That's almost as bad as saying Boeing Super 80.
Actually, it's worse. At least Boeing owns the line where the MD
-80 was produced...
Given the the point you are making probably went straight over heads of 90% of the audience, it seems more likely that the writer's goofed.
Humour has to have a point, and if 90% do not realise that a joke has been told, then it is wasted.
Obviously, you never watch Mel Brooks or Woody Allen films, and didn't much care for the Blues Brothers. Lots of NYC-based jokes than anyone not from Manhattan or one of the other four boroughs wouldn't get. I'm fortunate that both of my parents lived in NYC. I get a lot of the jokes...
I thinik it may have more to do with not "promoting" brand names on TV rather than a deliberate mistake, or even a combination of unbranding the name while making a joke...
I don't think so. While Homer is careful to always buy "Duff" beer and Fry always drinks "Slurm" (both Matt Groeing creations), some other programs are not so careful to leave out product names. In 1988, Michelob was mentioned in Star Trek IV
, for which they paid nothing, but when ET
came out in the early 80s, Reces Pieces paid for a placement that M&M Mars passed up...
The return to product-placement in television
is really a *very* recent thing. It is more and more common, but a simple mention of "Papa John's" or "Bud Light" might still be just a cultural reference, much the same as the mention of some celebrity who does not appear in the episode.
More common on TV
until recently was the prevention of mentioning a brand competing with a major sponsor. For example, if a show was sponsored by Budweiser, no character would *ever* mention Coors, Old Milwaukee, or Samuel Adams, even to denegrate it. Any mention at all was taboo.
Although, if you go back to old 1950s TV
(US), you can see the really blatant product-placements for things like cigarettes...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.