The Second Edition of the Code introduced a number of new Code rules and introduced the principle that alcohol packaging and marketing could not make its alcoholic strength or relatively high alcohol content a dominant theme. The rule was further amended in the Third Edition in 2003 to prevent any marketing that made alcohol’s intoxicating effect a dominant theme.
In 2005, Alcohol Focus Scotland complained about Rocket Fuel Vodka and Rocket Fuel Ice and the prominent positioning of the 42.85% ABV alcohol content on the vodka variant which it believed was using the product’s intoxicating effect to sell the product.
The solicitor acting on behalf of The Rocket Fuel Drinks Company explained the producer’s view that the premium price of the product meant that it would not appeal to those seeking ‘basic alcohol’. The producer response also highlighted that the name was intended to be a humorous joke.
As is the case now, the Portman Group’s free Advisory Service can act in a proactive capacity where it often writes to producers to flag potential issues for confidential discussion. In this instance, the Advisory Service had written to the producer expressing concern about the product’s name. The Panel considered that that the term ‘rocket fuel’ was widely associated with something very strong and very powerful. In the context of a name for an alcoholic drink, the Panel concluded this was an unacceptable choice because it made the alcoholic strength of the product the dominant theme.
If you are contacted by the Advisory Service proactively, it is not the first stage of a complaint. All advice provided is confidential unless you choose to disclose it so you can seek advice in the knowledge that it is non-binding and confidential. Quite often the amends suggested by the Advisory Service will be minor and it is far easier to incorporate such comments during the initial stages of design than when the product is already on shelf so we would always encourage producers to seek advice in the first instance.