"Coon cheese"

did actually exist - until recently.

Let me explain. It was a brand of cheese in Downunder. It has been a brand of cheese for many, many years - almost a hundred. Edward William Coon developed a particular method of making cheese in 1926 and named it after himself.

"Coon" is quite a common surname in and around Ayrshire in Scotland. (It is related to surnames like Cunningham.) There are people here in Downunder who also have that surname. I don't doubt that there are also people in other parts of the world with that surname.

I also know that, in the United States, "coon" is considered a highly offensive term when used in relation to a person of a particular background. It is apparently also used as a shortened version of "raccoon".  Neither the offensive term or the animal is heard or seen in this country. 

Despite that someone decided that there needed to be a change of name. The cheese could no longer be "Coon". I have no idea who that was but they soon had others agitating for a change as well. Maybe it was the right thing to do. Maybe it was not the right thing to do. I am simply aware that it has happened. 

I am also aware that a good many other people are not happy about the name change. The cheese has now been given the name "Cheery" instead. It has left many people scratching their heads. Youngest Nephew, who knows a good deal about advertising and how it is sold, is not at all certain the name will work.  My guess is that it will last a few years and then there will, if the company survives, be another name change. 

All this will be expensive. It is something people give very little thought to in the general way of things. We are told, "Oh, it's just a simple change" or "It will be easy/quick/simple to change that." All too often that is far from the truth. 

The company behind this name change will have to spend a considerable amount on advertising the name change. That's just one thing however. They also need to repackage their brand. They need to change any future reference to it in their system. At the same time they have to make sure they can still find all past references to it  - under the old name - and then locate them there and in the future. Stationery may need to change. Staff need to trained to use the new term. It's an expensive business.

When governments "change brands" there is always expense involved. Letterhead is the least of the expense involved. It is the price we pay for "democracy" and most people are prepared to accept this - especially when "their" side comes into power again. 

There are other times when we change brands or have brand changes foisted upon us. The cost of these can sometimes - but not always - be justified. Sometimes there are other ways of doing things. Downunder became a completely independent nation with two simultaneous Acts of Parliament. It cost far less than the "republic" others still demand because they refuse to acknowledge reality. There are other occasions on which no change is necessary even if the internal structure has changed. Someone once suggested that, at the time of a group moving to "charitable" status the name should be changed. I remember a member getting up and asking why would this be considered. People knew "the brand". Moving to "charitable status" meant that donations to it would become tax deductible. Donations were needed and were more likely to be given if the group retained the name. There are still people who agitate for a name change but, for once, sense prevailed and things were left as they were. A name change would have been very costly.

We pay for name changes in the end - through higher prices and lower services. It isn't always for the best.