Producer:
Manchester Drinks
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)
Complaint:
“The particular appeal of a “”magical unicorn drink”” carrying unicorn illustrations, flowers, whimsical pink text and a candy-pink liquid, with its “”notes of candy floss and marshmallows””, to under-18s, especially young girls, is clear in this product. The promise that this drink will “”transport you to the mystical land of unicorns””, “”cut with magical mountain water””, and multiple references in the text on the label to magic suggest therapeutic qualities to its intoxicating effect, and where drunkenness might magically transport the mood of the consumer”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)
3.2(h) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(j)
3.2(j) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that the product has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company expressed surprise regarding the complaint about Mystical Unicorn Gin Liqueur and stated that it had been on sale since April 2019 without any prior issue. The company acknowledged the comments made in the complaint but clarified that the gin was sold in the alcohol aisle at Home Bargains, where underage individuals would be challenged if attempting to purchase it. Addressing concerns about the marshmallow flavour, the company argued that sweet flavour profiles were common in alcoholic beverages. The company explained that the term ‘Mystical’ referred to the water used in the drink, sourced from the Mullaghmesha mountain in West Cork, Ireland, which had historical mysticism. The company expressed willingness to have the Panel provide feedback on the label and was committed to making necessary amendments as a responsible drinks manufacturer.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. For context, the Panel discussed two similar case precedents, Realm of the Unicorn Premium Gin Liqueur and Unicorn Tears Raspberry Gin Liqueur. The Panel noted that in the case of Realm of the Unicorn Premium Gin Liqueur, the mature illustration and level of detail used to depict the unicorn meant that it presented as adult fantasy art in style. Whereas, in the case of Unicorn Tears Raspberry Gin Liqueur, the cartoon style image, which included thick black key lines and simple imagery presented in a manner which the Panel had deemed had a particular appeal to under-18s. With precedent in mind, the Panel noted that unicorns could have broad appeal to all age groups given their symbolism but that compliance would be determined by the presentation of the unicorn and the overall impression conveyed by the product.
The Panel considered the front label and noted that it included a large black diamond with a gold trimmed border which was surrounded by two unicorn heads and flowers. The Panel noted that the illustrations had used a fine line drawing technique with intricate, detailed line strokes included on the unicorn’s hair and the accompanying flowers. The Panel considered that the art style and level of detail meant that the illustration presented as adult fantasy artwork rather than a cartoon drawing aimed at children which was usually much simpler and less complex. The Panel discussed the use of colours on the label, noting the majority of the label was black with a golden trim alongside minimal use of pastel pink, green and lilac used in the illustration. The Panel considered that there were no strong contrasts between the colours and with the absence of primary colours and thick bold key lines the label was presented in a sophisticated manner.
The Panel then considered the rest of the packaging to determine whether there was anything else which could have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel considered the bottle, noting that the shape was fairly typical for a Gin Liqueur but that the liquid was bright pink and had a shimmering quality when the bottle was shaken. The Panel noted that a visible vibrant shade of pink which shimmered would likely have a level of appeal to under-18s, especially when presented alongside depictions of unicorns and flowers. The Panel discussed the flavour of the drink ‘candy floss and marshmallow’ and considered that this could also contribute to the packaging having a level of appeal to children because of the association with sweet confectionary items. The Panel acknowledged that the flavours were not presented in a particularly prominent way on the front label and considered that on balance, this did help reduce the risk of appeal to under-18s because the drink was not principally marketed on its sweet flavour. The Panel debated these elements at length and concluded that inclusion of a sweet flavour and shimmering liquid in this instance was not enough to cause the packaging to have a particular appeal in the context of a sophisticated artwork design. The Panel considered that the packaging could have a certain level of appeal to children and that the product was close to the line of acceptability given the inclusion of a sweet flavour and shimmering pink liquid in the context of unicorns which could also have a strong appeal to children depending on their depiction. However, with regard to previous precedent, the Panel concluded that the presentation of the sophisticated label, the lack of strong contrasting colours and the detailed complex illustrations meant that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.2(j)
The Panel considered whether the packaging suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel first assessed the front label which included the text “small batch gin traditionally distilled & cut with magical mountain water. Infused with candy floss and marshmallow. Shake to awake the magic”. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the reference to magic water was intended to communicate that the water was sourced from Mullaghmesha mountain in West Cork. The Panel assessed the label further and noted that there was nothing on the packaging to provide that context to a consumer. The Panel noted text on the back label which read “Pink fluffy unicorns dancing on rainbows inspire this magical unicorn drink that has notes of candy floss and marshmallows to transport you to the mystical land of unicorns, be sure to shake the bottle to awake the mysteries contained within”. Whilst the Panel could understand the producer’s point that the text was intended to be a whimsical reference celebrating the area where some of the ingredients were sourced, the Panel was concerned that without further context, the literal implication the drink would ‘transport’ a consumer to a magical land directly suggested that the drink could change a consumer’s perception of reality. The Panel noted that this interpretation was compounded by the instruction to ‘shake’ the drink to awaken its ‘mysteries’, whilst also ‘transporting’ a consumer mentally to a more whimsical world and therefore changing their mood. On that basis, the Panel considered that the text directly implied that consumption of the drink could change a person’s mood. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(j).
Action by Company:
Working with the Advisory Service.