franchise

[Garson O'Toole]

Here are the first two cites given in the OED. A legal distinction can
be drawn between the two: the Star Trek franchise is legally
protected, and the G-Man "franchise" is not. Other movie producers are
allowed to make films with a G-Man theme.

1936    N.Y. Times 9 July 17/2 (heading) Warner Brothers hold their
G-Man franchise with ‘Public Enemy's Wife’ at the Strand.

1986    L. Nimoy in Los Angeles Times 14 June 6,   I think the studio
[is]‥definitely interested in the future of the ‘Star Trek’ franchise.

Here are two more examples that are similar to the 1936 cite. I think
all three cites illustrate a natural figurative pattern.

Cite: 1976, The MGM Story: The Complete History of Fifty Roaring Years
by John Douglas Eames, GBooks Page 357, Crown Publishers, New York.
(Google Books snippet; Not verified on paper; Data may be inaccurate;
WorldCat agrees with date)

In The Moonshine War the bullets flew as thick as when Warner Bros,
had a franchise on the Prohibition era, but the public didn't seem to
care any more. The movie starred Patrick McGoohan as a revenue agent
and Richard Widmark as a ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=dBu0gvY3tMMC&q=franchise#search_anchor

Cite: 1985, The Paramount Story by John Douglas Eames, Page Unknown
and not visible, Crown, New York.  (Google Books snippet; Not verified
on paper; Data may be inaccurate; WorldCat agrees with date)

Oddly enough, the children pretending to be adults in Bugsy Malone
were less offensive than those playing wise-guy children in The Bad
News Bears, even though Bugsy and his companions were denizens of that
sleazy underworld on which Warner Bros, held the movie franchise in
the thirties.

Here is a 1968 cite about licensing clothes based on the movie Funny
Girl. It uses the word franchise with its traditional meaning, but it
might also suggest the extended meaning that is used today.

Cite: 1968 June 8, New York Times, "'Funny Girl' Takes Whirl Into
Fashion" By Jundy Klemesrud, Page 20, New York. (ProQuest)

Movie studios, in this case Columbia, generally like clothing tie-ins
because they give their films publicity wherever the clothes are sold.
And manufacturers are usually eager for a movie franchise because they
realize that the only way most women will ever feel like movie stars
is to dress like them. The clothes, therefore, are often best-sellers.

If a manufacturer is eager for a "movie franchise" then one might
expect that a movie producer would be motivated to create a "movie
franchise".

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender: Â  Â  Â  American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster: Â  Â  Â  Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject: Â  Â  Â franchise
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> OED offers a good def. of the now-ubiquitous "franchise": Â "orig. *U.S.* A
> general title, format, or unifying concept used for creating or marketing a
> series of products (esp. films, television shows, etc.)."
>
> Its primary ex. is from the _N.Y. Times_ in 1936. Â However, there follows a
> half-century gap and in 1988 the same NYT had to define the word for its
> readers.
>
> 1936 says, "Warner Brothers hold their G-Man franchise with =91Public Enemy=
> 's
> Wife=92 at the Strand."
>
> The uniquely early date, plus the tenor of "hold" (presumably "maintain")
> suggests to finicky me that the writer was simply playing facetiously off
> the established sense of an official authorization to trade in something,
>
> So I'd put the ex. in brackets - unless OED has a bunch of suppressed cites
> showing continuity of usage between 1936 and 1986.
>
> I thought to look the word up because the newer meaning has never made much
> logical sense to me. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
>
>
> JL
>
> --=20
> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org