Just a couple of things from someone that deals with the FTC and state consumer regs everyday on a day I am stuck in an airport killing time:
1) Licensing. Trish is absolutely right about how licensing of names is both legal and common, although her examples (such as t-shirts) are not the best. Many companies have licensed out their name that is put on products not made by them. Bell and Howell has not made consumer electronics for many many years but you still see the name showing up on cheap items from China or Korea. I have an old "Polaroid" flat-screen TV that was not made by Polaroid despite the name on it. Indeed a number of companies (including Polaroid) have as its main asset and source of income a brand name - that used to mean something - that it now simply licenses out.
Someone mentioned above that a manufacturer would not let their name be put on something that would give them a bad reputation. Eh, maybe. Depends. Many companies start out only licensing their name to products that they carefully review and approve, but boy is that easy money once it starts rolling in. The old "Polaroid" TV I have in the rec room actually was a good one and got good reviews back in the day as they apparently were careful about where they put their name. As the company approached bankruptcy, however, it started getting slapped on anything for the right price.
With cigars it would depend on how much the name-owner thinks that CI/Cbid sales would hurt its other sales. With Graycliff, for example, if they really only sell their "real" Graycliff cigars at the Hotel or thereabouts, licensing the name to someone else is not a very risky proposition since they are not really competing against themselves, and the relatively few people that would go through the Hotel for the purpose buying their cigars probably know the real story. Others might might have more to protect, but again once that "free" money starts rolling it, its pretty hard to say no.
So yes it is legal and common. I don't necessarily like it, but its buyer beware.
2) Out-of-date reviews. Here there is a real potential issue. The FTC and some states (such as California) have been looking into "Stale" reviews that are not actually reviewing the current version of the product sold. One point of emphasis on the FTC's website is that there needs to be a disclosure if the product is not the same as it was when the endorsements were given. A direct quote from the FTC's guidelines says: "If you’re using endorsements that are a few years old, it’s your obligation to make sure the claims still are accurate."
In this context it is likely that the same rules would apply to a rating from CA or wherever. If the product has changed, there should be an updated review/endorsement/rating OR there should be a full disclosure that the product is not the same.
California has reportedly gone after some companies that were highlighting - or pushing to the top of searches - "old" online reviews of products or services that had substantially changed since the review was first posted. Indeed, you see on a number of sites now disclaimers such as "this review was of an earlier version."
Cigars, of course, are not a camera or a car. They are (often) handmade products from natural materials that are going to change from year-to-year and batch to batch. . In that way they are similar to wine that is different every year. But wine is commonly dated, so you know if you are getting a 1997 or 2014 version of the same named product and the reviews and ratings usually make it clear what year wine is being talked about.
As "vintage dating" is not commonly done with the marketing of cigars, it actually makes it MORE important that, if the seller knows that the product has substantially changed, then the reviews and endorsements should either pertain to the current version or there is a disclaimer. I have seen a number of cigars with a sticker on the box or wrapper that says "Best Cigar of 2005" or some such thing. That is better than what CI/CBID does since it at least has a date on it, but you still don't usually know when THIS cigar you are buying was made.
This is not to say that an "old" review or rating is meaningless. Not every cigar is rated by every reviewer every year. Knowing that a manufacturer did a great job in 2012 could certainly be useful information on whether or not to purchase the company's 2014 product. But even then, have things changed? Is it made by the same company, in the same place, by the same people, using the same source of tobacco, with the same blend and same conditions? IF not, and if you KNOW its not, then you are risking getting into trouble by posting what you know are old, out-dated reviews and ratings.
The FTC has always looked at these types of cases on an individual basis so there is no "bright line" that is easy to point to, but clearly the further away from a rating or review the current product is, and the more changes there have been to manufacturing, ownership, blend, etc that have taken place since the rating or review, the more likely the FTC would say that deception is going on.
The most egregious example that seems to be pointed out above is the LaPerla "93 rating" was from quite a while ago on a cigar that the seller knows has changed substantially since the rating was given. I could certainly see this as being a basis for complaints. The funny thing for me is I actually really like the LaPerla (purple) for the price I can get it on C-Bid usually. Its a very good smoke IMO and well worth the $2/stick (and sometimes cheaper) I have gotten it on here. As much as I like it, however, I would not put it in a "CA 93" category. Its just not THAT cigar. I personally find the 93 rating to be misleading at this point and one that should be dropped from the advertisements and descriptions.
Edited by user
11 years ago |
Reason: oops
