I don't regard it as just marketing. In many cases, there's significant changes made to Americanize the training, such as an outright rejection of Korean terms for the techniques.
quote]
Therein lies the issue. Many styles may call themselves "American XXXX", but I am sure there is a whole spectrum of things that follow or change the XXX so it is difficult to generalize if it is good, bad, different or whatever.
As far as Korean terminology is concerned, I find whether or not it is used is of little importance. This is becaiuse I like others am I product of my training. Except when teaching a group of Koreans General Choi used only english names for the techniques, and I am fairly certain that while his first 2 books were in Korean, the subsequent and most in depthe works were in english, although Korean names for techniques were listed.
On the international level, the Korean names were the universal language in part becuase many of the original teachers being Korean did not know the english names.
Further, the english names a mostly very intuitve so it eliminates a big impediment to learning for many if only the korean names are used.