Today's word according to e-mail yesterday is "generic". The pink bar above still says it is
"webliography".
I think the definition given by guest wordsmith of cheap toilet paper, is not really well chosen. My
dictionary gives "without a brand name" as second definition. and I do not think that well chosen either.
Just about nothing gets sold without a brand name, be it ever so humble.
And I suspect the most common way board members will encounter the word is when they get a
prescription filled for which an insurance company pays. You never get the top brand that way. There
are companies that even after paying royalties can make the same drug more cheaply than the
originator, but they have to give it another name. For instance I used to take "Cardizem" I now get the
same drug as a knock-off called "Diltiazem."
You will see drug company propaganda alleging that the "generics" are not to be trusted. Baloney. To
suggest that Bayer Aspirin is better than Walmart's cheapo brands of acetyl salicylic acid is absurd. I
have made aspirin. The only trick is to get rid of traces of the starting materials.
So "generic" is most often a charitable name for a knock-off.

Another, more palatable, name for generic these days is "store brand" -- as in "I got the store brand toilet paper instead of Charmin and saved $1.25." Speaking of medications, though, I notice that lately Tylenol has started printing on its packages of over-priced stuff that "the facility that manufactures Tylenol-brand pain reliever does not produce any other brand of pain reliever" (or something to that effect) to counter the argument that the generics are often made in the same factories as the name brand stuff. I agree with Dr. Bill -- it's all the same to my headache.

Another, more palatable, name for generic these days is "store brand"

Not quite the same. Ann Page is the A&P store brand. The generics (and I haven't seen any lately, except in some single malts) came in a white package with plain black lettering, often in a stencil style font saying something like PEAS and little if anything more.

... and since this is a generic Weekly Theme topic, it can therefore be discussed in any forum. Animal Safari, anyone?

I agree that generic may be used to identify "knock-offs," but I more frequently see the term used, as others have mentioned, to apply to store-brands. And I wouldn't consider these knock-offs. In fact, I'm pretty sure after inspecting my store-brand pineapple and the Dole pineapple tins, that they come from the same factory. The boxes they were shipped in when I used to stock shelves on the graveyard were too similar, too.

I think of it as the Banana Republic, The Gap, Old Navy marketing scheme. The same manufacturers market products to three groups based on income (I'm Old Navy myself; couldn' afford the other two). Dole gets to corner the money-tight consumers while still getting the wealthier brand-conscious consumers.

Now, what was the word for that? Consumerism, greed, or just good marketing?

I just remembered a humorous episode back in the sixties or seventies. The top brand people started using ads comparing their products against "Brand X" They kept it up long enough, that some shrewdie started a brand called "Brand X" and spending only pennies on advertising benefited from the brand names advertising to make out quite well for a few years.

<<So "generic" is most often a charitable name for a knock-off.">>

Thus, "Generic Givenche" and not "knock-off," "Generic Dollar" and not "counterfeit."

And taking leave--uncharacteristically--of the ridiculous, "generic" brings attention to an important matter of ethics much in the news lately concerning the manufacture of AIDS medications for third world distribution. Among the less discussed aspects of the controversy are: (a) the special interest the politics of this part of public health holds for the wealthy citizens of developed nations; and (b) the ethical "dilemma" posed to economies whose wealth is increasingly concentrated in "intellectual property" which term, so used, is fundamentally an oxymoron as a matter of law (Sparteye?). "Generic," in the age of commerce, points directly at that four-letter word, "liberty."

Baloney. To suggest that Bayer Aspirin is better than Walmart's cheapo brands of salicylic acid is absurd.

My Dad's a pharmacist (and he was a pharmacist before they became pill-counters), and he would emphatically assert the same thing, Dr. Bill. He never brought home anything but generic brands for us, including prescription drugs. There's was absolutely no reason to waste good money for a fancy label, he would say. It's all the same, it all works just as well.
"Rose is a rose is a rose..." "A rose by any other name would be as sweet"...and is!

<<A rose by any other name would be as sweet.>>

A Shakespearean at the acting studio told us the Rose in question was the theater, which smelled of sewerage. But my uncle and grandfather, both pharmacists, agreed with your dad.

Here we refer to generic brands as "no-name brands". However, the major store chains actually have a No-Name© brand, complete with copyright symbol! One has blue packaging with yellow letters, another has yellow packaging with black letters. Then there is usually a "store-brand" which usually has nicer packaging, is substantially better quality than the no-name brand, but is still a good bit cheaper than brand-name stuff. My dad used to always buy no-name butterscotch ripple ice cream, which was mostly vanilla with some badly crystallized butterscotch streaks. We fondly referred to it as "butter-sh#$ ripple ice cream"...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

"Butterscotch"
There's an interesting word. Compare with "caramel". In making candy starting just with cane sugar and water, heating it until some water is driven off causing temperature to rise, the color darkens progressively and the flavor changes. It shouldn't actually "scorch". So is "scotch" a euphemism for "scorch"? Of course in the candy butter and other things may be added.

I am resisting Dr. bill's opening-- i am not going to digress into candy making-- but just now looking at the word caramel-- cara (heart -- in latin --or close enough) and mel (an interesting root that goes back to indo/europian--for sweet/honey/honeybees, as in d. melitis, or melody (sweet sounds) caramel's are "heart sweets"(sweethearts?)

and they are different substantualy from butterscotches-- if nothing else, once is a hard candy, the other a soft taffy like one-- no, no, no, no food! not even sweet stuff!

Dear of troy: But why "scotch"? - nothing to do with Scotland, and no dictionary definition of "scotch" fits.

According to the AHD:

Alteration of butterscot : butter + scot, of unknown origin.


Lotta help, huh?

Since "scot" is an antique word for tax, "butterscot" ought to mean a tax on butter. Which would have a disagreeable taste, not a pleasant one.

"butterscot" ought to mean a tax on butter

Yeah, and underwhelm *ought to mean undercut.

"Underwhelm" under cuts the mustard.

Couldn't have said it better myself

Said what, Faldage?...Please enlighten me, I've drawn a blank.

"Generic," in the age of commerce, points directly at that four-letter word, "liberty"

Wonderful!

It seems that categories are imbeded enough in the fabric of consumerism that marketeers are fighting a "loozing battle" with themselves... one that creates most of the "wasted" time and effort of the generic dollars within.

This post has been changed to protect the guilty

marketeers are fighting a "loosing battle" with themselves...

musick, so you're a Brit, too?

(I'd rather 'lose' a battle than 'loose' one...)

I axed for it...I guezz

Ok... there... I fixt it.

" It seems that categories are imbeded enough in the fabric of consumerism that marketeers are fighting
a "loozing battle" with themselves... one that creates most of the "wasted" time and effort of the
generic dollars within."

If you try spending generic dollars any where except in a Monopoly game, you'll get a visit from a Treasury agent.

I fixt it!

Oh, so you finally decided to lose the loose, eh?

to lose the loose

...hence coining the expression loose change