Background: Branding involves "labeling" (for identification) and "meaning" (for understanding) to a product, service, person, idea, or other entity. We are familiar with "brands" of soft drinks, automobiles, mobile phones, soups, cigarettes, and sports teams, and some brands have greater "market share" than others. Methods: In this commentary, we review some of the ways that school health has been branded over the past 50+ years. Results: The brand we know as school health education has failed to compete successfully with other school subject areas (eg, the so-called STEM subjects) for the attention of school board members, administrators, legislators, and other policymakers. Perhaps more importantly, school health education advocates have lost the market share game to subject areas that school board members and legislators see as ones with better return on investment, at least politically speaking. In short, we have failed to make the sale. Conclusion: An alternative is to re-brand and re-frame school health education as "education for health literacy." Literacy as a brand commands the attention of education gatekeepers, and may be more strongly related conceptually to what gatekeepers see as education-centric programs deserving of funding. Adopting a marketing mindset may elevate "education for health literacy" to a place where key stakeholders are more likely to "purchase" it as a relevant school "product."