“Mother of All” has become a trendy way of saying “best” or perhaps “will redefine the meaning of” (though the latter doesn’t feel particularly prone to trendiness.)
How does this relate to naming? Well, there’s the obvious fact that both Saddam and Putin used these lofty words to refer to important things (okay, so they weren’t really products, but they still needed names…) And there’s the more relevant fact that “MoA” has been used thousands of times in products and services since it was coined. MoA appears to be more commonly used in commerce than FoA – at a ratio of about four or five to one.
Of particular interest to me is the fact that (as far as I can tell) there are exactly zero products that use the phrase “Mother of All” in their names that have become wildly successful – other than the originally referenced war, of course.
I predict that we’ll see similar results from “Father of All” in the coming years. We may even see it become more popular than MoA for a while. But I’d be willing to wager that no product with FoA or MoA in its name will ever crack the top 100 spots on Amazon or any other reputable mass retailer.
Could it have something to do with the fact that the terms are typically used tongue-in-cheek? Or that they’re too closely linked to pop-culture and prone to becoming dated too quickly? Or is it that the logical impossibility of something becoming the mother or father of anything *after the thing is already born* is just too goofy to consider seriously?
I’ll leave you with this thought. How is it that “The Father of All Bombs” could be invented more than a half-century after the nuclear bomb (a much more powerful weapon) was dropped? It seems that the FoAB is more like the smaller, better behaved nephew of the atom bomb, doesn’t it? But “The Nephew of All Bombs” just doesn’t have much oomph…
So much for truth in advertising….