Brands, Blenders and Manufacturers Confusion

[carver]

Hi,
I was wandering on tobaccoreviews and I saw that some tobacco had as brand, the name of their manufacturer.

Two example that really struck me, but I might be wrong, are those.

Erinmore Flake and Mixture. If you look at all the Erinmores, they seem to all be of "Erinmore" brand, with different blends being "flake, "mixture", "balkan mixture", ...

However, for those 2, the brand is referenced as Scandinavian Tobacco group. How can that be a Brand name ???
I was wondering the same about Escudo Navy de Luxe. The Brand on TR is referred to as STG too. But again, how can that be a brand name. Shouldn't it be

Brand: Escudo

Blend : Navy de Luxe
And so many others like that.

 

[warren]

Is it copyrighted as "Erinmore Flake" or simply "Flake"? A brand name usually is copyrighted. The manufacturers name is probably copyrighted also. So, synonyms? In my book, yes. If there is a difference, in this day and age, usage tells me a difference without a distinction.

 

[skraps]

I don't think they really use the manufacturer, brand, blend labels exactly as they should. Personally, I would not consider Escudo as the brand and Navy DeLuxe as the Blend though. It would seem to me that Escudo is one of those funny ones that would have the brand and blend the exact same.

 

[sablebrush52]

On the Escudo label, the inclusion of STG indicates the name of the manufacturer, not the brand name. The brand name is Escudo Navy Deluxe. When Cope made it, it was Cope's Escudo Navy Deluxe or Cope's Nave Deluxe Escudo. When A&C Petersen made it it was Escudo Navy Deluxe.
Now going onto tobaccoreviews.com and looking at the blends listed under Scandinavian Tobacco Group I just see Erinmore Flake, Erinmore Mixture, etc listed under their brand names, without Scandinavian Tobacco Group as part of the name. The list of blends are the brand names.

 

[mso489]

In reviews, I think it's good form to give as much information as possible, at the outset. It gives the reader a line on who makes it and who owns them, if possible. Ownership of blends and brands changes often enough, and this often changes the actual product. Or if ownership stays the same but their sourcing changes (often changing the product) that's useful to know. So we get reviewers saying this outfit used to blend this and it tasted this way, but now that outfit blends it and it tastes different in these ways.

 

[skraps]

I think it's just how TR.com is categorizing things. Listing a manufacturer as a brand is not really accurate. Dunhill would be a brand, not the company manufacturing it.

 

[JimInks]

True, but Erinmore Flake, Escudo, etc. are the names of those products, not the brand or manufacturer, so they shouldn't be listed as a brand. If "brand" was changed to "company", that would seem to be accurate.

 

[carver]

@sablebrush: yesterday, I changed it, but it's been "rejected.
@skrapsoftobacco: I might be wrong, but it does seem that STG and Dunhill are very different in their intrinsic nature. Dunhill is a company created by a person called Dunhill. So his product are called with the brand name Dunhill. But STG is more of a conglomerate, and they own several brands. So using STG as a Brand name for all these product, to me, makes no sense at all. The ownership of a product doesn't necessarily name the product.
Sometime ago, Coca Cola acquired Minute Maid... They haven't renamed Minute Maid into "Coca Cola Orange" have they ?
I still think that it makes more sense to consider Erinmore, for example, to be a Brand, and Flake/Mixture/Balkan Mixture, to be their different blends.

STG being the manufacturer/blender/owner ...

STG owns so many different brands/blends ...
Same with Dunhill being a brand, Flake/NC/EMP/... being different blends. The only difference here is that Dunhill is also the company which owns the brand.
What if one day, STG buys Dunhill for some reason ... ?

Change all those blends' brand's name ?

 

[warren]

STG would then own the trademark, depending on exactly what Dunhill properties were purchased. They could kill off the trademark or use it. Modify it if they wish. Perhaps STG's Dunhill My Mixture 965.
Also, Dunhill is a lot more than tobacco. In fact the tobacco part of the company is farmed out to some blender last I heard. The pipes are also farmed out or, someone is paying for the right to use the name, nomenclature, etc. Not sure about the current situation. I believe they have the retail business and contract out for the leather goods, men's furnishings, etc. Not a business I'm particularly interested in so I've not followed it closely.

 

[papipeguy]

Owning the trademark is one thing but you need someone to produce the product. I think TR tries to capture that when they can but the manufacturers are simply the processers of the blends. The names and recipes are usually owned by the licensors.

 

[carver]

Ok I get you. It's a little clearer.

Why then some other Erinmore are still named under Erinmore as a brand? Mistake? Or is it than some of the Erinmore blends are owned by STG but not all..?

 

[warren]

For that question I would ask STG. Someone here might know. But, if it's important ask the company.

 

[jvnshr]

was wandering on tobaccoreviews and I saw that some tobacco had as brand, the name of their manufacturer.

Two example that really struck me, but I might be wrong, are those.

Erinmore Flake and Mixture. If you look at all the Erinmores, they seem to all be of "Erinmore" brand, with different blends being "flake, "mixture", "balkan mixture", ...

However, for those 2, the brand is referenced as Scandinavian Tobacco group. How can that be a Brand name ???

I was asking the same question to myself when I started smoking, but then realized that I have bigger problems

 

[carver]

I was asking the same question to myself when I started smoking, but then realized that I have bigger problems

What bigger problems ?

But, if it's important ask the company.

It's not, just curiosity.

 

[skraps]

@skrapsoftobacco: I might be wrong, but it does seem that STG and Dunhill are very different in their intrinsic nature. Dunhill is a company created by a person called Dunhill. So his product are called with the brand name Dunhill. But STG is more of a conglomerate, and they own several brands. So using STG as a Brand name for all these product, to me, makes no sense at all. The ownership of a product doesn't necessarily name the product.

I agree. I think that's pretty much what I said, lol.
We could all lament about this for days, even weeks. It comes down to the easiest way for TR to categorize tobacco. Doesn't mean it makes the most sense.

 

[jvnshr]

What bigger problems ?

Like trying all of those available blends

 

[lestrout]

I've always used the auto business as a guide when I think about brands/manufacturers/product lines and models. For instance, GM (the company and often the manufacturer-factory) has Chevrolets and Cadillacs (the brands). In turn, Chevy has product lines like Corvettes and Impalas. A car line might have a bunch of products-models (sedan, station wagon, convertible), all carrying the same brand name and product nomenclature.
In some cases, the overall company might use the same name for a brand, eg Ford and Chrysler. In some cases not - ever try to buy a "GM" car? As Papi points out, whoever owns the rights to the brand might contract out the manufacturing - Dunhill pipe tobacco has migrated from doing it themselves, to Murray in Ireland, to Orlik in Denmark. Maybe Robert McConnell in Scotland figured in there somewhere. Whoever thunk the baccy biz was so global back in the day?
hp

les

 

[carver]

I've always used the auto business as a guide when I think about brands/manufacturers/product lines and models. For instance, GM (the company and often the manufacturer-factory) has Chevrolets and Cadillacs (the brands). In turn, Chevy has product lines like Corvettes and Impalas. A car line might have a bunch of products-models (sedan, station wagon, convertible), all carrying the same brand name and product nomenclature.
In some cases, the overall company might use the same name for a brand, eg Ford and Chrysler. In some cases not - ever try to buy a "GM" car? As Papi points out, whoever owns the rights to the brand might contract out the manufacturing - Dunhill pipe tobacco has migrated from doing it themselves, to Murray in Ireland, to Orlik in Denmark. Maybe Robert McConnell in Scotland figured in there somewhere. Whoever thunk the baccy biz was so global back in the day?

You make a lot of sense !! :clap: