You guys. Do you know that there is an actual product being sold called Soylent that is a food-replacement product that got its name from the same book that inspired the 1973 film Soylent Green named for the food-replacement product featured in the story? The real-life product just started shipping commercially this past May. If you're not agog and incredulous at this moment, I'm guessing it's because you're not familiar with the big reveal in the film:
What boggles my mind is that anyone thought giving the new product the same name, in light of these past associations, was a good idea. The current enterprise seems to be run by the company founder who developed the product and the initial production was crowd-funded so I guess there were no investors or outside marketing folks weighing in . . . ?
I have no particular agenda against the real Soylent (although I enjoy actual food too much to want to use it myself), I just can't get over what seems like a total denial of/obliviousness to the pop-cultural association with the name. To me it feels like naming your brand new bed and breakfast the Bates Motel.
What do you think? Can I get an "Amen?" Or do you think I'm being silly - that the pop-culture association is meaningless? What's your take on this particular branding issue? Leave a comment!