A complaint against Glenmorangie A Tale of Ice Cream Whisky has been not upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by a member of the public, raised concerns that the product had a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel considered if the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity, under Code rule 3.1 and whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, under Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel first discussed relevant precedent cases, which had established that ice cream was deemed to have broad appeal across age groups. The Panel noted that whilst ice cream may contribute to the appeal that marketing had to children, it was often the combination of several factors that caused packaging to have a particular appeal to under-18s, rather than one element in isolation.
On considering the primary packaging, the Panel noted that the word ‘ice cream’ was the most prominent text on the front label of the bottle and was presented on a background of swirling pastel colours. However, the Panel considered that apart from a small cone pattern on the base of the bottle’s neck, there was no additional imagery which linked to ice cream.
Considering the secondary box packaging the Panel noted that the word ‘ice cream’ and ice cream imagery were prominently presented with the design incorporating multiple scoops of ice cream on one side and an image of a bottle that partially replicated an ice cream cone on another. The Panel discussed the appearance of both elements and acknowledged that the imagery created a stronger association with ice cream than the primary packaging. However, the Panel noted that the design employed muted colours, abstract design and a sophisticated font style with straight lined edges, all of which were not associated with designs aimed at children.
Therefore, after careful consideration, the Panel stated that neither the primary or secondary packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and accordingly did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs said: “There is clear precedent that ice cream can have a broad appeal to all age groups. In this case the Panel was satisfied that the product packaging was targeted at adults and did not include bright contrasting primary colours, cartoon imagery or thick keylines which may have particular appeal to under-18s. The panel therefore concluded that Glenmorangie’s ‘A Tale of Ice Cream’ whisky packaging did not fall foul of the Code and did not uphold the complaint.”
Producer:
Catalyst Spirits Limited
Complaint:
Brand name associations with violence and aggression
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)
3.2(b) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company stated that ‘Blackeye’ did not suggest any association with violence, aggression, or illegal behaviour, nor did it breach the Portman Group’s Code of Practice. The company explained that despite the product’s broad distribution and growing online presence, this was the first complaint the company had received about the product and no other complaints had been lodged concerning compliance with the Code.
The company explained that it was run by a team with over 100 years of combined experience in the alcoholic drinks industry and was fully committed to the responsible marketing and sale of its products. The company explained that the drink in question was created by Mike Tindall, James Haskell and Alex Payne, three prominent figures and advocates for the game of rugby. The company stated that the drink was a purpose-led brand with a mission to address the financial and medical challenges faced by rugby players and to protect the future of the sport. Its mission was to champion recovery, care, and safety in rugby, supporting seriously injured players and their families. The company had developed a Blackeye Responsible Marketing Code called ‘Do the Right Thing’ and this Code was strictly based on the guidance of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice. The ‘Do the Right Thing’ Code required anyone involved in the sale, marketing, or promotion of Blackeye to avoid creating any associations with bravado, violence, aggression, dangerous, anti-social, or illegal behaviour. The company stated that it had also established the Blackeye Rugby Fund with the goal of becoming one of the largest donors to rugby-related causes within five years. The company explained that £1.50 from each sold bottle of Blackeye was invested in the fund which focused on three key areas: research, risk, and recovery.
In addressing the specific concern raised by the complainant, the company explained that the brand name ‘Blackeye’ was differentiated from “black eye’’ and at most could be interpreted as a reference to the common sports injury. The company stated that in high-tempo sports like rugby, players did suffer black eyes which would be a result of participating in a contact sport, not due to bravado, violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behavior. The company explained that the stylisation of Blackeye was not intended to be a literal description of a sports injury but was a symbolic caricature of rugby to highlight the under-funded issue of player welfare, such as the medical and financial support for former players. The company explained that the drink was the ‘unofficial spirit of rugby’ and this was made clear on the packaging to give context to the name. The company stated that the label contained a clear description of how the brand contributed to the future safety of the game and included a neck tag that showed the founders who were famous in the world of rugby holding a rugby ball and a framed rugby ball design with the words “FOR THE GAME”.
The company stated that it did not believe that the drink suggested any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behavior and was not in breach of paragraph 3.2(b) of the Code. The company explained that the complaint was based on a narrowed reading of the labelling that was incorrect and failed to take account of the specific information and broader context provided by the packaging of the product.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(b)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s name created any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed the name ‘Blackeye’ and stated that while the name could have a number of potential interpretations, it was commonly understood as bruising and swelling to the eye region of the face. The Panel discussed that while a ‘black eye’ injury could be the result of a violent attack, it was also a common injury sustained through contact sport or other incidents unrelated to physical assault. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the name ‘Blackeye’ was differentiated from the descriptor ‘black eye’ but considered that a consumer was still likely to read the name in the same manner. Despite this, the Panel considered that as a ‘black eye’ could be the result of sporting behaviour or other incidents unrelated to assault, the name alone in this case did not create an association with violent or aggressive behaviour and needed to be considered in the wider context of the rest of the packaging.
The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging in more detail and noted that the front label employed a fairly simple design. The name ‘Blackeye’ was included on imagery that did somewhat resemble an eye but noted that this was designed to be abstract and stylised. The Panel noted that there was no violent or aggressive imagery included on the front label nor was there any depiction of an injury. The Panel considered the back label and noted that there were several references to rugby including to the rugby advocates Mike Tindall, James Haskell and Alex Payne, rugby ball imagery and the Blackeye Rugby Fund. The Panel considered that this provided further context to the name ‘Blackeye’ and the product’s clear aim to use proceeds to address the financial and medical challenges faced by rugby players. The Panel noted that the overall impression of the product explicitly linked to rugby, a rules-based contact sport and whilst it could result in injury, injuries did not directly link to intentional violence. Taking the above into account, the Panel considered that the name and packaging did not create an association with violent or aggressive behaviour. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b).
Action by Company:
None required.
A complaint against Blackeye London Dry Gin has been not upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by a member of the public, raised concerns that the name of the gin suggested an association with violence and aggression.
The Panel considered whether the name of the product could suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour, under Code rule 3.2(b).
The Panel heard that the product was created by Mike Tindall, James Haskell and Alex Payne, three prominent figures and advocates for the game of rugby. The company stated that the drink was a purpose-led brand with a mission to address the financial and medical challenges faced by rugby players.
The Panel discussed the name ‘Blackeye’ and stated that while the name could have several interpretations, it was commonly understood as bruising and swelling to the eye region of the face. While a ‘black eye’ injury could be the result of a violent attack, it was also a common injury sustained through contact sport or other incidents unrelated to physical assault. They concluded that the name alone in this case did not create an association with violent or aggressive behaviour and needed to be considered in the wider context of the rest of the packaging.
The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging and noted that the front label employed a fairly simple design. The name ‘Blackeye’ was included on imagery that did somewhat resemble an eye but noted that this was designed to be abstract and stylised. The Panel noted that there was no violent or aggressive imagery included on the front label nor was there any depiction of an injury.
Considering the back label the Panel noted that there were references to rugby, rugby ball imagery and the Blackeye Rugby Fund, providing further context to the name ‘Blackeye’ and the product’s clear aim to use proceeds to address the financial and medical challenges faced by rugby players.
The Panel noted that the overall impression of the product explicitly linked to rugby, a rules-based contact sport and whilst it could result in injury, injuries did not directly link to intentional violence. Taking the above into account, the Panel considered that the name and packaging did not create an association with violent or aggressive behaviour. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs said: “It’s vitally important under the Code that producers ensure their products do not make any link to bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. In this instance, the Panel concluded that the packaging of Blackeye London Dry Gin, although referencing a common sporting injury, did not make a link with intentional aggression or violence and therefore did not fall foul of the Code. The Panel did not uphold the complaint.”
Producer:
Jinro Soju
Complaint:
The photo in this complaint shows a bar at ‘All Points East’, a music festival in Victoria Park, London. The bar was branded around Jinro Soju and sold its products. The photograph was taken on 17 August 2024.
Above the bar was a large backlit neon sign with the slogan ‘easy to drink / drink to link’. The sign and bar was in the main food and drink area of the festival and visible from far away. Attendance at All Points East is around 40,000 people, overwhelmingly young people.
My complaint is regarding the phrase ‘drink to link’. In this context I believe ‘link’ means ‘to have (typically casual) sexual relations with’. This clearly falls fowl of rule 3.2(d) by suggesting the consumption of alcohol will lead to sexual success.
Even were it suggested ‘link’ meant to create non-sexual, social relationships, this would still breach rule 3.2(e). However, in my view the majority of the young and diverse audience in attendance would have absolutely understood the sign to be referring to sex, or at the very least having a dual meaning, and any suggestion otherwise would be disingenuous in my view.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(d)
3.2(d) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with sexual activity or sexual success.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(e)
3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company explained that it was committed to complying with regulatory requirements and responsible alcohol marketing standards. The company highlighted that all of its drinks packaging complied with required regulatory labelling for alcoholic beverages and responsible drinking messages were included in various ways to promote responsible consumption.
In regard to the complaint, the company stated that ‘link’ did not refer in this context to physical relationships. Instead, link was used to refer to the culture of the Korean people who link their everyday relationships through drinking, reflecting the deeper human connection beyond just drinking. The company stated that there was absolutely no intention to suggest any association with social success or sexual connotations in the branding. The company explained that Jinro was a representative drink brand of South Korea with 100 years of history. The company stated that it had been enjoyed by the Korean public for a century in various places and occasions and that the combination of food and soju was established in Korean culture. The company explained that the line conveyed Jinro Soju’s global compatibility, where consumers could enjoy a quality alcoholic beverage alongside food, family, friends, colleagues and places (“joyful spaces”), indeed anyone, anywhere with anything. Therefore, the tag line conveyed that Jinro Soju was a drink that complemented positive experiences without any sexual or social implications.
Finally, the company reiterated that it continuously strived to uphold ESG principles as well as relevant laws and guidelines to foster a responsible drinking culture and marketing practices. However, the company stated it would be willing to remove the line from the UK market if required.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(d)
The Panel considered the promotional activity and discussed whether it created any association with sexual activity and/or sexual success as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted that the material appeared in a festival environment and prominently displayed the line ‘Easy To Drink, Drink To Link’. The Panel discussed the company’s response which explained that Jinro Soju was a South Korean product and in South Korean culture pairing Soju with different foods was commonplace. The Panel considered that from the company’s perspective, the line ‘Easy To Drink, Drink To Link’ was therefore intended to communicate this cultural practice. The Panel acknowledged the company’s intended meaning but stated that it was important to consider how the promotional activity would be interpreted by UK consumers.
The Panel considered the line ‘Easy To Drink, Drink To Link’ and noted that there was no further context to clarify that it related to pairing the drink with food. The Panel discussed that ‘link’ in the UK was not generally used to refer to a practice of pairing something with food and instead had other well-known meanings. The Panel considered that in the context of dating ‘link’ was used as a slang word to refer to having sex with a romantic partner with the relationship sometimes kept a secret, or at the least discreet and without commitment. The Panel discussed that particularly within a younger festival demographic, the word ‘link’ was commonly used in this context and therefore the line ‘Drink To Link’ would be understood as an instruction to consume the drink and engage in sexual activity.
The Panel understood that because the company was based outside of the UK it may not have been aware of the slang meaning of the phrase and that the association was likely to have been inadvertent. Nonetheless, the Panel stated that the ambiguity of the line left it open to consumer interpretation and that in the UK it was currently predominantly used as a sexual reference. On that basis, the Panel considered that the promotional activity did create an association with sexual activity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(d).
Code rule 3.2(e)
The Panel considered whether the promotional activity suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity as raised by the complainant. In the context of its decision under Code rule 3.2(d), the Panel considered the line ‘Easy To Drink, Drink To Link’. The Panel reiterated concern that the line was ambiguous and the line was not presented with any context that it was intended to communicate that the drink paired easily with food. The Panel discussed that ‘linking up with someone’ was often used in the UK to communicate a social gathering or meeting, usually with friends. The Panel considered that ‘Drink To Link’, while having sexual connotations, could also suggest that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity. Without context, the Panel considered that line read as if the drink could facilitate a social gathering and that a person may find connecting with other people easier once they had consumed the drink. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the promotional activity did suggest that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).
The Panel acknowledged that both breaches of the Code were inadvertent in this instance and sought to remind producers that where there is often a lack of context in promotional activity, some phrases may have multiple meanings and to be mindful of cultural differences.
Action by Company:
Promotion will not appear with the line ‘Drink to Link’ in the UK again.
A complaint against Jinro Soju’s promotional activity at a summer festival has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), after it was found to suggest an association with sexual activity and social success. Full decision can be found here.
The complaint, received from a member of the public, said: ‘The photo in this complaint shows a bar at ‘All Points East’, a music festival in Victoria Park, London… My complaint is regarding the phrase ‘drink to link’. In this context I believe ‘link’ means ‘to have (typically casual) sexual relations with’.
It was upheld under Code rule 3.2(j) 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 sexual activity or sexual success, as well as Code rule 3.2(e) which states it should also not suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.
The Panel noted the response of the Korean producer – Jinro – which explained the line ‘Easy To Drink, Drink To Link’ was used to convey Jinro’s global compatibility where consumers could enjoy an alcoholic beverage alongside food, family, friends colleagues and places; ‘anyone, anywhere with anything’.
The Panel considered that in the context of dating ‘link’ was used as a slang word to refer to having sex with a romantic partner with the relationship sometimes kept a secret, or at the least discreet and without commitment. The Panel discussed that particularly within a younger festival demographic, the word ‘link’ was commonly used in this context and therefore the line ‘Drink To Link’ would be understood as an instruction to consume the drink and engage in sexual activity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(d).
The Panel also considered whether the promotional activity suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed that ‘linking up with someone’ was often also used in the UK to communicate a social gathering or meeting, usually with friends. The Panel considered that ‘Drink To Link’, while having sexual connotations, could also suggest that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).
The producer confirmed that the promotion will not appear with the line ‘Drink to Link’ in the UK again.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “This is a timely reminder that the Portman Group’s Code of Practice applies to all alcohol marketed in the UK, and not just that of UK producers. While the Panel accepted that both breaches of the Code were inadvertent in this instance, producers should bear in mind that where there is often a lack of context in promotional activity, some phrases may have multiple meanings and that it’s important to be mindful of cultural differences.”
Assistant Manager of Global Marketing for HiteJinro, Deuk-yeol Yoo said: “We respect the decision of the Portman Group and will not use the disputed phrase in the UK in accordance with their recommendation. We strongly wish to convey that our tagline was never intended to be associated with sexual activity or sexual success, nor to suggest that alcohol consumption could lead to social success or popularity. Additionally, this misunderstanding arose due to differences in expression between Korean and English.”
The Portman Group is delighted to announce the appointment of Nick Baird as its new Chair.
As a former senior diplomat and business leader, Nick has a wealth of experience with an impressive career spanning thirty years in government and several more in the private sector.
During his 30 years in government, Nick was Chief Executive of UK Trade and Investment, Ambassador to Turkey and Foreign and Commonwealth Office Director General Europe and Economic, as well as serving in various other posts in Europe and the Middle East. Most recently, he has been Chair of the Trade Remedies Authority and Chair of the charity, Carers UK.
During his time in the private sector, Nick was Group Corporate Affairs Director of the international energy company Centrica for 8 years, as well as a Non-Executive Director of the international education company, Nord Anglia.
The Portman Group’s independent Chair is responsible for chairing the Council which comprises the CEOs of the 18 member companies who fund the self-regulatory system.
Nick was chosen from a strong field of candidates and the Portman Group was assisted in the selection by Spencer Stuart.
Nick will replace outgoing Chair Philip Rycroft who is stepping down after five years in post. Nick will formally take up the role on the 1st February.
Nick Baird, new Chair of the Portman Group, said: “I’m thrilled to be joining the Portman Group as their new Independent Chair and excited to work closely with the team to bring our member companies together and further encourage responsible best practice across the industry. The Portman Group has a remarkable record of highly effective self regulation over the last 30 years and as a big supporter of corporate social responsibility I’m looking forward to getting to work.”
Matt Lambert, Chief Executive of the Portman Group added: “I’m delighted to welcome Nick as our new Chair, and have no doubt with his vast and impressive experience across government and the private sector that he will bring a huge amount of insight to the alcohol industry. I would like to also take this opportunity to say a big thank you to our departing Chair Philip Rycroft who has made an incredible impact during his five years at the Portman Group.”
A complaint against three ALDI flavoured ciders has not been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP).
The complaint, made by a member of the public, raised concerns that three flavoured ciders – Strawberry Laces, Bubblegum and Lemon Sherbet – may particularly appeal to under-18s.
The Panel discussed the confectionery flavours and noted that in previous precedent setting cases it had found that a sweet flavour alone was not enough to constitute a particular appeal to under-18s under Code rule 3.2(h). The Panel reiterated that it is often the combination of multiple elements such as cartoon or sweet images, bubble writing, bright contrasting primary colours as well as sweet flavours that causes packaging to have a particular appeal. Therefore, the overall impression conveyed by the packaging would determine compliance with the Code.
Whilst the Panel did have some concerns about confectionary-flavoured alcoholic drinks in the context of a 330ml slimline can that was also synonymous with soft drinks packaging, it noted that for all three of the products there was an absence of other elements that typically accumulated to create ‘particular’ appeal. For example, the packaging did not incorporate cartoon or sweet imagery, bubble writing, bright contrasting primary colours or characters that may particularly appeal to children.
All three of the products clearly displayed the word ‘Cider’ and prominently positioned the product’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) on the front of the can. In addition to this, the back label contained the unit content of the product, pregnancy logo and the UK Chief Medical Officer’s weekly unit guidelines which all clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature as highlighted by the company.
After much discussion when considering the overall impression of the packaging, the Panel concluded that none of the ciders had a particular appeal to under-18s and did not uphold the complaint.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel Rachel Childs said: “For all three of these products, the Panel expressed an element of concern about confectionary-flavoured alcoholic drinks in the context of a 330ml slimline can that was also synonymous with soft drinks packaging, which is important for producers to be aware of in future. However, without the combination of other elements on the packaging such as cartoon images and bubble writing, we did not find the overall impression of the products were a breach of the Code and therefore did not uphold the complaint.”
Producer:
ALDI
Complaint:
A alcoholic beverage which is themed and flavoured after a popular children’s penny candy is clearly a breach of the code.
Strawberry Laces, Bubblegum and Lemon Sherbet:
https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p-taurus-strawberry-laces-flavoured-english-cider-330ml/4061462753244
https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p-taurus-bubble-gum-flavoured-english-pear-cider-330ml/4061462753220
https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p-taurus-lemon-sherbet-flavoured-english-cider-330ml/4061462753268
The products are indicated as out of stock on their website but as of today was on sale in the Bishops Stortford Branch and are featured in today’s promotional email newsletter (“Sweetshop Cider”) (screenshot available, see below).
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)
3.2(h) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated that it did not believe the packaging was in breach of the Code of Practice. The company explained that confectionary-flavoured alcoholic drinks had previously been considered by the Panel and highlighted two precedents for context;
Cactus Jack’s Schnapps (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) and AU Vodka Bubblegum which were not found in breach of the Code. The company stated that based on those precedents, it was well established that confectionary-flavoured products did not inherently have particular appeal to under-18s. Instead, in past cases the Panel had always considered the overall impression of the packaging which was key in determining whether a breach of the Code had occurred.
The company accepted that Bubble Gum appeared prominently on the packaging but stated this alone did not create a particular appeal to under-18s and that confectionary-flavoured drinks were commonplace in the alcohol industry. The company explained that the name was used in line with wider market practices and did not create a particular appeal to under-18s.
The company stated that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated on the packaging with absolute clarity and this also prevented any particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted various positive alcohol cues which included:
• The clear use of ‘English Cider’
• The prominent use of “ALC. 3.4% VOL.”
• The inclusion of ‘TAURUS’ and the Taurus logo which was only used on cider products thus consumers would only associate them with alcoholic beverages.
The company stated that the name of the drink ‘Bubble Gum’ appeared immediately above the descriptor ‘English Cider’ and below the Taurus logo which all negated the potential risk of a particular appeal to under-18s. The company explained that the stylisation of the Taurus logo was sophisticated, minimalistic and not anthropomorphic or cartoonish in any way. The company stated that ‘bubble gum’ was nostalgic in nature, referring to a flavour that had long been available and enjoyed by adult consumers.
Furthermore, the overall impression created by the packaging was nostalgic, sophisticated and designed to be retro in nature. The company explained that the label had a crimped border which gave the impression of an old-fashioned label and the pastel shades alongside the relatively plain stylisation of the background had been chosen to ensure the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The company noted that in the decision regarding Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack Schnapps the Panel stated that the use of a specific colour did not in and of itself create a particular appeal to under-18s. In this case, the company explained that the packaging had used muted pastel shades, the colours of which corresponded to the flavour of the product. Alongside the flavour, the company highlighted that relatively plain fonts had been used with no cartoon imagery. This was directly in contrast to the packaging of ‘Au Vodka Bubblegum’ which featured a bubble style font but was nevertheless found to comply with the Code. Therefore, the company did not believe that when considered in the whole the packaging of Taurus Bubble Gum Cider had a particular appeal to under-18s.
Finally, the company stated that the drink was exclusive to Aldi stores and it was only stocked with other alcoholic products in the relevant retail section. The company explained that it also operated a challenge 25 policy on the sale of all alcoholic products. The company reiterated that it was committed to continuing to implement
such measures to ensure that alcoholic drinks were not placed or marketed in such a way as to create any particular appeal to, or sold to, under-18s.
The Panel’s assessment:
The Panel considered whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the confectionery flavour and noted that in previous precedent cases, notably Au Vodka Bubblegum and Cactus Jack’s Schnapps (Black Jack and Fruit Salad), it had found that a sweet flavour alone was not enough to constitute a particular appeal to under-18s. Therefore, the overall impression conveyed by the packaging would determine compliance with the Code.
The Panel first discussed the flavour in more detail and noted that bubble gum was a flavour that had a certain level of appeal to under-18s but was enjoyed by both adults and children which had been noted in previous case precedent. The Panel therefore considered the rest of the packaging in the context of a flavour which had broad appeal to both children and adults. The Panel noted that ‘Bubble Gum’ was prominently positioned on the front of the label and the colours used were fairly vibrant with contrasting pink, dark blue and white circle shapes overlayed on a blue background to mimic bubble gum bubbles.
The Panel noted the company’s response that the colours were intended to represent the flavour of the drink and give a retro and nostalgic feel to the packaging. When assessing the packaging further, the Panel noted that the drink was in a 330ml slimline can and while it was common for alcohol to be in this size of container, it did bear similarity to a soft drink in the context of the flavour, colours and circular imagery. The Panel considered that these combined elements could all enhance the appeal the drink could have to children.
With that in mind, the Panel discussed the application of Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that to breach the Code, packaging must resonate with under-18s in a way that it would not with adults. The Panel also discussed the accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) and considered that it was often the combination of multiple elements such as cartoon or sweet images, bubble writing, bright contrasting primary colours as well as sweet flavours that caused packaging to have a particular appeal.
The Panel assessed the rest of the front label which included the clear display of the word ‘Cider’ and prominent positioning of the product’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV). In addition to this, the back label contained the unit content of the product, pregnancy logo, the UK Chief Medical Officer’s weekly unit guidelines which all contributed to the drink’s positive alcohol cues as highlighted by the company. The Panel also considered that there were no thick keylines used and the font employed straight lines and edges as opposed to bubble or curved style text. The Panel noted that the packaging did not contain any sweet or cartoon imagery and that the ‘Taurus’ font was fairly plain and depicted a realistic image of a bull which was not anthropomorphised.
Whilst the Panel did have some concerns about a confectionary-flavoured alcoholic drink in the context of a 330ml slimline can that was also synonymous with soft drinks packaging, it noted there was an absence of other elements that typically accumulated to create ‘particular’ appeal. The Panel noted that the packaging did not incorporate
cartoon or sweet imagery, bubble writing, bright contrasting primary colours or characters that may particularly appeal to children. Therefore, on balance, and taking into account established precedent, the Panel concluded that in this case the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.
Producer:
ALDI
Complaint:
A alcoholic beverage which is themed and flavoured after a popular children’s penny candy is clearly a breach of the code.
Strawberry Laces, Bubblegum and Lemon Sherbet
https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p-taurus-strawberry-laces-flavoured-english-cider-330ml/4061462753244
https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p-taurus-bubble-gum-flavoured-english-pear-cider-330ml/4061462753220
https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p-taurus-lemon-sherbet-flavoured-english-cider-330ml/4061462753268
The products are indicated as out of stock on their website but as of today was on sale in the Bishops Stortford Branch and are featured in today’s promotional email newsletter.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)
3.2(h) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated that it did not believe the packaging was in breach of the Code of Practice. The company explained that confectionary-flavoured alcoholic drinks had previously been considered by the Panel and highlighted two precedents for context;
Cactus Jack’s Schnapps (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) and AU Vodka Bubblegum which were not found in breach of the Code. The company stated that based on those precedents, it was well established that confectionary-flavoured products did not inherently have particular appeal to under-18s. Instead, in past cases the Panel had always considered the overall impression of the packaging which was key in determining whether a breach of the Code had occurred.
The company accepted that Bubble Gum appeared prominently on the packaging but stated this alone did not create a particular appeal to under-18s and that confectionary-flavoured drinks were commonplace in the alcohol industry. The company explained that the name was used in line with wider market practices and did not create a particular appeal to under-18s.
The company stated that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated on the packaging with absolute clarity and this also prevented any particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted various positive alcohol cues which included:
• The clear use of ‘English Cider’
• The prominent use of “ALC. 3.4% VOL.”
• The inclusion of ‘TAURUS’ and the Taurus logo which was only used on cider products thus consumers would only associate them with alcoholic beverages.
The company stated that the name of the drink ‘Bubble Gum’ appeared immediately above the descriptor ‘English Cider’ and below the Taurus logo which all negated the potential risk of a particular appeal to under-18s. The company explained that the stylisation of the Taurus logo was sophisticated, minimalistic and not anthropomorphic or cartoonish in any way. The company stated that ‘bubble gum’ was nostalgic in nature, referring to a flavour that had long been available and enjoyed by adult consumers. Furthermore, the overall impression created by the packaging was nostalgic, sophisticated and designed to be retro in nature. The company explained that the label had a crimped border which gave the impression of an old-fashioned label and the pastel shades alongside the relatively plain stylisation of the background had been chosen to ensure the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The company noted that in the decision regarding Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack Schnapps the Panel stated that the use of a specific colour did not in and of itself create a particular appeal to under-18s. In this case, the company explained that the packaging had used muted pastel shades, the colours of which corresponded to the flavour of the product. Alongside the flavour, the company highlighted that relatively plain fonts had been used with no cartoon imagery. This was directly in contrast to the packaging of ‘Au Vodka Bubblegum’ which featured a bubble style font but was nevertheless found to comply with the Code. Therefore, the company did not believe that when considered in the whole the packaging of Taurus Bubble Gum Cider had a particular appeal to under-18s.
Finally, the company stated that the drink was exclusive to Aldi stores and it was only stocked with other alcoholic products in the relevant retail section. The company explained that it also operated a challenge 25 policy on the sale of all alcoholic products. The company reiterated that it was committed to continuing to implement
such measures to ensure that alcoholic drinks were not placed or marketed in such a way as to create any particular appeal to, or sold to, under-18s.
The Panel’s assessment:
The Panel considered whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the confectionery flavour and noted that in previous precedent cases, notably Au Vodka Bubblegum and Cactus Jack’s Schnapps (Black Jack and Fruit Salad), it had found that a sweet flavour alone was not enough to constitute a particular appeal to under-18s. Therefore, the overall impression conveyed by the packaging would determine compliance with the Code.
The Panel first discussed the flavour in more detail and noted that lemon sherbet was a flavour which was enjoyed by both adults and children. Whilst the Panel considered that lemon sherbet was a traditional sweet that was popular with an older age group it could nonetheless still have appeal to under-18s because of its sweet flavour. The Panel noted that ‘Lemon Sherbet’ was prominently positioned on the front of the label and while the majority of the label was yellow, the colour palette chosen was a vibrant one. The Panel noted the company’s response that the colour palette was intended to represent the flavour of the drink and give a retro and nostalgic feel to the packaging. The Panel acknowledged that there was no accompanying imagery or childlike font used on the packaging which was fairly plain on a slimline 330ml can.
With that in mind, the Panel discussed the application of Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that to breach the Code, packaging must resonate with under-18s in a way that it would not with adults. The Panel also discussed the accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) and considered that it was often the combination of multiple elements such as cartoon or sweet images, bubble writing, bright contrasting primary colours as well as sweet flavours that caused packaging to have a particular appeal.
The Panel assessed the rest of the front label which included the clear display of the word ‘Cider’ and prominent positioning of the product’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV). In addition to this, the back label contained the unit content of the product, pregnancy logo, the UK Chief Medical Officer’s weekly unit guidelines which all contributed to the drink’s positive alcohol cues as highlighted by the company. The Panel also considered that there were no thick keylines used and the font employed straight lines and edges as opposed to bubble or curved style text. The Panel noted that the packaging did not contain any sweet or cartoon imagery and that the ‘Taurus’ font was fairly plain and depicted a realistic image of a bull which was not anthropomorphised.
Whilst the Panel did have some concerns about a confectionary-flavoured alcoholic drink in the context of a 330ml slimline can that was also synonymous with soft drinks packaging, it noted there was an absence of other elements that typically accumulated to create ‘particular’ appeal. The Panel noted that the packaging did not incorporate cartoon or sweet imagery, bubble writing, bright contrasting primary colours or characters that may particularly appeal to children. Therefore, on balance, and taking into account established precedent, the Panel concluded that in this case the
packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.
Producer:
ALDI
Complaint:
A alcoholic beverage which is themed and flavoured after a popular children’s penny candy is clearly a breach of the code
Strawberry Laces, Bubblegum and Lemon Sherbet:
https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p-taurus-strawberry-laces-flavoured-english-cider-330ml/4061462753244
https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p-taurus-bubble-gum-flavoured-english-pear-cider-330ml/4061462753220
https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p-taurus-s-sherbet-flavoured-english-cider-330ml/4061462753268
The products are indicated as out of stock on their website but as of today was on sale in the Bishops Stortford Branch and are featured in today’s promotional email newsletter (“Sweetshop Cider”) (screenshot available, see below).
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)
3.2(h) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated that it did not believe the packaging was in breach of the Code of Practice. The company explained that confectionary-flavoured alcoholic drinks had previously been considered by the Panel and highlighted two precedents for context;
Cactus Jack’s Schnapps (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) and AU Vodka Bubblegum which were not found in breach of the Code. The company stated that based on those precedents, it was well established that confectionary-flavoured products did not inherently have particular appeal to under-18s. Instead, in past cases the Panel had always considered the overall impression of the packaging which was key in determining whether a breach of the Code had occurred.
The company accepted that Bubble Gum appeared prominently on the packaging but stated this alone did not create a particular appeal to under-18s and that confectionary-flavoured drinks were commonplace in the alcohol industry. The company explained that the name was used in line with wider market practices and did not create a particular appeal to under-18s.
The company stated that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated on the packaging with absolute clarity and this also prevented any particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted various positive alcohol cues which included:
• The clear use of ‘English Cider’
• The prominent use of “ALC. 3.4% VOL.”
• The inclusion of ‘TAURUS’ and the Taurus logo which was only used on cider products thus consumers would only associate them with alcoholic beverages.
The company stated that the name of the drink ‘Bubble Gum’ appeared immediately above the descriptor ‘English Cider’ and below the Taurus logo which all negated the potential risk of a particular appeal to under-18s. The company explained that the stylisation of the Taurus logo was sophisticated, minimalistic and not anthropomorphic or cartoonish in any way. The company stated that ‘bubble gum’ was nostalgic in nature, referring to a flavour that had long been available and enjoyed by adult consumers.
Furthermore, the overall impression created by the packaging was nostalgic, sophisticated and designed to be retro in nature. The company explained that the label had a crimped border which gave the impression of an old-fashioned label and the pastel shades alongside the relatively plain stylisation of the background had been chosen to ensure the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The company noted that in the decision regarding Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack Schnapps the Panel stated that the use of a specific colour did not in and of itself create a particular appeal to under-18s. In this case, the company explained that the packaging had used muted pastel shades, the colours of which corresponded to the flavour of the product. Alongside the flavour, the company highlighted that relatively plain fonts had been used with no cartoon imagery. This was directly in contrast to the packaging of ‘Au Vodka Bubblegum’ which featured a bubble style font but was nevertheless found to comply with the Code. Therefore, the company did not believe that when considered in the whole the packaging of Taurus Bubble Gum Cider had a particular appeal to under-18s.
Finally, the company stated that the drink was exclusive to Aldi stores and it was only stocked with other alcoholic products in the relevant retail section. The company explained that it also operated a challenge 25 policy on the sale of all alcoholic products.
The company reiterated that it was committed to continuing to implement
such measures to ensure that alcoholic drinks were not placed or marketed in such a way as to create any particular appeal to, or sold to, under-18s.
The Panel’s assessment:
The Panel considered whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the confectionery flavour and noted that in previous precedent cases, notably Au Vodka Bubblegum and Cactus Jack’s Schnapps (Black Jack and Fruit Salad), it had found that a sweet flavour alone was not enough to constitute a particular appeal to under-18s. Therefore, the overall impression conveyed by the packaging would determine compliance with the Code.
The Panel first discussed the flavour in more detail and noted that whilst strawberry laces was a flavour that some adults may enjoy it was arguably more associated as a sweet that was popular with children. Therefore, the Panel considered the rest of the packaging in the context of a confectionary flavour which had a strong appeal to children.
The Panel noted that ‘Strawberry Laces’ was prominently positioned on the front of the label which also incorporated a various shades of pink. The Panel noted the company’s response that the colour used was intended to represent the flavour of the drink and give a retro and nostalgic feel to the packaging. The Panel acknowledged this point but expressed concern that ‘strawberry laces’ were still a popular sweet choice for children today and therefore the concept was not necessarily nostalgic due to the contemporary nature of the flavour. When assessing the packaging further, the Panel noted that the drink was in a 330ml slimline can and while it was common for alcohol to be in this size of container, it did bear similarity to a soft drink in the context of the flavour and colour. The Panel considered that these combined elements could all enhance the appeal the drink could have to children.
With that in mind, the Panel discussed the application of Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that to breach the Code, packaging must resonate with under-18s in a way that it would not with adults. The Panel also discussed the accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) and considered that it was often the combination of multiple elements such as cartoon or sweet images, bubble writing, bright contrasting primary colours as well as sweet flavours that caused packaging to have a particular appeal.
The Panel assessed the rest of the front label which included the clear display of the word ‘Cider’ and prominent positioning of the product’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV). In addition to this, the back label contained the unit content of the product, pregnancy logo, the UK Chief Medical Officer’s weekly unit guidelines which all contributed to the drink’s positive alcohol cues as highlighted by the company. The Panel also considered that there were no thick keylines used and the font employed straight lines and edges as opposed to bubble or curved style text. The Panel noted that the packaging did not contain any sweet or cartoon imagery and that the ‘Taurus’ font was fairly plain and depicted a realistic image of a bull which was not anthropomorphised.
Whilst the Panel did have some concerns about a confectionary-flavoured alcoholic drink in the context of a 330ml slimline can that was also synonymous with soft drinks packaging, it noted there was an absence of other elements that typically accumulated to create ‘particular’ appeal. The Panel noted that the packaging did not incorporate cartoon or sweet imagery, bubble writing, bright contrasting primary colours or characters that may particularly appeal to children.
After much discussion, the Panel concluded that whilst the flavour was close to the line of acceptability, the overall impression conveyed by the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.