Earlier this year, UK alcohol regulator, the Portman Group, commissioned a proactive independent audit, carried out by Zenith Global, to measure responsible marketing across the alcoholic drinks market.
Accordingly Zenith Global, brought complaints against a small number of products from a selection of 500 alcoholic drinks in the UK market, which were assessed against the Portman Group’s Code of Practice on Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks.
The first complaints to have been considered by the Portman Group’s Independent Complaints Panel (the Panel) were made against Chin Chin Vinho Verde, Violet Beauregard Malbec and Oloroso Encontrado. Following the Panel’s careful consideration these three complaints were not upheld, the full decisions can be read here.
The complaint against Chin Chin Vinho Verde concerned whether the name of the product and the imagery on the label could be in breach of Code Rule 3.2 (f) whereby a drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.
The Panel discussed all the elements of the packaging and heard from the producers that the packaging reflected their playful and exuberant brand identity and that the name, Chin Chin, was intended to reflect celebration and not immoderate consumption. Taking these points into account, the Panel concluded that while the imagery, name and font style were distinctive, the overall impression conveyed did not encourage immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.
The complaint against Violet Beauregard Malbec questioned whether the name of the product could have particular appeal to under-18’s under Code Rule 3.2 (h) and if the wine’s label included the image of someone who is, or looks as if they are, under 25 years of age under Code Rule 3.2(i). The Panel heard that the image on the bottle was an artistic representation based on the story behind the wine’s name. Although inspired by the fictional character from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl, the design deliberately avoided depicting the actual character on the label and that the design aimed to evoke the whimsical nature of the story while highlighting the wine’s unique blueberry characteristics.
The Panel reviewed the imagery, discussed the drink’s name and noted the company’s response that their depiction of Violet Beauregard was based on an adult over the age of 25. The Panel considered that the sophisticated artwork, combined with the adult features of the woman illustrated, meant she did not appear to be under-25. The complaint was therefore not upheld under Code rule 3.2(i). The Panel also concluded that the character was presented as a reimagined adult version of Violet Beauregard and was unlikely to be recognised by children, and so the complaint was not upheld under Code Rule 3.2 (h).
The complaint against Oloroso Encontrado was that the image of a woman on the label could be under the age of 25, potentially breaching Code Rule 3.2(i).
The Panel heard from the producer and UK importer that the label was inspired by vintage designs from the early 20th century and emphasised the wine’s historical and artisanal character.
The Panel assessed the label and noted that the character had a full-figured body and was wearing lipstick and high heels suggesting that she was an adult. In addition, the imagery was stylised, with a sepia tone, invoking a nostalgic feeling which contributed to the impression that the woman was older in age. The Panel also considered the attire of the character and noted that it was not typical of contemporary fashion that would particularly resonate with children and therefore was not likely to inspire aspiration in those under the age of 18.
After careful consideration of the above points, the Panel concluded that the nostalgic, retro stylisation of the image and the woman’s presentation meant that the character did not appear to be under 25 years of age. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under 3.2(i).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs said: “The Panel welcomed the opportunity to review and discuss the first cases that have come from the proactive audit process. I am pleased to say that these products did not meet the threshold for being in breach of the Code. It’s important to be open and transparent about all the products that come before the Panel and the decisions we reach as this allows the industry to see where the boundaries of compliance lie.”
Producer:
Sánchez Romate
UK Importer:
E I Wines LTD
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 image on the label features a young woman who looks like she could be under the age of 25”.
Decision:
Under Code Paragraph 3.2(i)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way incorporate images of people who are, or look as if they are, under 25 years of age, where there is any suggestion that they are drinking alcohol, or they are featured in a significant role. Images may be shown where people appear only in an incidental context.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The producer and UK importer submitted a joint response to the complaint.
The company explained that the drink was a premium fortified wine rooted in the rich heritage of sherry-making. The product was crafted for a discerning adult audience and appealed to consumers who valued traditional craftsmanship and complex flavours. The company explained that its marketing strategy was designed to engage responsible adult consumers and did not target or feature individuals under the age of 25.
The company asserted that Oloroso Encontrado complied with Code rule 3.2(i). The company highlighted that the packaging and promotional materials did not feature individuals under 25 or suggest underage consumption, focusing instead on heritage, quality and sophistication. The label, inspired by vintage designs from the early 20th century, emphasised the wine’s historical and artisanal character. The company positioned the product for consumers over 25 with a preference for premium wines and traditional Spanish winemaking and argued that the product did not incorporate imagery or themes appealing to younger demographics. The company stated that Oloroso Encontrado adhered to the Portman Group’s Code of Practice but expressed openness to constructive dialogue and willingness to provide further clarification if required.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel considered whether the packaging incorporated an image of a person who was, or looked as if they were, under 25 years of age featured in a significant role as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label, which depicted a woman swinging from a ship’s mast wearing historical attire. The Panel noted that the spirit of Code rule 3.2(i) was intended to protect under-18s from being exposed to images in alcohol marketing of people with whom they might identify or aspire to be like and that this had been applied by the Panel in previous cases considered under the Code. With that in mind, the Panel considered the imagery in further detail and noted that it was difficult to determine the precise age of the character and that any assessment of age should take into account the overall appearance of the person. The Panel noted that the character had a full-figured body which suggested that she was an adult as opposed to a child. In addition to this, the Panel discussed that the woman was wearing lipstick and high heels which further suggested that she was an adult. The Panel considered that the imagery was stylised, with a sepia tone that meant the illustration appeared retro and invoked a nostalgic feeling which contributed to the impression that the woman was older in age. The Panel then considered the attire of the character alongside the nautical setting and noted that it was not typical of contemporary fashion or a hobby that would particularly resonate with children and therefore was not likely to inspire aspiration in those under the age of 18.
After careful consideration of the above points, the Panel concluded that the nostalgic, retro stylisation of the image and the woman’s presentation meant that the character did not appear to be under 25 years of age. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under 3.2(i).
Action by Company:
None required.
Producer:
Keeling Andrew & Co
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:
“Illustration image on the front shows a man’s body with a dog’s head holding two glasses and the character looks like it is kneeling, having trouble standing and holding the two drinks without spilling them. This, coupled with the product name “Chin Chin”, meaning good wishes before drinking or finishing an alcoholic drink quickly is viewed to be encouraging immoderate consumption”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(f)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company stated that it did not believe that Chin Chin Vinho Verde wine breached Code rule 3.2(f) and did not encourage immoderate alcohol consumption. The company emphasised its commitment to promoting wine appreciation and responsible drinking, targeting adult professionals and creatives rather than individuals seeking excessive consumption. The company highlighted the expertise of its founders, Dan Keeling and Mark Andrew, as respected figures in the wine industry and whose storytelling and authentic wine culture had been reflected through their restaurants, magazine ‘Noble Rot’ and books. This underscored the company mission to promote authentic wine culture through storytelling, using a distinctive, exuberant, and irreverent style that challenged a traditional conservative approach to wine appreciation.
The company explained that the image on the Chin Chin label reflected its playful and exuberant brand identity, which aligned with the artwork featured in Noble Rot magazine over the years. The label featured a character in a balanced, athletic kneeling pose inspired by ancient Greek sculptures which was presenting glasses of wine in celebration. The character’s bright-eyed expression and broad smile were intended to convey celebration rather than drunkenness, aiming to make wine culture more inclusive and less traditional. The company described the design as fun and irreverent, with no intention of promoting immoderate alcohol consumption.
The company refuted the claim that the expression “Chin Chin” promoted rapid alcohol consumption, arguing that it traditionally conveyed “good wishes” or “good health” and was associated with the civilised enjoyment of wine. The company emphasised that wine, unlike drinks typically linked to “down-in-one” culture, was not consumed quickly and the suggestion that the phrase encouraged such behaviour was entirely misconceived.
The company emphasised that Chin Chin Vinho Verde had a relatively low alcoholic strength of 11.5% and was unlikely to appeal to consumers seeking to drink excessively. The company highlighted its retail price of approximately £12.50, which while moderate for wines of similar quality, made it an expensive option for purchasing alcohol solely for intoxication. Instead, the company stated that consumers were more likely to have bought it for its refreshing style, ethical production and trusted source.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel discussed whether the brand name encouraged immoderate consumption as raised by the complainant. The Panel considered the name ‘Chin Chin’ and noted that it was typically understood as an expression to communicate good wishes, usually prior to drinking. The Panel discussed that while the phrase was not completely antiquated, it was not an expression that was commonly used and tended to be associated with older generations. The Panel noted that the phrase ‘chin chin’ was typically used in social situations, for instance at dinner parties to signal a toast to celebrate good company, as opposed to an instruction that a person should drink rapidly or as encouragement to drink immoderately. On that basis, the Panel did not consider that the name alone encouraged immoderate consumption.
The Panel then considered the rest of the packaging to determine if there were any other elements that might encourage a person to drink immoderately. The Panel noted that the front label included a stylised image of a humanoid creature with a canine head, balancing in a kneeled position with a drink in each hand with ‘Chin Chin Vinho Verde’ above it presented in a wavy font. The Panel assessed the dog in more detail and discussed the company’s response that the pose was a reference to ancient Greek statues. The Panel noted that the imagery did invoke an antiquity style, with the dog-headed creature bearing a resemblance to the ancient Egyptian god Anubis which was reinforced by the two-dimensional perspective. The Panel considered that the dog did not appear to be intoxicated because it was able to hold a position with one drink in front and one behind which would require precise balance. Furthermore, the drinks were not spilling or sloshing over the rims of the glasses which suggested that the dog was in control and not inebriated.
The Panel discussed the depiction of one character holding two drinks and whether this could encourage immoderate consumption. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.2(f) which advised that a person should not be encouraged to drink more than four units of alcohol in one sitting. The Panel also considered this in the wider context of the Chief Medical Officer’s Low Risk Drinking Guidelines which recommend that men and women should not regularly consume more than 14 units of alcohol a week. The Panel noted that neither of these thresholds prevented the consumption of multiple drinks in one sitting as long as an alcohol producer did not encourage a consumer to exceed four units in one sitting. In this case, whilst the Panel acknowledged that it was difficult to specifically determine the exact number of units within a glass, on balance, taking into account the strength of the wine and a standard glass size, it was unlikely that the drinks would exceed four units. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the dog was not shown consuming the drinks but was instead using them as a display of balancing skill with one drink positioned behind the dog and away from his mouth. On this basis, the Panel considered that the imagery did not directly suggest that a person should consume two drinks nor did it encourage immoderate consumption.
The Panel considered the wavy font style used for the brand name ‘Chin Chin’ and noted that it could be suggestive of blurred vision that one might have as a result of drunkenness. However, in the absence of any other elements which could be seen to encourage immoderate consumption, the Panel did not think the font alone was sufficient to link to the effects of intoxication.
Taking the above points into account, the Panel concluded that on balance, while the imagery, name and font style were distinctive and unique, the overall impression conveyed did not encourage immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
Action by Company:
None required.
Producer:
Zonte’s Footstep
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:
“Image of a young woman in a significant position on the bottle. The wine is called Violet Beauregarde, after the fictional character who was one of five children who enters Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory, similar to the bottle design she blew bubblegum, and became a blueberry, which is referenced in the label description in the context of the dominant flavours in the wine”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 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(i)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way incorporate images of people who are, or look as if they are, under 25 years of age, where there is any suggestion that they are drinking alcohol, or they are featured in a significant role. Images may be shown where people appear only in an incidental context.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company welcomed the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised in the complaint. The company explained that the image on the bottle was an artistic representation created by an artist, Bianca Smith, based on the story behind the wine’s name. The company clarified that the artwork featured an adult model over the age of 25 to comply with Australian advertising codes. Although inspired by the fictional character Violet Beauregarde from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the design deliberately avoided depicting the actual character, with the only connection being the bubble of gum. The company explained that the character was widely recognised as fictional and not a real person. The design aimed to evoke the whimsical nature of the story while highlighting the wine’s unique blueberry characteristics, ensuring it was marketed as a product for adults aged 18 and over.
The company explained that the reference to Roald Dahl’s work was intended to add a playful and memorable element to the branding, aimed at adults rather than under-18s. The wine was marketed to an adult audience, with packaging and promotional materials designed to highlight the sophisticated flavour profile rather than appeal to children. The company highlighted that Violet Beauregard Malbec 2020 had been well-received by adult consumers, particularly for its distinctive blueberry notes and creative branding. The name and design were carefully chosen to reflect the wine’s unique characteristics and to stand out in a competitive market.
The company stated that similar precedent cases including Little Pomona Table Cider and Zymurgorium Forced Darkside Rhubarb Gin Liqueur, demonstrated that the context and intent behind branding were considered by the Panel. The company explained that the wine similarly targeted an adult audience and did not feature imagery or references that would primarily appeal to under-18s.
The company respectfully submitted that Violet Beauregard Malbec 2020 did not breach Code rules 3.2(i) or 3.2(h). The company stated that the branding and marketing were intended for an adult audience, with references to fictional characters enhancing the product’s identity without appealing to under-18s. The company expressed appreciation for the Panel’s consideration and affirmed its commitment to responsible marketing standards.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(i)
The Panel considered whether the packaging incorporated an image of a person who was, or looked as if they were, under 25 years of age featured in a significant role as raised by the complainant. The Panel considered the imagery on the front of the bottle, noting that it was a sketched minimalist drawing of a woman with a large pink bubble covering the majority of her face. The Panel discussed the drink’s name, Violet Beauregard, who was one of the children featured in Roald Dahl’s novel Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Violet was depicted in the book and in the subsequent 1971 and 2005 films as a child around age 11. The Panel noted the company’s response that the depiction of Violet Beauregard in this case was based on artwork of an adult over the age of 25.
The Panel then considered the overall presentation of the illustration and noted that the use of detail and shadowing techniques, particularly around the eyes and eyebrows, depicted the woman in a mature adult manner. The Panel discussed the facial expression and body position of the woman which gave a suggestive quality to the illustration, further reflecting that the character was an adult. The Panel considered that the character was clearly presented as a depiction of Violet Beauregard, and this was compounded by the inclusion of her name and the bubble gum imagery, an item synonymous with the fictional character. However, the Panel noted that the presentation of the character as an adult was clearly a reimagined version of the character and was unlikely to be recognised by children.
Taking the above points into consideration, the Panel considered that the sophisticated artwork, combined with the adult features of the woman, meant she did not appear to be under-25. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(i).
3.2(h)
At the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint, the Panel Chair raised Code rule 3.2(h) for consideration to determine whether the name or packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel first discussed the drink’s name, Violet Beauregard, and noted that she was a prominent character in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a story by Roald Dahl which was first published in 1964. The Panel noted that Roald Dahl was a renowned children’s author who published work through most of the latter half of the 20th century. The Panel considered that many adults would be familiar with his books from their own childhoods and therefore, he would have a level of nostalgic appeal to adults. The Panel also noted that children today would equally recognise his novels, particularly as some were still very popular with primary school aged children.
The Panel then discussed the drink’s name and noted that Violet Beauregard featured fairly prominently in the original story as one of the five children that had won a golden ticket and toured Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, although the Panel acknowledged that she was not one of the main protagonists. The Panel expressed concern that any inclusion or reference to a character that featured in a story targeted predominantly at children would be at risk of having a particular appeal to under-18s but that, as always, the overall impression conveyed by the packaging would ultimately determine compliance with the Code.
With that in mind, the Panel considered that the front label was fairly simple in design, with a detailed charcoal-style illustration as the predominant focal point, which was set against a white background. In the context of its decision under Code rule 3.2(i), the Panel considered that the character was over the age of 25 and therefore the adult nature of the woman created a degree of separation from the book character. The Panel considered that children would be unlikely to recognise the illustration as Violet Beauregard from the story on that basis, as they would expect her to be depicted as a child rather than a mature woman and therefore the imagery was unlikely to resonate with young children. The Panel noted that the label did not include elements such as cartoon imagery, bright contrasting colours or thick bold keylines, which were all elements that could contribute to a product having a particular appeal to under-18s. In this case, the Panel considered the sketched nature of the imagery, with its limited use of colour and detailed complex design achieved through shading and shadow effects and concluded that the illustration was sophisticated in design and would appeal more to an adult audience.
The Panel then considered the back label and noted that while the majority of the copy referred to the fruit flavours of the wine, there were references to Veruca Salt and Augustus Gloop, two other characters from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The back label also included a quote attributed to Roald Dahl which read as ‘It’s amazing! Blueberry pie and ice cream! I can feel it running down my throat’. The Panel discussed that while Roald Dahl stories remained popular with under-18s, the movie adaptations of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were both 50 and 20 years old respectively. The Panel noted that in recent years, Wonka, a movie which focused on the enigmatic Willy Wonka’s backstory, was popular with under-18s; however, the film did not feature any of the children mentioned in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Furthermore, the Panel considered the positioning of the references on the back label and noted that they were not overt and therefore Violet Beauregard, Veruca Salt and Augustus Gloop might be less recognisable to under-18s on that basis.
After much debate, the Panel considered that the inclusion of any character that featured in a children’s story was at risk of having a particular appeal to under-18s. However, in this specific instance, because the character was presented as a reimagined adult version of Violet Beauregard, the Panel considered it would be unlikely that the character would be recognised by under-18s as the girl in the children’s story. Taking into account that the other references to Roald Dahl and the child characters were on the back of the label, and that there were no other cues on the packaging which would contribute to it having a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel considered that the product was sufficiently far enough removed from the aspects of the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory story that it did not have particular appeal to under 18s. Therefore, the Panel concluded that while the name and packaging was close to the line of acceptability, the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.
The Portman Group is delighted to welcome Lucky Saint as an associate member, making them the first alcohol alternative member company in our history.
Lucky Saint was launched in the UK in 2018 by its founder Luke Boase with a 0.5% unfiltered lager product. Since then, it’s become one of the most recognised and popular alcohol alternative brands, now featuring on draught in over 1250 pubs in the UK and expanding their range to include a 0.5% hazy IPA in January 2024.
The Portman Group has long been an advocate of the low and no category, as we know from our own annual research with YouGov that alcohol alternative products have become a vital tool for helping people to moderate their drinking and to reduce alcohol harms such as drink driving.
Lucky Saint join Coca-Cola GB and Punch Pubs, our first dedicated UK pub company, who are also associate members. Suntory Global Spirits, who joined the Portman Group as associate members in August last year, have now become full members.
The associate member category was launched last year to further increase representation across the entire sector, bringing The Portman Group’s overall membership to 21 companies from across the drinks industry – the largest ever.
The new associate member tier allows more flexibility for companies who are keen to engage with and support the work of the Portman Group whilst tailoring the commitment level that is best suited to them. Associate members receive access to the latest alcohol news, policy summaries, insight into research, rapid 24-hour product advice and free Code training.
Luke Boase, Founder of Lucky Saint, said: “The Portman Group has long championed the growth of alcohol-free options, setting the standard for responsible marketing across our industry as the category continues to grow rapidly.
“We’re incredibly proud to become the first dedicated alcohol-free member of the Portman Group, ensuring that brands like Lucky Saint – and the alcohol-free category as a whole – continue to be represented.
“Together we look forward to working with the Portman Group to help to shape the future of the industry moving forward, showcasing the positive role alcohol-free can play for individuals and the industry.”
Matt Lambert, CEO of The Portman Group said: “We are thrilled to welcome Lucky Saint as our newest associate members, not to mention our first alcohol alternative member. As low and no products continue to grow in popularity it’s more important than ever for our membership to include this representation, and for both categories to work in partnership to market their products responsibly and be leaders in best practice across the drinks industry.
“We’re also delighted that Suntory Global Spirits have become a full member, thereby demonstrating their commitment to responsible business practices”
Producer:
Glenmorangie
Complaint:
‘I saw this new whisky on the internet and thought the Portman Group might object to the product on the grounds of its potential appeal to youngsters. Please look into this as a matter of urgency as, in my opinion, this is definitely entering “alcopop” territory. I thought even the strength of the words ICE CREAM might be emotionally attractive enough to lead young people into experimenting with it. In fact I liked it a lot, despite my age, but I felt its “dreamt up in an ice cream parlour” could make the product even more attractive to those younger than 18, even if older people also eat ice cream. I have seen vapes with the same sweet terminology , though with more vibrant colours. It certainly seems strange to me that ICE CREAM is printed bigger than the whisky’s brand name’.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1
The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 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
The company’s submission
The company explained that it was committed to promoting responsible alcohol consumption and took its legal and social obligations under the Portman Group Code of Practice seriously. The company stated that it respectfully did not agree that the packaging of the drink had particular appeal to under-18s and referenced the Portman Group’s Guidance under Code rule 3.2(h). The company stated that to breach this rule, packaging must resonate with under-18s in a way that it did not with over-18s and the company did not believe that ‘Glenmorangie A Tale of Ice Cream’ met that threshold.
The company stated that the packaging had been created to appeal to discerning adults. The design was inspired by a traditional luxury ice cream parlour and used muted pastels and gold accents to evoke an adult aesthetic rather than a childlike one. The company stated that as the complainant had themselves liked the design, this demonstrated that the packaging resonated with adults. The packaging avoided elements typically associated with children, such as bright colours, childish fonts, or cartoonish illustrations. Instead, the design featured abstract representations of ice cream and patterns that suggested a sophisticated dessert, more aligned with an upscale ice-cream parlour or restaurant than with products targeted at children. The form of the packaging itself was also designed to resemble a whisky bottle rather than a child-friendly ice cream cone or bar. The product was called “A Tale of Ice Cream” because of the way it was aged and the impact this had on the flavour. The company emphasised that the reference to ice cream was not intended to appeal to children, but instead, was used as a taste cue, necessary for food law purposes.
The company noted that a previous precedent set by the Panel had accepted that ice cream in general appealed to all age groups and that a reference to ice cream alone did not automatically breach Code rule 3.2(h). The company explained that the product packaging did not include any imagery that could particularly appeal to children, unlike products such as Double 99, which also featured teddy bear imagery. The company therefore reiterated that the name “Ice Cream” alone could not be considered a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) because the concept of ice cream did not appeal more to under-18s than to over-18s.The company disagreed that the phrase “dreamt up in an ice cream parlour” would appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the mention of the ice cream parlour experience was simply to provide context for the “Ice Cream” reference and to explain the inspiration behind the product’s flavour. Furthermore, the product was only sold through channels where access for under-18s was restricted. These included specialist wine sellers, online retailers with age-gated access to alcohol purchases and in-retail stores where age verification was expected to take place for every purchase. Therefore, the company stated that the risk of an under-18 purchasing the product was very low.
Finally, the company stated that the price point of the product was relatively high, which further reduced the likelihood of under-18s purchasing it. The price was not only a barrier from an affordability perspective but also served as a clear indication that the product was not intended for under-18s.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed relevant precedent cases, including Double 99, which had established that ice cream was deemed to have broad appeal across age groups. The Panel noted that whilst ice cream may contribute to the appeal that marketing had to children, it was often the combination of several factors that caused packaging to have a particular appeal to under-18s, rather than one element in isolation. On that basis, the Panel considered that the inclusion of ice cream, while not inherently problematic, required careful consideration of the overall impression conveyed by the packaging which would ultimately determine compliance with the Code.
In that context, the Panel initially considered the primary packaging in more detail. The Panel noted that the word ‘ice cream’ was the most prominent text on the front label of the bottle and that this was presented on a background of swirling pastel colours. However, the Panel considered that apart from a small cone pattern on the base of the bottle’s neck, there was no additional imagery which linked to ice cream. The Panel noted that the muted pastel colours were presented alongside a mature font style and that the back label text on the bottle was minimal and only related to alcohol health-related information.
The Panel then considered the secondary box packaging and noted that the word ice cream and ice cream imagery were prominently presented with the design incorporating multiple scoops of ice cream on one side and an image of a bottle that partially replicated an ice cream cone on another side. The Panel discussed the appearance of both elements and acknowledged that the imagery created a stronger association with ice cream than the primary packaging. However, the Panel noted that the design employed muted colours, abstract design and a sophisticated font style with straight lined edges, all of which were not associated with designs aimed at children. The Panel discussed the accompanying text on the back of the secondary packaging which referenced the flavours of the drink such as peach melba, honeycomb, brioche and marzipan. The Panel noted that the text focused on ice cream as a flavour concept by referencing complex tasting notes as highlighted by the company. The Panel considered that this was presented alongside elegant shapes, textures and gold highlights which conveyed a level of sophistication. The Panel also noted that the design did not include bright contrasting primary colours, cartoon imagery or thick keylines which may have particular appeal to under-18s.
Therefore, after careful consideration, the Panel stated that neither the primary or secondary packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and accordingly did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
During discussion of its decision under Code rule 3.2(h), the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and considered whether the primary and secondary packaging communicated the alcoholic nature of the product with absolute clarity.
The Panel discussed the primary packaging and noted that it included several positive alcohol cues such as ‘whisky’, the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV), unit content information and the pregnancy warning logo. Alongside this, the Panel also discussed the shape and colour of the bottle which were elements that consumers would likely associate with whisky and therefore helped to communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel considered that while the secondary packaging was more vibrant and did have ‘ice cream’ prominently displayed in several places, it also included positive alcohol cues like ‘highland single malt scotch whisky’, the ABV and the outline of a typical whisky bottle shape. The Panel considered that on balance, whilst there were prominent references to ice cream which was not a flavour typically associated with alcohol, the number of positive alcohol cues were sufficient to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not find the packaging in breach of Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
None required.
A complaint against Glenmorangie A Tale of Ice Cream Whisky has been not upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by a member of the public, raised concerns that the product had a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel considered if the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity, under Code rule 3.1 and whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, under Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel first discussed relevant precedent cases, which had established that ice cream was deemed to have broad appeal across age groups. The Panel noted that whilst ice cream may contribute to the appeal that marketing had to children, it was often the combination of several factors that caused packaging to have a particular appeal to under-18s, rather than one element in isolation.
On considering the primary packaging, the Panel noted that the word ‘ice cream’ was the most prominent text on the front label of the bottle and was presented on a background of swirling pastel colours. However, the Panel considered that apart from a small cone pattern on the base of the bottle’s neck, there was no additional imagery which linked to ice cream.
Considering the secondary box packaging the Panel noted that the word ‘ice cream’ and ice cream imagery were prominently presented with the design incorporating multiple scoops of ice cream on one side and an image of a bottle that partially replicated an ice cream cone on another. The Panel discussed the appearance of both elements and acknowledged that the imagery created a stronger association with ice cream than the primary packaging. However, the Panel noted that the design employed muted colours, abstract design and a sophisticated font style with straight lined edges, all of which were not associated with designs aimed at children.
Therefore, after careful consideration, the Panel stated that neither the primary or secondary packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and accordingly did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs said: “There is clear precedent that ice cream can have a broad appeal to all age groups. In this case the Panel was satisfied that the product packaging was targeted at adults and did not include bright contrasting primary colours, cartoon imagery or thick keylines which may have particular appeal to under-18s. The panel therefore concluded that Glenmorangie’s ‘A Tale of Ice Cream’ whisky packaging did not fall foul of the Code and did not uphold the complaint.”
Producer:
Catalyst Spirits Limited
Complaint:
Brand name associations with violence and aggression
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)
3.2(b) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company stated that ‘Blackeye’ did not suggest any association with violence, aggression, or illegal behaviour, nor did it breach the Portman Group’s Code of Practice. The company explained that despite the product’s broad distribution and growing online presence, this was the first complaint the company had received about the product and no other complaints had been lodged concerning compliance with the Code.
The company explained that it was run by a team with over 100 years of combined experience in the alcoholic drinks industry and was fully committed to the responsible marketing and sale of its products. The company explained that the drink in question was created by Mike Tindall, James Haskell and Alex Payne, three prominent figures and advocates for the game of rugby. The company stated that the drink was a purpose-led brand with a mission to address the financial and medical challenges faced by rugby players and to protect the future of the sport. Its mission was to champion recovery, care, and safety in rugby, supporting seriously injured players and their families. The company had developed a Blackeye Responsible Marketing Code called ‘Do the Right Thing’ and this Code was strictly based on the guidance of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice. The ‘Do the Right Thing’ Code required anyone involved in the sale, marketing, or promotion of Blackeye to avoid creating any associations with bravado, violence, aggression, dangerous, anti-social, or illegal behaviour. The company stated that it had also established the Blackeye Rugby Fund with the goal of becoming one of the largest donors to rugby-related causes within five years. The company explained that £1.50 from each sold bottle of Blackeye was invested in the fund which focused on three key areas: research, risk, and recovery.
In addressing the specific concern raised by the complainant, the company explained that the brand name ‘Blackeye’ was differentiated from “black eye’’ and at most could be interpreted as a reference to the common sports injury. The company stated that in high-tempo sports like rugby, players did suffer black eyes which would be a result of participating in a contact sport, not due to bravado, violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behavior. The company explained that the stylisation of Blackeye was not intended to be a literal description of a sports injury but was a symbolic caricature of rugby to highlight the under-funded issue of player welfare, such as the medical and financial support for former players. The company explained that the drink was the ‘unofficial spirit of rugby’ and this was made clear on the packaging to give context to the name. The company stated that the label contained a clear description of how the brand contributed to the future safety of the game and included a neck tag that showed the founders who were famous in the world of rugby holding a rugby ball and a framed rugby ball design with the words “FOR THE GAME”.
The company stated that it did not believe that the drink suggested any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behavior and was not in breach of paragraph 3.2(b) of the Code. The company explained that the complaint was based on a narrowed reading of the labelling that was incorrect and failed to take account of the specific information and broader context provided by the packaging of the product.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(b)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s name created any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed the name ‘Blackeye’ and stated that while the name could have a number of potential interpretations, it was commonly understood as bruising and swelling to the eye region of the face. The Panel discussed that while a ‘black eye’ injury could be the result of a violent attack, it was also a common injury sustained through contact sport or other incidents unrelated to physical assault. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the name ‘Blackeye’ was differentiated from the descriptor ‘black eye’ but considered that a consumer was still likely to read the name in the same manner. Despite this, the Panel considered that as a ‘black eye’ could be the result of sporting behaviour or other incidents unrelated to assault, the name alone in this case did not create an association with violent or aggressive behaviour and needed to be considered in the wider context of the rest of the packaging.
The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging in more detail and noted that the front label employed a fairly simple design. The name ‘Blackeye’ was included on imagery that did somewhat resemble an eye but noted that this was designed to be abstract and stylised. The Panel noted that there was no violent or aggressive imagery included on the front label nor was there any depiction of an injury. The Panel considered the back label and noted that there were several references to rugby including to the rugby advocates Mike Tindall, James Haskell and Alex Payne, rugby ball imagery and the Blackeye Rugby Fund. The Panel considered that this provided further context to the name ‘Blackeye’ and the product’s clear aim to use proceeds to address the financial and medical challenges faced by rugby players. The Panel noted that the overall impression of the product explicitly linked to rugby, a rules-based contact sport and whilst it could result in injury, injuries did not directly link to intentional violence. Taking the above into account, the Panel considered that the name and packaging did not create an association with violent or aggressive behaviour. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b).
Action by Company:
None required.
A complaint against Blackeye London Dry Gin has been not upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by a member of the public, raised concerns that the name of the gin suggested an association with violence and aggression.
The Panel considered whether the name of the product could suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour, under Code rule 3.2(b).
The Panel heard that the product was created by Mike Tindall, James Haskell and Alex Payne, three prominent figures and advocates for the game of rugby. The company stated that the drink was a purpose-led brand with a mission to address the financial and medical challenges faced by rugby players.
The Panel discussed the name ‘Blackeye’ and stated that while the name could have several interpretations, it was commonly understood as bruising and swelling to the eye region of the face. While a ‘black eye’ injury could be the result of a violent attack, it was also a common injury sustained through contact sport or other incidents unrelated to physical assault. They concluded that the name alone in this case did not create an association with violent or aggressive behaviour and needed to be considered in the wider context of the rest of the packaging.
The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging and noted that the front label employed a fairly simple design. The name ‘Blackeye’ was included on imagery that did somewhat resemble an eye but noted that this was designed to be abstract and stylised. The Panel noted that there was no violent or aggressive imagery included on the front label nor was there any depiction of an injury.
Considering the back label the Panel noted that there were references to rugby, rugby ball imagery and the Blackeye Rugby Fund, providing further context to the name ‘Blackeye’ and the product’s clear aim to use proceeds to address the financial and medical challenges faced by rugby players.
The Panel noted that the overall impression of the product explicitly linked to rugby, a rules-based contact sport and whilst it could result in injury, injuries did not directly link to intentional violence. Taking the above into account, the Panel considered that the name and packaging did not create an association with violent or aggressive behaviour. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs said: “It’s vitally important under the Code that producers ensure their products do not make any link to bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. In this instance, the Panel concluded that the packaging of Blackeye London Dry Gin, although referencing a common sporting injury, did not make a link with intentional aggression or violence and therefore did not fall foul of the Code. The Panel did not uphold the complaint.”
Producer:
Jinro Soju
Complaint:
The photo in this complaint shows a bar at ‘All Points East’, a music festival in Victoria Park, London. The bar was branded around Jinro Soju and sold its products. The photograph was taken on 17 August 2024.
Above the bar was a large backlit neon sign with the slogan ‘easy to drink / drink to link’. The sign and bar was in the main food and drink area of the festival and visible from far away. Attendance at All Points East is around 40,000 people, overwhelmingly young people.
My complaint is regarding the phrase ‘drink to link’. In this context I believe ‘link’ means ‘to have (typically casual) sexual relations with’. This clearly falls fowl of rule 3.2(d) by suggesting the consumption of alcohol will lead to sexual success.
Even were it suggested ‘link’ meant to create non-sexual, social relationships, this would still breach rule 3.2(e). However, in my view the majority of the young and diverse audience in attendance would have absolutely understood the sign to be referring to sex, or at the very least having a dual meaning, and any suggestion otherwise would be disingenuous in my view.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(d)
3.2(d) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with sexual activity or sexual success.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(e)
3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company explained that it was committed to complying with regulatory requirements and responsible alcohol marketing standards. The company highlighted that all of its drinks packaging complied with required regulatory labelling for alcoholic beverages and responsible drinking messages were included in various ways to promote responsible consumption.
In regard to the complaint, the company stated that ‘link’ did not refer in this context to physical relationships. Instead, link was used to refer to the culture of the Korean people who link their everyday relationships through drinking, reflecting the deeper human connection beyond just drinking. The company stated that there was absolutely no intention to suggest any association with social success or sexual connotations in the branding. The company explained that Jinro was a representative drink brand of South Korea with 100 years of history. The company stated that it had been enjoyed by the Korean public for a century in various places and occasions and that the combination of food and soju was established in Korean culture. The company explained that the line conveyed Jinro Soju’s global compatibility, where consumers could enjoy a quality alcoholic beverage alongside food, family, friends, colleagues and places (“joyful spaces”), indeed anyone, anywhere with anything. Therefore, the tag line conveyed that Jinro Soju was a drink that complemented positive experiences without any sexual or social implications.
Finally, the company reiterated that it continuously strived to uphold ESG principles as well as relevant laws and guidelines to foster a responsible drinking culture and marketing practices. However, the company stated it would be willing to remove the line from the UK market if required.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(d)
The Panel considered the promotional activity and discussed whether it created any association with sexual activity and/or sexual success as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted that the material appeared in a festival environment and prominently displayed the line ‘Easy To Drink, Drink To Link’. The Panel discussed the company’s response which explained that Jinro Soju was a South Korean product and in South Korean culture pairing Soju with different foods was commonplace. The Panel considered that from the company’s perspective, the line ‘Easy To Drink, Drink To Link’ was therefore intended to communicate this cultural practice. The Panel acknowledged the company’s intended meaning but stated that it was important to consider how the promotional activity would be interpreted by UK consumers.
The Panel considered the line ‘Easy To Drink, Drink To Link’ and noted that there was no further context to clarify that it related to pairing the drink with food. The Panel discussed that ‘link’ in the UK was not generally used to refer to a practice of pairing something with food and instead had other well-known meanings. The Panel considered that in the context of dating ‘link’ was used as a slang word to refer to having sex with a romantic partner with the relationship sometimes kept a secret, or at the least discreet and without commitment. The Panel discussed that particularly within a younger festival demographic, the word ‘link’ was commonly used in this context and therefore the line ‘Drink To Link’ would be understood as an instruction to consume the drink and engage in sexual activity.
The Panel understood that because the company was based outside of the UK it may not have been aware of the slang meaning of the phrase and that the association was likely to have been inadvertent. Nonetheless, the Panel stated that the ambiguity of the line left it open to consumer interpretation and that in the UK it was currently predominantly used as a sexual reference. On that basis, the Panel considered that the promotional activity did create an association with sexual activity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(d).
Code rule 3.2(e)
The Panel considered whether the promotional activity suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity as raised by the complainant. In the context of its decision under Code rule 3.2(d), the Panel considered the line ‘Easy To Drink, Drink To Link’. The Panel reiterated concern that the line was ambiguous and the line was not presented with any context that it was intended to communicate that the drink paired easily with food. The Panel discussed that ‘linking up with someone’ was often used in the UK to communicate a social gathering or meeting, usually with friends. The Panel considered that ‘Drink To Link’, while having sexual connotations, could also suggest that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity. Without context, the Panel considered that line read as if the drink could facilitate a social gathering and that a person may find connecting with other people easier once they had consumed the drink. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the promotional activity did suggest that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).
The Panel acknowledged that both breaches of the Code were inadvertent in this instance and sought to remind producers that where there is often a lack of context in promotional activity, some phrases may have multiple meanings and to be mindful of cultural differences.
Action by Company:
Promotion will not appear with the line ‘Drink to Link’ in the UK again.