Ah. Here's the answer. It appears Tokyo Slim is correct. "Gatorade" may dissappear completely. The key statement in the adweek commercial is this: "Omnicom Group's TBWA\\Chiat\\Day is Gatorade's lead agency, having replaced Element 79 on the business in April" So a new agency was brought in and they are expected to do something big. So their "Brilliant" idea (which has now resulted or shown up in a million dollar ad campaign) is pitched as follows: Agency: We need to do something big? Pepsi/Gatorade Marketing Dept execs: Of course Agency: You want to really get people talking about the "new" gatorade? Gatorade Execs: Yes! Yes! Agency: Ok... we'll call it G!!!! At this point gatorade execs are scared to say what they are thinking out loud. After all, TBWA\\Chiat\\Day is a well known (i.e. expensive) ad agency and they were brought in specifically to fix the problem. So unless they have or see a better idea.... they get talked into this idiotic idea. It also implies a hugely expensive branding campaign, which is much more fun (to an advertising creative person) than a "sell the product" commercial. It also implies they are not accountable to sales results, as others have already pointed out. That means they can't catch flack from the client for awhile at least, for the fact that they haven't moved the sales needle. "We weren't trying to... this is a braaaaaaanding campaign". Just because you spend a lot of money on something does not mean it is good. That applies to advertising and Ed Hardy clothes.