice tracking, but it was common in the '50's, '60's and into the '70's. One fictional brand that may have been used as sort of an industry inside joke was Glinkman's Phloms. "If you need Phloms, you need Glinkman's!"

Requested move

Fictional brands → Fictional brand – Unnecessary plural. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved. — kwami (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Trademarks are not copyrights....

Quote: "In general, the use of a real brand requires prior written consent by the brand's owner, who will typically demand some control on the brand's use."
Wouldn't editorial use of trademarked product names be considered, naturally, outside of the scope of trademark law protection? In general, to use (in legal terms) a trademark it must be used in commerce, that is - to sell or advertise your own products or services. However, when a writers have a main character of his novel, say, drive an Audi car, or use IPhone or Beretta 92 handgun he refers to a product made either by the trademark owners, or under license from trademark owners, not marketing or advertising his own products. Therefore, no need to ask any permissions because there is no trademark infringement (this is much more narrow in scope, than the copyright infringement, and occur only if an infringer uses trademark to market or advertise his own products and by such action create customer confusion over the origin of the product) and even no trademark dilution (however, to avoid the latter it might be wise to type trademarked brand-name with the capital letter, to show these are brand names, not a generic word for a type of product).
--RussianTrooper (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The article currently makes several dubious claims, e.g. that a film production would have to pay royalties if actors smoked Marlboro cigarettes. I added "" tags. I think we should delete these claims. The Fast Company source contains a sentence that may support these claims, but it's a low quality source, more entertainment than reporting. I don't have access to the other source (Lehu, Jean-Marc (2007)), but I doubt it actually supports these claims. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Chrisahn & RussianTrooper, I tried to address the tags in the article. Thoughts? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Mostly OK, but this sentence is still wrong: "Films that did not pay royalties to a cigarette brand could use Morley prop cigarettes." That's the opposite of what the source says. 03:23: "If a show wasn't sponsored, it would use a fake brand instead, since it wasn't getting paid to show the real brand." — Chrisahn (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

In general, films and other fictional works don't have to pay royalties or even ask for permission to use a brand. For example, Bret Easton Ellis' novel American Psycho mentions lots of brands. Or think of all the hip hop songs that mention brands...

The potential issue with using a brand in a fictional work is that the brand owner might sue due to trademark dilution or tarnishment (e.g. ), but that depends on the jurisdiction and the details of the case. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I changed that sentence to: "Films that did not receive sponsorship from a cigarette brand might use Morley prop cigarettes." — Chrisahn (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for double and triple-checking. One last change. Were there other places that seemed off, or just the tagged sections? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I reverted your change. "Films that did reach an agreement with" is just wrong. But even "did not reach" (I guess that's what you meant) is too vague. The source is clear, let's use it. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This source in the section Fictional brand#Morley also is quite clear: "if none of the cigarette companies agreed to pay to put their brand in a TV show". The brands paid, the shows received money, not the other way around. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I did leave out a "not". I'll leave it as it is. The source uses the verb "sponsor", so it's not false. I'll try to explain a potential confusion that I see. In a modern sense, sponsorship deals often work out so that the sponsor places their logo on things like uniforms, courts, buildings, signage, etc. The source is talking about paid product placement which is also sponsorship, but somewhat different. Maybe there is a way to phrase it with "paid product placement" or something to that effect? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I see. How about this: "Films that did not receive payment for product placement from any cigarette brand might use a fictional brand like Morley"? Or something like "When no cigarette brand agreed to pay for product placement in a film, the film might use..."? Neither of these is great poetry, but I can't think of anything better right now... — Chrisahn (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll think on it, but either way will leave it up to you (or others watching this page). The first one is clear but lengthy. Could "that did not receive payment for" be shortened to "without paid"? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

"Purple flurp" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Purple flurp has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 18 § Purple flurp until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)