Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk
Reload this Page >

So it's not "Kentucky Fried Chicken" anymore?

Other Talk "Otterville" plus Religion and Politics

So it's not "Kentucky Fried Chicken" anymore?

Old 01-21-06, 11:03 PM
  #1  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So it's not "Kentucky Fried Chicken" anymore?

Last night I saw a KFC sign that read "Kitchen for Chicken."

Did the company change their name recently, or has this been in place for years and I never noticed before?
Old 01-21-06, 11:08 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hero
 
PopcornTreeCt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,913
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I think they change it every year. Last year it was something different. The only thing that stays the same is KFC.
Old 01-21-06, 11:15 PM
  #3  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PopcornTreeCt
I think they change it every year. Last year it was something different. The only thing that stays the same is KFC.

I think a few years ago it was Kitchen Fresh Chicken, but I thought "KFC" had no meaning anymore as everyone calls it KFC anyways.
Old 01-21-06, 11:16 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hughson, CA
Posts: 5,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Since they're using recombinant 5-legged, 3-breasted mutants for their stock, the government has barred them from using "chicken".


edited to add

Last edited by victant; 01-21-06 at 11:20 PM.
Old 01-21-06, 11:33 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think that they stopped using the name "kentucky fried chicken" because "fried" has an unhealthy connotation. I don't know for sure though
Old 01-21-06, 11:53 PM
  #6  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Kitchen Fresh Chicken
Old 01-22-06, 12:00 AM
  #7  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,804
Received 16 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by BobDole42
I think that they stopped using the name "kentucky fried chicken" because "fried" has an unhealthy connotation. I don't know for sure though
Yes, about 20 years ago.
Old 01-22-06, 12:20 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: On the penis chair
Posts: 5,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Do you know that KFC stop using the "Kentucky Fried Chicken" name because they use genetically modified chicken, it's no really a chicken anymore?
Old 01-22-06, 12:47 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Kentucky copyrighted its name about 15 years ago and demanded that they pay an outrageous liscencing fee. Since then, they've been KFC
Old 01-22-06, 12:48 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
nickdawgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-nee
Posts: 29,848
Received 37 Likes on 23 Posts
Originally Posted by X
Yes, about 20 years ago.
It was called Kentucky Fried Chicken back in 1994 when I was in high school. My friends sister worked there, so I know for a fact.
Old 01-22-06, 01:16 AM
  #11  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,804
Received 16 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by RoQuEr
Kentucky copyrighted its name about 15 years ago and demanded that they pay an outrageous liscencing fee. Since then, they've been KFC
Back to our story: In 1991, Kentucky Fried chicken announced that it was officially changing its name to "KFC" (as well as updating its packaging and logo with a more modern, sleeker look). The public relations reason given for the name change was that health-conscious consumers associated the word "fried" with "unhealthy" and "high cholesterol," causing some of them to completely shun the wide variety of "healthy" menu items being introduced at Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets. The new title and image were designed to lure back customers to a restaurant now offering foods branded as "better for you," we were told.

It sounded good, but the real reason behind the shift to KFC had nothing to do with healthy food or finicky consumers: it was about money money that Kentucky Fried Chicken would have had to pay to continue using their original name. In 1990, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, mired in debt, took the unusual step of trademarking their name. Henceforth, anyone using the word "Kentucky" for business reasons inside or outside of the state would have to obtain permission and pay licensing fees to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It was an unusual and brilliant scheme to alleviate government debt, but it was also one that alienated one of the most famous companies ever associated with Kentucky. The venerable Kentucky Fried Chicken chain, a mainstay of American culture since its first franchise opened in Salt Lake City in 1952, refused as a matter of principle to pay royalties on a name they had been using for four decades. After a year of fruitless negotiations with the Kentucky state government, Kentucky Fried Chicken unwilling to submit to "such a terrible injustice" threw in the towel and changed their name instead, timing the announcement to coincide with the introduction of new packaging and products to obscure the real reasons behind the altering of their corporate name.
http://www.snopes.com/lost/kfc.htm

I'd like to see that trademark. It seems very unlikely.
Old 01-22-06, 01:25 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 8,494
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by X
Well, if it's on Snopes, it's must be true.

<Sucker>
Old 01-22-06, 01:27 AM
  #13  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,804
Received 16 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by Joe Molotov
Well, if it's on Snopes, it's must be true.

<Sucker>
Yes, I don't really believe the trademark story unless someone can show me the trademark.

It seems to me that it would be kind of hard to get a trademark covering the confusion of a state with a type of prepared chicken.
Old 01-22-06, 01:29 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Posts: 7,185
Received 55 Likes on 45 Posts
KFC stands for Kentucky Fried Chicken

It used to be that Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants were owned by The Kentucky Fried Chicken Corporation.

Since 1986, when The Kentucky Fried Chicken Corporation became part of PepsiCo, the effort has been made to phase out the moniker Kentucky Fried Chicken and replace it with the abbreviation KFC.
There are a variety of reasons for this. One is that Kentucky Fried Chicken (supposedly) sounds "old-fashioned", and the more modern KFC is "hip", "quick" and "fresh".

I doubt that you can find anything in a KFC restaurant that has the words Kentucky Fried Chicken on it --unless it's something about the history of the company, but it doesn't change what the letters stand for.

BTW: Anybody remember Kenny Kings?
Old 01-22-06, 01:34 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Posts: 7,185
Received 55 Likes on 45 Posts
A state or a city can't trademark it's name.

Just think of all the businesses and products that use the names of cities and states.
Old 01-22-06, 01:46 AM
  #16  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,804
Received 16 Likes on 13 Posts
That's what I think. Can't think of an instance of it happening. Besides, trademarks are used to avoid confusion. They would have to trademark every single category of usage to do that and I doubt they could justify it.

I believe the U.S. government clamped down on calling businesses "U.S. [whatever]" some time around the early '70s. But that was for other reasons.
Old 01-22-06, 01:49 AM
  #17  
Moderator
 
Jadzia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,799
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
KFC?

"Let's not hip it up too much. It's CHICKEN." -- Dennis Miller
Old 01-22-06, 01:54 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,438
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
They just changed from Kentucky Fried Chicken last night and you were the first person in the world to notice.
Old 01-22-06, 01:55 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: a mile high, give or take a few feet
Posts: 13,691
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
I always call it KFC, and assumed that the different names in the ads were just "clever" ways of using their letters. I like Popeye's better, so it doesn't matter too much to me.
Old 01-22-06, 01:56 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,438
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Oh, and for what it's worth, whenever I am talking to someone about the restaurant I always said Kentucky Fried Chicken, not KFC.
Old 01-22-06, 04:04 AM
  #21  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: La Crosse, WI
Posts: 15,553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I never realized they changed they're name. Then again I'm boycotting the local KFC because they're not a participating location.
Old 01-22-06, 08:15 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Just north of Atlanta
Posts: 5,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It appears your local KFC is behind the times. They've recently starting using the full "Kentucky Fried Chicken" name again.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7590448/
Old 01-22-06, 08:16 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Just north of Atlanta
Posts: 5,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And according to Wikipedia, the Snopes link is actually a spoof.
Old 01-22-06, 08:19 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by johnglass
And according to Wikipedia, the Snopes link is actually a spoof.
It's also a spoof according to snopes itself.

http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.htm

Claim: Common sense dictates that you should never fully rely upon someone else to do fact checking for you. But who has time for common sense?

Origins: If
you're reading this page, chances are you're here because something about one or all of the entries in The Repository Of Lost Legends (TROLL) section of this site struck you as a tadge suspect, if not downright wrong.

If any or all of the stories in this section caused your internal clue phone to ring, we hope you didn't let the answering machine take the call. That niggling little voice of common sense whispering to you in the background was right there was something wrong with what you read.

You've just had an enounter with False Authority Syndrome.

Everything in this section is a spoof. Mister Ed was no more a zebra than the origin of the nursery rhyme Sing a Song of Sixpence had anything to do with pirates on a recruiting drive. As for Mississippi's doing away with teaching fractions and decimals in its school systems because kids find them too hard to master, that's no more true than Kentucky's imposing a licensing fee on uses of its name, Edgar Rice Burroughs naming his celebrated apeman after the city he lived in (other way around, actually), George Bernard Shaw penning a poorly-attended play called Closed For Remodeling, passengers on the Titanic viewing a 1912 silent version of The Poseidon Adventure while their doomed ship was sinking out from under them, or the design of California's flag being the result of "pear" being taken for "bear."

What is the point of the Lost Legends section, you say? Is it merely an exercise in creative writing, perhaps a way to blow off steam when the pressure of having to be mindnumbingly factual about everything gets to us? Does it provide us with a gratuitous opportunity to guffaw at how easily folks are duped into believing outrageous things? Or are we suicidally intent upon giving our valued readers good reason to doubt the credibility of everything else on the site?

Granted, a small part of the motivation to create such a section stems from our need to let a sense of whimsy get the better of us once in a while, and yes, some days the grind of having to be utterly factual about everything does weigh on us a bit. But the Lost Legends actually serve a higher purpose than merely existing as an out-of-the-way pasture a couple of writers can occasionally have a good frolic in.

This section graphically demonstrates the pitfalls of falling into the lazy habit of taking as gospel any one information outlet's unsupported word. We could have put up a page saying "Don't believe everything you read, no matter how trustworthy the source," but that wouldn't have conveyed the message half as well as showing through direct example just how easy it is to fall into the "I got it from so-and-so, therefore it must be true" mindset. That's the same mindset that powers urban legends, the same basic mistake that impels countless well-meaning folks to confidently assert "True story; my aunt (husband, best friend, co-worker, boss, teacher, minister) told me so."

No single truth purveyor, no matter how reliable, should be considered an infallible font of accurate information. Folks make mistakes. Or they get duped. Or they have a bad day at the fact-checking bureau. Or some days they're just being silly. To not allow for any of this is to risk stepping into a pothole the size of Lake Superior.

It's just as much a mistake to look to a usually-reliable source to do all of the thinking, judging, and weighing as it was to unquestioningly believe every unsigned e-mail that came along. Far too many have transferred the same breathlessly unbounded faith they used to accord various bits of e-tripe to those who make it their life's work to get to the bottom of crazy stories. It's sad to say, but the behavior of abdicating responsibility remains the same even though who is being believed has changed. It's still an abdication.

"You just keep on thinking, Butch; that's what you're good at," works as a life philosophy only if you're the Sundance Kid. And most of us ain't.

What does this mean, then don't believe anything, no matter who researches and presents it? Hardly. When facts are needed, it's still right to turn to news and information outlets that have a proven track record for providing good information. The trick is to recognize the dividing line between "reliable" and "infallible" and thus learn how to avoid throwing oneself bodily across it. Or, in other words, don't throw the common sense out with the bathwater.

Common sense dictates that a black-and-white quadruped is still going to look like a zebra on a black-and-white TV, and all the authoritative-looking cites to the contrary shouldn't persuade one otherwise. Next time you're tempted to believe something that runs contrary to common sense just because someone knowledgeable touts it, remember Mister Ed. More folks than it bears thinking about turned their backs on their own common sense rather than disbelieve an outlet they'd lazily come to have unshakeable faith in.

The world is filled with information and misinformation, and picking a path through this minefield will never amount to finding the One True Authority to utterly rely upon. Figuring out which way is up will always require the use of common sense because, as we're about to see, even the authorities one would otherwise count on to always be dealing off the top of the deck will sometimes get it horribly wrong.

Professors sometimes pass along unverifiable rumor as if it were the truth (e.g. wild-ass speculation about a well-known actress' genetic makeup is routinely offered to biology classes as a factual example of a particular medical condition), and sometimes they impart off-the-wall claims to their students as the plain unvarnished truth. Textbooks themselves frequently include numerous factual errors.

Although seeking an education from those proveably more knowledgeable is a good thing, allowing that education to amount to "my teacher told me this, so it must be true" is a mistake of breathtaking magnitude. Teachers are people too, and they sometimes fail to do all the checking they should before presenting an informative tidbit to a class. Or they (like anyone else) rely on the certainty of a friend who imparted that particular tidbit. Either way, there's room in this formula for bad information to come from a good source even when the source has nothing but the purest of intentions.

Likewise, members of the clergy, police officers, and anyone else you might instinctively view as inherently trustworthy authority figures have time and again proved they were just as capable as anyone of passing along misinformation as if it were fact. Witness the Vicar of Ewhurst's behavior in the Eric Clapton tale and examine the statements made by Father Michael Kennedy about a possible AIDS Mary in his parish for examples of the clergy taking a hand in furthering legends. Try to imagine from how many pulpits the Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Procter and Gamble, and "gay Jesus film" scares were delivered from.

As for the police, a quick look at the history of the Lights Out! hoax reveals how often this canard was passed along as 100% fact by the very group one would hope not only is always protecting us but also knows more about these matters than anyone. Some policemen have also over the years chosen to present impossible urban legends as incidents that happened to them (e.g., the RV Siphoner tale).

Okay, you say, so you can't trust individuals placed in positions of authority to always filter out every bit of misinformation that comes their way before passing it along to their students, parishioners, patients, and citizens. People are fallible, and it's reasonable to assume that at some future unspecified date any one of these presumed paragons will pass along as rock-solid fact some specious bit of knowledge they failed to first properly vet on your behalf. But what about monolithic entities such as wire services, highly respected newspapers, and television news shows? They have fact checkers on staff, and these news outlets are in the business of providing information you can trust, after all. Aren't they perfectly reliable?

The answer is no. Even the best of the best of them will at times drop the ball.

* In 1988, UPI and Reuters were taken in by an exploding toilet story published by the Jerusalem Post and thus passed it along to every newspaper they fed.

* In 1999, the locked-out pilot legend was vectored in the pages of the Chicago Tribune as a recent occurrence involving Air Zimbabwe.

* In 1995 CNN devoted a segment to Mr. Bonuso and his Solomon Project, a legal supercomputer which supposedly would render the need for juries obsolete. Only after the segment aired did CNN discover that Bonuso was really Joey Skaggs, prankster extraordinaire, and the Solomon Project was his latest leg-pull.

* In 1997 NBC Nightly News ran a piece on how to tell truth from hoax regarding Internet rumors. In a bizarre twist of getting the story backwards thanks to not reading the underlying material, the show's anchor assured viewers that some brands of cat litter are radioactive.

* The hydrogen beer legend has been presented as fact by The New York Times (1996), the Boston Globe (1997), and the Washington Post (1999).

* In a 2003 U.S. News and World Report article about tort reform, an apocryphal list of ridiculous lawsuits was presented as real.

Okay, so even the big boys have fallen off the beam at times, thus proving it's a mistake to worship at even their feet. What's an aspiring skeptic to do when common sense whispers one thing and a trusted source shouts another?

The answer is startlingly simple: Look for more information. That internal taffy-pull should be interpreted as a sign that more legwork is needed before a position pro or con can be adopted. Rather than arbitrarily throwing belief in either direction ("My teacher wouldn't lie" versus "My teacher must be wrong about this"), make the effort to find out which is right, this time by consulting a variety of sources.

Among other things (including providing a good read and some wonderful belly laughs), we hope this site helps our visitors learn to judge the quality of information presented to them. We'd like to think those who stop by here learn a little something about what steps to mentally take when pondering the eternal "hoax or true?" question. As wonderfully gratifying as it is to be regarded as infallible, we'd much rather see our visitors discover the key to their own abilities.

Are we being a bit too strident in our warning against succumbing to the allure of relying on others to do all of the vetting of suspect tales? Perhaps, but based on the number of puzzled messages we've received from incredulous readers who were surprised to discover that, in spite of what they read here, Mr. Ed wasn't really a zebra, we don't think so.
Old 01-22-06, 09:39 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
That's brilliant, WildcatLH.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.