» Portman Group Admin

Another British summertime is upon us which means we can look forward to a season filled with sports, festivals and if we’re lucky, maybe even some sunshine. It’s an ideal time for marketers to target consumers with engaging brand activations, but it is vital that care is taken to ensure these activities are conducted responsibly. Avoid a blunder with our hat trick of top tips.

Competitions for the off-trade

Many alcohol brands choose to engage with their customers by running promotions where the public have the chance to win tickets to an activity – like a sporting event, festival or even a holiday. While off-trade drinks are designed to be taken home to consume, care must still be taken that the mechanism for participating doesn’t inadvertently encourage immoderate consumption.

For example, if a brand is running a promotion or competition then a consumer may purchase several bottles or cans of a drink in order to maximise their chance of winning. Now, providing the drink has a reasonable shelf life, this would not necessarily be an issue under the Code because the consumer can then choose to drink the products at their leisure over a longer period of time. However, if the promotion or competition requires a drink to be opened in order to enter the competition (for example to get a unique entry number on the lid of the drink), and there was no limit to the amount of times a consumer could enter the competition, then a person could open and therefore potentially consume multiple drinks in order to maximize their chance of winning.

The competition would then become the catalyst for them drinking more alcohol, so the Advisory Service would suggest that the entry mechanic should not require the drink to be opened or that a limit is placed on the amount of times someone could enter per week.

On-trade promotions

Unlike the off-trade, promotions in the on-trade usually involve a consumer drinking at the point of purchase. For that reason, producers need to take extra care that they are not encouraging a person to drink immoderately or irresponsibly. The Advisory Service recommends that a person should not be encouraged to drink more than four units of alcohol in one sitting and should not drink more than 14 units of alcohol in a week in line with the Chief Medical Officer’s’ low risk drinking guidelines.

It can be tricky to run a promotion or competition in the on-trade, but it is the view of the Advisory Service that this sort of marketing can still be done in a socially responsible manner. We would recommend that if a producer is running a competition to win a prize, where purchase of a drink is required for entry, then entries should be capped at a limited number per consumer.

For example, if entry to a competition required the purchase of a drink which contained 1.5 units of alcohol, we’d suggest capping the number of times a consumer could enter at two drinks (three units of alcohol). This would help to avoid indirectly encouraging immoderate consumption.

Experiential Marketing

Lots of people will be out and about over the summer and for a lot of producers, promotional events or experiential marketing will be on the cards. However, one of the biggest concerns we see in the Advisory Service is this sort of marketing potentially having a particular appeal to under-18s.

While a lot of summer events are family friendly, even events which are restricted to over-18s should ensure that marketing does not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The test of this Code rule is not one of quantity but the way in which something appeals. It is important to remember that the Code applies to experiential marketing and so including items or themes as part of the experience which could have a particular appeal to under-18s is unlikely to be acceptable.

It is hard to say if any one element is likely to cause an experience to have a particular appeal to under-18s, but producers can reduce this risk by including elements which are likely to have a more adult appeal. Games such as tag, swing ball, water fights or slip and slides are all more likely to resonate with children than they are adults so we would suggest avoiding them. Instead, activities which are more adult focused like darts, badminton or tennis are likely to be okay as these are likely to have broad appeal to all age groups.

Similarly, incorporating items or themes which do not have a particular appeal to under-18s is also really important. For instance, balloon animals, teddies or clowns are all likely to have a particular appeal to children and should be avoided.

There are a lot of elements to consider but whatever your marketing plans are for the summer, the Advisory Service is here to help. Our full guidance can be found online here or you can contact us for a free, confidential and non-binding view at advice@portmangroup.org.uk.

The alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP) is delighted to announce the appointment of three new members, further strengthening and enhancing the Panel’s expertise and diversity.

Following a rigorous recruitment process which saw an unprecedented amount of applications received, Evans Omondi, Amanda Bridgewater, and Hayden Taylor have been appointed as new Panel members and will sit on their first Panel meeting on 9 May.

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.

To maintain the diversity of the Panel applications were particularly encouraged during this recruitment process from those with professional experience working with young people.

Evans Omondi

Evans Omondi is a Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) qualified youth worker with over 15 years’ experience working with young people. He currently manages a youth programme in central London which specialises in working with young people who have experienced youth violence, and has previous experience working in multiple youth centres and mentoring young people with learning difficulties.

Amanda Bridgewater

Amanda Bridgewater has over 20 years’ experience in the education sector, working in various senior leadership roles in the secondary sector, most recently as Interim Principal of a large state-school in Bristol. She has held education consultancy roles across schools in both the urban and rural context as well as sitting at board level in the primary sector. She has also worked with vulnerable young people in the charity sector as a Trustee and volunteer for a number of UK, European and international charities.

Hayden Taylor

Hayden Taylor is a young social entrepreneur and company director who founded social enterprise Unloc, a leading non-profit organisation which helps schools and colleges to empower young people across the UK with the leadership skills and platforms to drive change. Hayden has founded a number of successful campaigns focused on supporting young people to become policy influencers, innovators and entrepreneurs in the UK and Europe, and is a global youth ambassador for One Young World.

Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), Rachel Childs, said: “I’m thrilled to welcome our new members to the Panel and I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate them on their appointment, following what was a very competitive recruitment process with an exceptionally high standard of applicants. All three have demonstrated an impressive breadth of experience and understanding of young people which will be invaluable when applying the Codes of Practice. I very much look forward to working with them.”

Product:

SURPS 8% DIPA

Producer:

Beak Brewery

Complaint:

The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others.

The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books.
There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.

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(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

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.

UPHELD

The company’s submission:

The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported.

The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.

The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.

In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.

In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.

The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.

The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.

Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and
represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.
The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.

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 noted that the artwork on the front label depicted a snake wrapped around a can of drink. The Panel considered that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.

The Panel discussed the artwork’s colour palette, noting that while it was somewhat muted it did include the contrasting colours of blue, yellow, red and green as well as a black keyline which outlined the snake and can. The Panel considered that these elements could contribute to an appeal to under-18s but noted that such factors needed to be considered in the context of the overall impression conveyed by the artwork.

The Panel discussed the presentation of the anthropomorphic snake and noted that its mouth was drawn with an upwards curve giving the impression that it was smiling. The Panel noted that the snake was wrapped around the can in a crushing manner to open the drink and taste the liquid with its red tongue extended outward towards the liquid. The Panel considered that because of these elements, the snake was anthropomorphised and presented as a friendly, happy character. The Panel stated that these elements created a narrative on the packaging which was humorous and this, combined with the artistic representation of the anthropomorphised snake, was reminiscent of a scene that might be found in a children’s book which would be of particular appeal to children.

The Panel discussed the producer’s response, in particular the point that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent. The Panel noted that the product was predominantly sold to independent specialist adult beer and wine shops but sought to remind the producer that all products could be purchased and taken into the home environment, with some retailers also distributing products wider than a producer’s original intention and out of their ultimate control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied to the product packaging and its fundamental compliance with the Code as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed in an adult context.

Therefore, the Panel concluded that the smiling anthropomorphic snake, humorous narrative, contrasting colours and black keyline meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘DIPA’. The Panel noted that most consumers would be familiar with an IPA descriptor for a beer. In addition to this, when assessing the back label, the Panel considered that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to beer, ale, brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV. When considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.

3.2(b)
The Panel noted that the artwork included similar elements considered in a previous decision regarding Dragon Soop Venom, namely a snake with fangs, and therefore raised Code rule 3.2(b) to discuss whether the product created a direct or indirect association with bravado.

The Panel noted that the snake appeared to have a friendly, smiling disposition and was not bearing its fangs in an aggressive manner nor was it positioned in a hostile striking stance. While the snake was crushing the can, the narrative portrayed reflected an action of opening the can to access the liquid which supported the view that the snake was playful and contributed to the overall humorous impression.

The Panel discussed the droplets of liquid depicted around the snake and noted that it was clear the droplets were spilling out of the opened container rather than representing the snake’s venom. In that context, the Panel considered that a consumer would not interpret the artwork as suggesting the drink had a powerful effect, like venom, so that a person must be daring to drink it. After assessing the rest of the packaging in its entirety the Panel noted there was nothing else on the label which created an association with bravado. Accordingly, the packaging was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(b).

Action by Company:

Was limited edition.

Product:

CREEKS 6.3% BRIGHT IPA

Producer:

Beak Brewery

Complaint:

The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others.

The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books.
There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.

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.

UPHELD

The company’s submission:

The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported. The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture.

The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.

The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.

In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.

In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.

The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.

The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.

Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.
The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.

The Panel’s assessment:

3.2(h)
The Panel assessed whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted that the artwork on the front label included a line drawing of an anthropomorphic character. The Panel noted that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.

The Panel noted that the creature featured prominently on the front label and was bright yellow, positioned on a blue background and outlined with a black keyline. The Panel discussed these elements and noted that thick black keylines and contrasting primary colours were elements which could contribute to a level of appeal to under-18s but that these were factors, alongside the simplistic design, to be considered in context of the overall impression conveyed by the product artwork.
With that in mind, the Panel noted that the character had exaggerated facial features such as a large nose, flappy ears and had a friendly and smiling demeanour. The image was a fairly basic line drawing which only employed two colours, adding to the simplicity of the design. The Panel discussed the precedent set by Laverstoke Park Farm Lager and Ale which included a child’s drawing and was found to have a particular appeal to under-18s. While the Panel acknowledged that the character had not been drawn by a child, its exaggerated facial features and anthropomorphised nature, along with the finer detail of having two mis-sized nostrils, was a character that possessed traits similar to one that a child could create themselves. The Panel also noted that the character would not look out of place in a children’s book and that its smiling and friendly demeanour further enhanced its particular appeal to young children.

The Panel discussed the producer’s response, in particular the point that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent. The Panel noted that the product was predominantly sold to independent specialist adult beer and wine shops but sought to remind the producer that all products could be purchased and taken into the home environment, with some retailers also distributing products wider than a producer’s original intention and out of their ultimate control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied to the product packaging and its fundamental compliance with the Code as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed in an adult context.

The Panel stated that it was clear from the company’s articulate and detailed response that it had not intended the packaging to have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the points mentioned above and considered that the packaging was an example where individual elements that were not inherently problematic under the Code in isolation, such as simplistic artwork, anthropomorphic characters, bold keylines and bright contrast colours could become problematic when combined, creating an overall impression that was likely to have a particular appeal to under-18s.

Therefore, after carefully assessing the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel concluded that the simple drawing with a black keyline, anthropomorphic character, bright contrasting primary colours and exaggerated friendly depiction of the character had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘IPA’. The Panel noted that most consumers would be familiar with an IPA descriptor for a beer. In addition to this, when assessing the back label, the Panel considered that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to beer, IPA, brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV. When considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.

Action by Company:

Was limited edition.

Products:

BEAK COLUMNS 6.5% IPA

Producer:

Beak Brewery

Complaint:

“The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others.

The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books.
There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.”

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.

UPHELD

The company’s submission:

The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported.

The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.

The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.

In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.

In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.

The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.

The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.

Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.

The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.

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 noted the image on the front label which included numerous columns of different colours, sizes and positions, each with varying facial expressions. The Panel stated that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel noted that bright contrasting colours were used for the columns on a white background and were outlined with a black keyline. The Panel discussed these elements and noted that thick black keylines and contrasting colours were elements which could contribute to a level of appeal to under-18s but that these were factors, alongside the simplistic design, to be considered in context of the overall impression conveyed by the product artwork.

The Panel noted the producer’s response which stated that its products did not feature depictions of toys or things commonly associated with children. The Panel discussed the presentation of the columns and noted that the white, yellow, blue, red and green columns were reminiscent of children’s wooden toy blocks and to a certain extent, children’s crayons or chalk. The Panel noted that each inanimate object had been personified with each column reflecting a different emotion such as happiness, shock and annoyance. The Panel discussed the personification of the columns and noted that the combined effect of adding emotive expressions to inanimate objects, simplicity of the faces, overall basic design and bright contrasting colours created a particular appeal to under-18s, particularly in the context of an inadvertent similarity to toy building blocks.

The Panel discussed the producer’s response, in particular the point that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent. The Panel noted that the product was predominantly sold to independent specialist adult beer and wine shops but sought to remind the producer that all products could be purchased and taken into the home environment, with some retailers also distributing products wider than a producer’s original intention and out of their ultimate control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied to the product packaging and its fundamental compliance with the Code as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed in an adult context.

The Panel stated that it was clear from the company’s articulate and detailed response that it had not intended the packaging to have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the points mentioned above and considered that the packaging was an example where individual elements that were not inherently problematic under the Code in isolation, such as simplistic artwork, bold keylines and bright contrast colours could become problematic when combined, creating an overall impression that was likely to have a particular appeal to under-18s.

Therefore, after carefully assessing the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel concluded that the combination of personified inanimate objects, contrasting bright colours, black keyline, simplicity of design and inadvertent similarity to toy building blocks, meant that the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘IPA’. The Panel noted that most consumers would be familiar with an IPA descriptor for a beer. In addition to this, when assessing the back label, the Panel considered that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV. When considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.

Action by Company:

Was limited edition.

Product:

BEAK ILLU 6.5% IPA

Producer:

Beak Brewery

Complaint:

“The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others.

The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books.
There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.”

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(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

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.

UPHELD

The company’s submission:

The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported.

The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.

The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.

In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can. The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.

In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.
The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.

The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.

Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and
represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.
The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.

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 assessed the front label which depicted a character holding an enlarged match surrounded by trees with flames on. The Panel noted that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel noted that the design did not include black keylines and had instead appeared similar to print illustrations which resonated with a Scandinavian style. The Panel considered the block shapes which were presented in solid contrasting bright primary colours and were the prominent feature of the design which was fairly simplistic. The Panel noted that the artwork was abstract in appearance as it included geometric shapes used to build artistic representations, with triangles used for trees and square elements for the character’s limbs.

The Panel discussed the prominence of the character on the packaging, noting that it had a basic form with the body and appendages being made up of square shapes in solid primary colours of blue and red. The character had enlarged ears and a basic line drawn face which made it appear anthropomorphic rather than human. The Panel considered that the building of an anthropomorphic character from simple shapes and exaggerated facial features would be elements that would appeal to children. The Panel discussed the precedent set by Laverstoke Park Farm Lager and Ale which included a child’s drawing and was found to have a particular appeal to under-18s. While the Panel acknowledged that the character had not been drawn by a child, its geometric presentation and line drawn face with exaggerated features was a character that possessed traits similar to one that a child could mimic or create themselves.

The Panel discussed the producer’s response, in particular the point that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent. The Panel noted that the product was predominantly sold to independent specialist adult beer and wine shops but sought to remind the producer that all products could be purchased and taken into the home environment, with some retailers also distributing products wider than a producer’s original intention and out of their ultimate control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied to the product packaging and its fundamental compliance with the Code as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed in an adult context.

Therefore, when assessing the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel considered that the combination of the inclusion of bright primary colours and the prominence of the simple, anthropomorphic character constructed of geometric shapes with a line drawing face and exaggerated features meant that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘IPA’. The Panel noted that most consumers would be familiar with an IPA descriptor for a beer. In addition to this, when assessing the back label, the Panel considered that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to beer, ale, brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV. When considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.

3.2(b)
The Panel discussed the design which depicted a character holding an enlarged match, surrounded by trees with flames in them and raised consideration of Code rule 3.2(b) to discuss whether the packaging created an association with dangerous or anti-social behaviour.

The Panel noted that the presentation of the design was fairly stylised and similar to Scandinavian art, with bright block colours and no black outlines. The Panel therefore considered that the flames in the trees could be interpreted as a stylised depiction of candles which could link to an overall festive theme, which was supported by the pine tree depictions. Alongside this, the Panel considered that the flames in the trees all appeared to be deliberately lit and burning in a controlled manner similar to lighted candles which the panel believed were still a traditional Christmas feature in parts of Scandinavia, rather than burning haphazardly as an out-of-control fire which would engulf the whole tree.

The Panel discussed that while the character was holding a large match, it appeared to be fully in control of the flame. Alongside this, the character appeared calm, friendly and smiling and was not positioned in an aggressive stance or with a hostile facial expression.
Therefore, when considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel concluded that the controlled presentation of the fire, in combination with the festive setting and lack of evidence to suggest anything otherwise, did not create an association with dangerous or anti-social behaviour. Accordingly, it was not found in breach of Code rule 3.2(b).

Action by Company:

Was limited edition.

Product:

BEAK NONIC 8% DIPA

Producer:

Beak Brewery

Complaint:

“The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others.

The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books.
There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol.

I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.”

Complainant:

Member of the public

Decision:

Under Code rule 3.1 – The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.