brand names in copy

[jljzen]

How often do you cut brand names in copy when another word could be used? I tend to do it fairly often, if not always. But in some wire copy today, I came across a sentence reading:

So Jackson reached back to an earlier time - her kindergarten years - and pulled out the Crayolas.
"I just put the mats on their trays and threw a crayon down," she said.

In this case, I thought it added a bit of color (no pun intended) to the graph, and avoided repeating "crayon" in the following one.

[LisaMc]

I cut them pretty often, too (though there's no way to cut "Jet-Ski" without making it sound clunky, even as the photo clearly shows a Sea-Doo). But I agree with you that in this instance, it works.

[editer]

(though there's no way to cut "Jet-Ski" without making it sound clunky, even as the photo clearly shows a Sea-Doo)

I'm trying to imagine anyone here saying "There's no way to cut 'Coke' without making it sound clunky, even as the photo clearly shows a Pepsi."

If it's a Sea-Doo, call it a freakin' Sea-Doo.

[Dan Puckett]

There's always "water scooter," which sounds kind of jaunty to me.

But I would definitely have left in "Crayola." Sometimes brand names are best — why is specificity bad? It can be overdone, but if someone thinks it's evocative, I don't see any harm in it until you get to the "He lit another Marlboro with his Bic and took a swig of Shiner Bock" point, but I don't see that kind of thing often.

[LisaMc]

We usually use "personal watercraft" -- I didn't say I didn't cut it, I just said it sounded clunky. "Soda" is not a clunky sub for "Coke."