Producer:
Little Mesters Brewing
Complaint:
The idea of Stan is a homage to one of the last ‘little Mesters’ in Sheffield. As much as I appreciate the respect to the history of the city of Sheffield in feel using a knife handle as a tap handle is perhaps a step too far and could encourage alcohol related violence.
Complainant:
Member of the public.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 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
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.3
A drink’s name, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not cause serious or widespread offence.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company explained that the Stan IPA tap was a single tap handle in situ at a bar in Sheffield and there were no plans to roll it out further. The tap was a specially made ornamental knife handle to commemorate the craftsmanship of Stan Shaw, a master craftsman who made various knives ranging from ceremonial swords to pocket knives which included intricate designs known for their high quality. The company explained that Stan Shaw was widely regarded as the last Little Mester in Sheffield and he had made knives for numerous notable people including Queen Elizabeth II.
The company explained that the beer was over four years old and it had received no
other complaints about it during this time. The company stated that it had recently taken over a new outlet where the tap was included as part of a wall with various branded taps. The company explained that the handle had no blade, nor any suggestion of a blade and without background understanding of Stan Shaw, the tap would be interpreted as unrelated to a knife. The company did not believe therefore, that the Stan beer tap created any association with adverse behaviour as the blade was in no way harmful.
Furthermore, the company explained that it was a talking point between staff and customers and without context a person may not even recognise the tap as being a knife handle.
Finally, the company stated that it would remove the tap handle if it was required to but that this would be disappointing for the friends, family and supporters of Stan Shaw together with the charitable trust it worked in conjunction with to keep the memory of the Little Mesters alive.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(b)
Before assessing the case, the Panel noted that the tap handle was accompanied by a pump clip which was positioned above the handle and provided further context to the promotional piece. The Panel stated that both elements should be considered as they combined to create an overall impression of the marketing and therefore raised the pump clip for consideration as part of the case.
The Panel noted the company’s response that the tap handle was an honorific design to commemorate Stan Shaw who was a Little Mester, a title which referred to a master craftsmen usually associated with Sheffield. The Panel was aware that images of blades and knives were used more widely on UK alcohol packaging. While the Panel had previously concluded that the use of gun-shaped products was highly likely to be in breach of 3.2(b), it acknowledged that knives were not necessarily used as weapons, and may not automatically create a sufficiently strong link with violence and aggression, such that marketing material breaches 3.2(b).
With this in mind, the Panel went on to assess the specifics of this case. The Panel considered the image on the pump clip which included a stylised cartoon depiction of Stan Shaw posing with a knife. The knife was held in an upright position with Mr Shaw’s body turned towards it. The Panel considered that this image drew attention to the knife and made it the central focus of the design. This image of Stan Shaw was surrounded by numerous other blades in a circular fashion alongside the word ‘Stan’.
The Panel discussed the wider societal context that knife crime within Sheffield1 and the wider UK was prevalent and noted that careful consideration needed to be given to alcohol marketing which included the depiction and any potential glamourisation of knives. The Panel expressed concern about the number of blades included in the imagery, particularly as they formed a prominent part of the design and appeared to be more akin to sharp weapons than utensils. The Panel noted that there were no handles attached to any of the blades which also made them appear more like dangerous weaponry than ceremonial or cutlery knives.
The Panel then discussed the image of ‘Stan’ and noted that the knife was being held in an upright vertical fashion. The blade was curved into a tip at the end which gave the appearance that the blade was akin to a sharp dagger, rather than a blunted ceremonial knife. The Panel considered the combination of these elements meant that the imagery could potentially glamourise the depiction of sharp knives which were often used as weapons in violent crime.
The Panel then considered the tap handle in the context of the pump clip imagery. The Panel noted the company’s response that the handle did not include a blade and that without context the tap handle would not be recognised as a knife handle. However, the Panel noted that as the tap handle appeared alongside the pump clip, it contributed to the overall impression conveyed by the marketing as a whole and increased the likelihood that a consumer would recognise it as a knife handle. The Panel considered the design was intended to mimic a knife handle and this was reinforced by the action required of pulling the tap, where a person’s hand would be required to grip it in a similar fashion as one might brandish a knife.
While the Panel acknowledged that the producer had simply sought to celebrate an important local craftsman, it was of the view that any depiction of knives on alcoholic packaging had to be approached with great caution. Rates of knife crime in Sheffield and the rest of the UK had risen over recent years and generate a high level of public concern. In this instance, the Panel concluded that, when considering the overall impression conveyed by the tap handle and the pump clip, the combination of the image of a male presenting a sharp dagger-like knife, the multiple sharp knife blades and the tap handle which was designed to mimic a knife handle all resulted in a cumulative effect which glamourised knives that were not ceremonial or cutlery-like but instead sharp blades which could potentially be associated with knife-related violence. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the pump clip and tap handle under Code rule 3.2(b) for creating an indirect association with violent behaviour.
3.3
In the context of its decision under Code rule 3.2(b) and the association with UK knife crime, the Panel decided there was merit in considering whether the marketing could cause serious or widespread offence. The Panel discussed that knife crime was prevalent in the UK and that for communities affected by it, glorifying violent behaviour could be seriously offensive. However, the Panel considered that while the pump clip and tap handle created an indirect association with knife-related violence, through the emphasis placed on the blades on the pump clip alongside the tap handle, it did not directly depict the knives being used as weapons. Furthermore, no complaint had been raised by a consumer which suggested that the pump clip or tap handle had caused serious or widespread offence. The Panel acknowledged the producer’s explanation that this was one tap handle with one pump clip in one sports bar in Sheffield and there were no plans to roll the design out more widely. The Panel considered that it would be difficult to conclude that widespread offence might be caused given the marketing material’s very limited placement. The Panel carefully considered the overall impression conveyed by the marketing and stated that while some may find any inclusion of a knife in alcohol marketing distasteful, there was no evidence in this particular case that the marketing caused serious or widespread offence.
Therefore, the Panel did not consider that an indirect association with knife related crime was sufficient to result in a breach of 3.3. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.3.
Action by Company:
The company discontinued the product.
A complaint against a Sheffield based Brewery’s tap handle and pump clip has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP).
The complaint, about Little Mesters Brewing Stan IPA Tap Handle and Pump Clip said: ‘The idea of Stan is a homage to one of the last ‘little Mesters’ in Sheffield. As much as I appreciate the respect to the history of the city of Sheffield in feel using a knife handle as a tap handle is perhaps a step too far and could encourage alcohol related violence.’
It was upheld under Code rule 3.2(b) which states that 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. The full decision can be read here.
The Panel noted the company’s response that the tap handle was an honorific design to commemorate Stan Shaw who was a Little Mester, a title which referred to a master craftsman usually associated with Sheffield. The Panel took into consideration that images of blades and knives are used widely on UK alcohol packaging as they are not necessarily always used as weapons, and therefore may not automatically create a sufficiently strong link with violence and aggression under rule 3.2(b).
The Panel considered the image on the pump clip which included a stylised cartoon depiction of Stan Shaw posing with a knife, held in an upright position with his body turned towards it. The Panel considered that this image drew attention to the knife and made it the central focus of the design. The image of Stan Shaw was surrounded by numerous other blades in a circular fashion alongside the word ‘Stan’. The Panel expressed concern about the number of blades included in the imagery, particularly as they formed a prominent part of the design and appeared to be more akin to sharp weapons than utensils.
The Panel also noted that the image of Stan was holding the knife in an upright vertical fashion. The blade was curved into a tip at the end which gave the appearance that the blade was akin to a sharp dagger, rather than a blunted ceremonial knife. The Panel considered the combination of these elements meant that the imagery could potentially glamourise the depiction of sharp knives which were often used as weapons in violent crime.
The Panel considered the imagery in the wider context of the pump clip handle which was designed to mimic a knife handle which was reinforced by the action required of pulling the tap, where a person’s hand would be required to grip it in a similar fashion as one might brandish a knife.
When considering all of these contributing factors, the Panel upheld the pump clip and tap handle under Code rule 3.2(b) for creating an indirect association with violent behaviour.
Little Mesters Brewery has discontinued the product.
Rachel Childs, Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel (ICP) said: “In this case the Panel acknowledged that the producer had simply sought to celebrate an important local craftsman, however rising rates of knife crime in the UK, and particularly Sheffield where the marketing appeared, generate a high level of public concern so it’s important to remember that any depiction of knives on alcoholic packaging has to be approached with great caution.”
A spokesperson from Little Mesters Brewery said: “We respect the decision made by the Portman Group, and the important role they play in our industry. However we do not agree our branding celebrating a master craftsman and the huge part he, and other, Little Mesters played in building industry in our fantastic city in any way encourages anti social behaviour nor promotes knife crime.”
- Over a third of UK drinkers (38%) now consuming low and no alcohol alternatives semi regularly
- Young adults still the biggest consumers of low and no alcohol alternatives
- UK consumers call for more low and no options on draught in venues to further incentivise take up
The Portman Group’s seventh annual survey in partnership with YouGov shows that more people are drinking low and no alcohol alternatives than ever before, showing the UK is drinking more moderately than ever.
The results show that well over a third (38%) of UK drinkers are now consuming low and no alcohol alternatives semi-regularly (12% regularly and 26% occasionally) – compared to 35% in 2023 and 29% in 2022, with a notable increase in regular consumption from 8% in 2023 to 12% in 2024.
Young adults continue to drive the trend as the biggest consumers of low and no alcohol alternatives, with close to half (46%) of 25-34 year olds surveyed considering themselves either an occasional or regular drinker of alcohol alternatives, compared to 37% in 2023. Whilst 40% of 18-24 year olds also drink these products semi-regularly.
Trends show that the younger generation also continue to be the most sober age group overall, with 39% of 18-24 year olds not drinking alcohol at all.
The results continue to highlight the positive impact of low and no alcohol alternatives in helping people to moderate their drinking, with almost a quarter (24%*) of current alcohol drinkers stating that their weekly consumption has fallen due to low and no alcohol products, up from 23% in 2023 and 21% in 2022.
The survey also highlights an increasingly health-conscious UK consumer, with 29% of low and no drinkers citing collective ‘health and medical’ concerns as a key reason for choosing an alcohol alternative – an increase of almost a third (32%) when compared to 2021(22%).
Not only are UK drinkers increasingly using low and no alcohol alternatives as a tool with which to moderate their drinking, but their rise in popularity is playing an important role in helping to tackle wider alcohol harms such as drink driving. For the seventh year in a row, being able to drive home from social events is the number one reason cited by low and no drinkers for choosing an alcohol alternative, with over a quarter (28%) stating they will most commonly drink low and no alternatives in situations where they are unable to have a regular strength alcoholic drink such as when they are driving. This is especially important as pubs and bars remain the most popular locations for adults to drink low and no alternatives.
While our research continues to tell a positive story of how low and no products are becoming increasingly normalised in everyday life, almost a quarter of adults (24%) would still like to see more low and no options available on tap in pubs to further encourage them to drink. They also want to see greater use of price promotions (30%) and greater availability of low and no products in non-traditional hospitality spaces (26%) such as nightclubs, theatres, cinemas and live music and event venues.
Matt Lambert, Chief Executive of the Portman Group said: “It’s fantastic to see low and no alternatives continuing to soar in popularity, while helping to encourage more mindful and moderate consumption among UK alcohol drinkers. We welcome the drinks and hospitality industry continuing to work together to increase choice, availability and visibility of low and no alcohol alternatives, and we continue to urge the UK government to provide us with the outcome of the recent consultation on low alcohol descriptors which will further facilitate growth of the UK low and no alcohol market.”
*based on removing those who did not drink alcohol before first trying a low/no alternative.
All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2081 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 18th – 19th November 2024. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all UK adults (aged 18+).
The alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel has upheld complaints against three ciders produced by Bearded Brewery.
A complaint was received against their Tank Slapper, Moustache Mango, Swallows Rest and Shaky Todd ciders. The complaint was upheld against Tank Slapper, Moustache Mango and Swallows Rest, but not upheld against Shaky Todd cider.
The company is now working with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to bring the three upheld products in line with the Code.
Tank Slapper
The Panel discussed the meaning of ‘Tank Slapper’ which refers to a rapid side-to-side shaking of a vehicle’s wheels which usually occurs at high speeds, and is a dangerous manoeuvre with a high risk of injury. It also considered the phrase ‘get yer wobble on’ in this context as a direct imperative for a person to perform a ‘tank slapper’, further compounding the link between the drink and the dangerous manoeuvre, as well as an indirect association with drinking before driving.
It therefore concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety created an association with dangerous behaviour. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b). In the context of the decision under Code rule 3.2(b), the Panel also considered whether the phrase ‘get yer wobble on’ encouraged illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption and concluded that it could be read as an instruction for a person to consume alcohol immoderately and upheld the complaint under 3.2(j).
Moustache Mango
The Panel considered the phrase ‘man go hard or man go home’ which it noted read as a play on words for the well-known idiom ‘go hard or go home’. The Panel that the word ‘mango’ had been separated to ‘man go’ which further compounded the link to the well-known phrase, which is generally understood to mean that if undertaking a challenge, a person should make a bold, superior effort or forgo it all together.
In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that the line presented drinking as a challenge and on that basis, found that the line created an association with bravado and therefore found the packaging in breach of Code rule 3.2(b). The Panel also considered that the phrase ‘man go hard or man go home’ on an alcoholic drink could encourage immoderate consumption and was also unacceptable in this context. Accordingly, the Panel also upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(f).
Swallows Rest cider
The Panel took into consideration the company’s response which explained that Swallows Rest was the name of its brewhouse and the design of the logo was a traditional tattoo theme which was based on a similar real-life design used by one of the company’s directors. However, with regards to the image of the bird being stabbed – it noted that the design employed a fine line style which created a realistic depiction, with the knife tip dripping with blood compounding the life-like portrayal of the bird being stabbed. The Panel expressed concerned about the representation of a knife being used as a weapon and considered the imagery depicted a fairly aggressive and violent act of killing a bird.
The Panel stated that while it was clear that the imagery had a close personal link to the company, the realistic and violent depiction of killing a bird created an association with aggressive and violent behaviour and therefore upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b).
Shaky Todd cider
The complainant raised concern that the name of the product, combined with the illustration of a fox with liquid splashing from a tankard, encouraged immoderate consumption. The Panel acknowledged that ‘shaky’ could have a number of meanings, therefore it was important to consider how the word was presented in the wider context of the packaging. It noted the fox did not appear drunk and there was nothing else on the label which encouraged an immoderate style of consumption. It therefore did not uphold the complaint.
Commenting on the decision, Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “Three Bearded Brewery ciders in this case were found to create an association with violent, aggressive, or dangerous behaviour under Code rule 3.2(b). While the Panel acknowledged that the company had not set out to breach the Code, they encouraged all producers to think carefully before transferring these connotations to alcohol packaging.”
Producer:
Bearded Brewery
Complaint:
The logo features a bird being stabbed in the back by a sword which exits through the bird’s chest, with red blood on the sword tip from the impalement. Although this sword/swallow scene is a take on a traditional tattoo design, these are usually more stylised, less violent looking. Graphically depicting an aggressive and violent act towards an animal does not seem fitting for the promotion of an alcoholic drink. It appears to breach rule 3.2(b) association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company acknowledged that complaints were dealt with on a case-by-case basis and that the Portman Group did not seek out cases to prosecute. However, the company stated that it believed the complaint was vexatious and that many worse examples of alcohol marketing existed. Nonetheless, in the spirit of cooperation, the company agreed to engage with the complaints process.
The company explained that Swallows Rest was the name of its brewhouse which was given that moniker because of the multitude of swallows that frequented the property. The company stated that the design of the logo was a traditional tattoo theme and was based on a similar real-life design used by one of the company’s directors. However,
the company stated that it would be willing to adapt the design if required to comply with the Code.
The Panel’s assessment:
The Panel considered whether the packaging created any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label which depicted a swallow impaled by a knife and noted the company’s response that the image represented a tattoo. The Panel acknowledged that the design was in keeping with a traditional tattoo style but stated that careful consideration needed to be given to the inclusion of a knife. The Panel discussed previous case precedents under Code rule 3.2(b) and noted that in some circumstances inclusion of weapons on packaging had been deemed acceptable as the depiction was fantastical or otherworldly and as such had a degree of separation from real life violence. The Panel therefore considered the imagery in that context and noted that the bird was not a fantastical creature and that the knife was not a fictional weapon. The Panel noted that the design employed a fine line style which created a realistic depiction, with the knife tip dripping with blood compounding the life-like portrayal of the bird being stabbed. The Panel expressed concerned about the representation of a knife being used as a weapon and considered the imagery depicted a fairly aggressive and violent act of killing a bird.
The Panel stated that while it was clear that the imagery had a close personal link to the company, the realistic and violent depiction of killing a bird created an association with aggressive and violent behaviour. The Panel acknowledged that the company had not set out to breach the Code but encouraged all producers to think carefully before transferring violent graphic imagery to alcohol packaging. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b).
Action by company:
Working with
Producer:
Bearded Brewery
Complaint:
The drink’s name, slogan and logo are themed around motorcycling, and therefore there’s a dangerous link to drink driving. (Against rule 3.2(f) Immoderate / Irresponsible consumption). The logo features an aggressive looking bearded skull wearing a motorcycle helmet and goggles, with two motorcycle engine pistons behind the skull. The name ‘tank slapper’ is motorcyclists’ slang for a potentially life-threatening speed wobble when riding fast. The drink’s slogan ‘Get yer wobble on’ could be read as an encouragement of dangerously excessive speeding, drinking, or possibly both.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 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.
UPHELD
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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company acknowledged that complaints were dealt with on a case-by-case basis
and that the Portman Group did not seek out cases to prosecute. However, the company stated that it believed the complaint was vexatious and that many worse examples of alcohol marketing existed. Nonetheless, in the spirit of cooperation, the company agreed to engage with the complaints process.
The company explained that while the drink’s name was motorcycle themed it did not mean that there was a dangerous link to driving. The company stated that the image used on the packaging was similar to a biker’s patch and had been made for a member of the company. The company did not agree that the packaging encouraged anyone to drink or speed excessively and that the name was intended to be a play on words.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(b)
The Panel considered whether anything on the drink’s packaging suggested any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel first considered the imagery on the label which included a grimacing skeleton wearing motorcycle-style goggles with pistons positioned at either side and noted that the design was clearly inspired by motorbiking culture. The Panel discussed the spirit of Code rule 3.2(b) and noted that an association between an alcoholic drink and motorbiking was not inherently problematic under the Code and that compliance would determined by the overall impression conveyed by the label and name.
The Panel discussed the meaning of ‘Tank Slapper’ which referred to a rapid side-to-side shaking of a vehicle’s wheels which usually occurred at high speeds and could lead to a loss of control. The Panel considered that such a manoeuvre would be undesirable as it was particularly dangerous and carried a high risk of injury. The Panel discussed the meaning of ‘Tank Slapper’ and noted that while it was arguably not common parlance, it only had one meaning for those familiar with the terminology. On this basis, the Panel considered that the name created a direct link between the drink and a dangerous driving manoeuvre. The Panel then assessed the phrase ‘get yer wobble on’ in this context. The Panel noted that ‘Tank Slapper’ could also be known as a ‘wobble’ or ‘death wobble’ and considered that the wording of the phrase was a direct imperative for a person to perform a ‘tank slapper’. The Panel considered that the clear references to driving on the label and the direct instruction to ‘get yer wobble on’ compounded the link between the drink and dangerous driving.
The Panel then discussed the product under Code rule 3.2(f) which is detailed below. In light of its decision that the packaging encouraged an individual to consume alcohol immoderately the Panel revisited Code rule 3.2(b) and determined that ‘get yer wobble on’ also created an indirect association with drinking before driving and also created an association with dangerous behaviour.
The Panel therefore concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety created an association with dangerous behaviour. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b).
3.2(f)
In the context of the decision under Code rule 3.2(b), the Panel considered whether the phrase ‘get yer wobble on’ encouraged illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption. The Panel reiterated that ‘tank slapper’ was not well-known terminology and a was niche phrase unlikely to be understood outside of those involved in motorbiking. With that in mind, the Panel considered that ‘get yer wobble on’ for those unfamiliar with the definition of ‘tank slapper’ could refer to consuming alcohol immoderately to the point where someone has a ‘wobble’.
The Panel discussed the word ‘wobble’ and considered that it could be understood to mean being inebriated to the point where a person would become unsteady. After discussion, the Panel therefore considered that ‘get yer wobble on’ could read as a direct instruction for a person to consume alcohol immoderately. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging did encourage immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
Action by Company:
Working with the Advisory Service to bring the product in line with the Code.
Producer:
Bearded Brewery
Complaint:
The logo features the strapline ‘Man go hard or man go home’. “Go hard or go home” is a well known modern idiom meaning to either give a task maximum effort or don’t bother at all. I think this is irresponsible as an alcohol slogan as it could very easily be taken by a consumer to champion drinking to excess, ie giving it ‘all or nothing’. On the website the strapline is written as ‘Mango hard or mango home’, which could possibly be referring to a strong mango flavour, but on the logo the words have been split and create this different, additional and potentially dangerous meaning. (Against rule 3.2(f) A drink, its packaging or promotion should not encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption).
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 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.
UPHELD
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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company acknowledged that complaints were dealt with on a case-by-case basis and that the Portman Group did not seek out cases to prosecute. However, the company stated that it believed the complaint was vexatious and that many worse examples of alcohol marketing existed. Nonetheless, in the spirit of cooperation, the company agreed to engage with the complaints process.
The company stated that the line ‘man go hard or man go home’ referred to the strong mango flavour of the cider and was selected after being submitted via social media by a fan of the brand. The company explained that compared to other mango ciders, Moustache Mango Cider was known for its distinct strong flavour profile which made it the company’s best-selling cider. The company acknowledged the phrase used as the tagline was an idiom but explained that the intention was to refer to the strong flavour of the cider and was not designed to encourage irresponsible alcohol consumption.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(b)
The Panel first discussed whether the packaging created any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label and noted that it included imagery of a skull decorated with flowers above text which read ‘Moustache Mango’ and ‘Man go hard or man go home’. The Panel considered that the inclusion of a skull did not inherently create an association with violent or aggressive behaviour and that the skull was presented as decorative, comparable to a day of the dead theme. The Panel also discussed the name ‘Moustache Mango’ and agreed with the company that it clearly referred to the flavour of the drink and did not create any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.
The Panel then considered the phrase ‘man go hard or man go home’ in further detail. The Panel acknowledged the company’s explanation that the phrase was intended to emphasise the mango flavour of the drink. However, the Panel also noted that the line read as a play on words for the well-known idiom ‘go hard or go home’. The Panel considered the presentation of the line and noted that the word ‘mango’ had been separated to ‘man go’ which further compounded the link to the well-known phrase, ‘go hard or go home’. With that in mind, the Panel then discussed the meaning of ‘go hard or go home’. The Panel noted that ‘go hard or go home’ was generally understood to convey that if undertaking a challenge, a person should make a bold, superior effort or forgo the challenge all together. In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that the line did present drinking as a challenge and on that basis, found that the line did create an association with bravado. Accordingly, the Panel found the packaging in breach of Code rule 3.2(b).
3.2(f)
In the context of its decision under Code rule 3.2(b), the Panel discussed the phrase
‘man go hard or man go home’ in relation to Code rule 3.2(f) to determine whether it also encouraged immoderate consumption. The Panel reiterated the phrase was presented as a play on words to create a connection to the idiom ‘go hard or go home’ and that to ‘go hard’ in the context of alcohol could read as encouragement for a person to drink an immoderate amount.
The Panel considered that ‘Man go’ read as an instruction and the rest of the line suggested that a person should ‘go hard’ and drink above and beyond what they would normally or ‘go home’. The Panel acknowledged that the producer had not intended for the phrase to encourage a style of consumption, which was evident from the rest of the packaging as it did not contain any other elements that encouraged immoderate consumption. Nonetheless, the Panel considered that the phrase ‘man go hard or man go home’ on an alcoholic drink encouraged immoderate consumption and was unacceptable in this context. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(f)
Action by Company:
Working with Advisory Service to bring product in line with the Code.
Producer:
Bearded Brewery
Complaint:
The logo features an illustration of a fox, with an excess of liquid splashes sloshing from his tankard. The use of the word ‘Shaky’ in the drink’s name, in combination with this image, suggests the fox is unable to keep his drink still due to immoderate consumption. It appears there is a subtle celebration here of drinking until one is ‘shaky’. (Against rule 3.2(f) A drink, its packaging or 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.)
Complainant:
Member of the public
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 acknowledged that complaints were dealt with on a case-by-case basis and that the Portman Group did not seek out cases to prosecute. However, the company stated that it believed the complaint was vexatious and that many worse examples of alcohol marketing existed. Nonetheless, in the spirit of cooperation, the company agreed to engage with the complaints process.
The company explained that the name ‘Todd’ was an alternative name for a fox and that this term was still dialect in some parts of the UK. The company explained that ‘shaky’ did not in any way relate to the sloshing tankard and was instead used in some parts of the UK as an alternative meaning for ‘sly’ or ‘dodgy’. The company explained that the name ‘Shaky Todd’ was therefore another name for a ‘sly fox’.
The company stated that the packaging did not subtly celebrate drinking to excess and that it did not condone such behaviour in any way. The company explained that as a family business it would not want the Panel or its potential clients to perceive that it encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption.
The Panel’s assessment:
The Panel considered whether anything on the packaging encouraged illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the packaging which included an anthropomorphic fox drinking from a tankard which had drops of liquid splashing around the rim and the name ‘Shaky Todd’ presented alongside. The Panel first discussed the name ‘Shaky Todd’ and acknowledged the company’s response that ‘shaky’ was an alternative word for ‘sly’. However, the Panel also considered that the dialectal meaning of ‘sly’ was not well known throughout the UK even though it may be used in some areas. Instead, the Panel noted that ‘shaky’ was more likely to be understood by the general population as akin to trembling. Therefore, the Panel considered how the word could be interpreted in the context of alcohol. The Panel noted that ‘shaky’ could imply that a person was unsteady after alcohol consumption and noted that shaking or tremors were a common symptom of withdrawal for those with alcohol use disorder. However, the Panel acknowledged that ‘shaky’ could have a number of meanings and therefore it was important to consider how the word was presented in the wider context of the packaging.
With that in mind, the Panel considered the presentation of the fox in more detail and noted that it did not appear to be drunk. The Panel noted that the fox was not in a slumped or slouching position, did not appear to be shaking or unsteady and did not have drooping eyelids which were all common markers of inebriation. Instead, the fox appeared composed with a bow tie and monocle clearly in place which gave the impression it was not drunk as it was not in a state of disarray. The Panel considered that while there were droplets around the rim of the tankard, the tankard was positioned in a tilted fashion to suggest that the fox was taking a drink as opposed to it being incapable of holding the container steady and spilling the drink due to drunkenness. After careful assessment of the fox, the Panel considered that it did not appear drunk and there was nothing else on the label which encouraged an immoderate style of consumption.
In light of this, the Panel concluded that while shaky could be interpreted as a reference to alcohol withdrawal, it could be interpreted in various ways and that the overall impression conveyed by the label would always determine compliance with the Code. As there was nothing else on the packaging which encouraged drunkenness, the Panel concluded that the label did not encourage immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint.
Action by Company:
None required.
The alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP) is delighted to announce the appointment of a new Panel member.
Following a rigorous and highly competitive recruitment process, Martin Machray has been appointed to the Panel and will sit in his first meeting on 28 November. He will replace outgoing member Angela McNab.
Martin is currently the Director responsible for improvement, transformation and partnerships across the NHS in London. He qualified as a general nurse in 1989 and since then he has held senior roles in hospitals, commissioning, the Department of Health and the NHS.
He’s held a variety of roles in the NHS including Regional Chief Nurse and, during the pandemic was the Incident Director for London. Now much of his role is working with partners from all sectors of the capital, including Local Authorities, the Greater London Authority and the community and voluntary sector.
As well as his professional qualification, Martin also has a Masters degree in Public Sector Administration from Aston University.
The Panel is chaired by Rachel Childs and new members are carefully recruited in order to represent a cross section of society with a balance of experience and expertise in key areas such as licensing, public health, children’s services and law.
The ICP is independent from the Portman Group and considers complaints brought forward on the naming, packaging, promotion and sponsorship of alcoholic drinks based on the Portman Group’s Codes of Practice. The Panel meet several times a year to consider these complaints and decide whether they are upheld or not upheld based on evidence.
Rachel Childs, Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel said: “I am thrilled to announce Martin’s appointment to the Panel, and we are all looking forward to welcoming him. He has a truly impressive breadth of experience and knowledge in public health, which I have no doubt will make him an asset to the Panel. This was a very competitive recruitment process with an exceptionally high calibre of candidates, so I’d also like to thank all of the applicants involved, as well as Angela for her service to the Panel.”
A complaint against a Jam Shed wine point of sale display has not been 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 display, which featured the marketing slogan “wine for drinking, not overthinking”, may encourage irresponsible and immoderate consumption.
The Panel considered whether the point-of-sale material could encourage irresponsible or immoderate consumption, under Code rule 3.2(f) as raised by the complainant.
The Panel discussed that ‘overthinking’ was generally perceived to have negative connotations and expressed concern that the line ‘wine for drinking, not overthinking’ in isolation, could be misconstrued as encouragement to drink without due care and attention. However, the Panel stated that it was important to consider the line in the context of the overall impression conveyed by the marketing.
The Panel considered Jam Shed more broadly and acknowledged the company’s response that it was a well-known brand marketed on being a simple and easy choice for consumers who may find the perceived complexity of the wine category intimidating. The Panel also noted that there was nothing else on the marketing material that suggested that a consumer should drink irresponsibly or immoderately.
The Panel considered that the brand identity provided a certain level of context to the intended meaning of the line but that there was an element of ambiguity which could have been made clearer as to the intended meaning of ‘overthinking’. On this point, the Panel warned producers that where marketing was ambiguous it could lead to an unintentional breach of the Code.
After much deliberation, the Panel concluded that while the wording was very close to the line of acceptability, the marketing material did not encourage immoderate or irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the Panel did not find the point of sale material in breach of Code rule 3.2(f).
The Panel also considered whether the point of sale material urged a rapid or ‘down in one’ style of consumption, in breach of Code rule 3.2(g). The Panel assessed the rest of the marketing material and considered that it did not contain any cues which suggested a consumer should drink rapidly or encouraged a ‘down in one’ style of consumption. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the material did not breach Code rule 3.2(g) and accordingly did not uphold the complaint.
On being notified about the complaint, the company voluntarily removed the display and confirmed it would not use the phrase in future campaigns.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel Rachel Childs said: “While the Panel didn’t uphold the complaint in this instance, they still considered the wording of the point-of-sale display very close to the line of acceptability. It’s important for producers to be aware that ambiguous marketing could lead to unintentional breaches of the Code and I am grateful to the producer in this case for removing the campaign voluntarily which demonstrates their commitment to responsible marketing.”