“Grocery store shelves.”
“Product displays.”
“Ads.”
Metaphorically: “Hester Prynne.”

Another thing that differentiates the “brand” category from “Famous Losers” is that in the former, it sounds like the judge awarded the category to the contestant, then after the break they decided to reverse it. For “Famous Losers,” the contestant said “losers . . . gamblers,” then the audience began cheering, the contestant jumped up, the music started, people came on stage — but the judge never officially gave the response a ding. True, it took 20 seconds between the answer and the first buzzer, but the reaction was also a bit premature.

For things with a brand, what about "a non-generic product?"

“Competitor X’s Product” maybe? Was “Brand X” used as a selling point in ‘76?

What makes this a little different from the Famous Losers incident was that decision came before the break as opposed to returning from break. (Let's set aside future take-back-the-money situations for a second.)

The charity donation seems to indicate there was some level of disagreement on the decision, and maybe there was more push from S&P than the judges, so this was the compromise solution. I'm sure someone will pull out examples, but I don't think Things That Have Brands was used again, or maybe reworded.

Where was the box located? This might also be a factor in the disagreement, because a bottom row box is not usually going to be too technical.

The wording of the clue is weird, plural Things and plural Brands. So clues like a Coke or a Kleenex are both nominally the thing and the brand, so they fit the subject in a way. Not much of a wine connoisseur to know if Mouton Rothschild is one of those brands that are so synonymous with the product, but now it's getting incredibly subjective. But I would say "Coke bottles" and "a Kleenex tissue" are extra-technically incorrect, because those items have one brand and not (plural) brands.

I think there was a recognition of a poorly written clue, and perhaps not enough time to run a replacement, leading to this decision. I'm sure they probably put something down in writing after that to not make this the precedent solution. I imagine, even with the frugal Bob Stewart jokes, they paid the regular Winners' Circle winnings out of the prize budget and the production company just made the charitable donation and wrote it off.

"A rancher's iron." Pair that with "A rancher's cattle" and then do a little soft-shoe if that doesn't get them home. Maybe throw in "Grocery products" if you have to?

I guess technically that CBS example was a case of both raising and lowering. It went from $25k soft cap with no hard cap to $50k soft cap with a $75k hard cap. Michael Larson would not have kept all his money under the new rule.

I don't know if that case was an impetus for changing the limits, but in stretching my brain I don't think there has ever been a game show before that on CBS where you could win over a hundred grand, certainly not in one game. 50/75 allows for those monster wins on Pyramid and Card Sharks and if you win $79,000 then set aside a chunk of the cash to invest and you'll make it back eventually.