The cases of Shag Lager in 2001 and 2003 respectively show how the ever-evolving nature of the Code can change precedent.  Regulatory consistency is important for the industry so that producers can rely on a consistent framework when marketing products.  However, this also needs to be balanced with changing perceptions in society, new available evidence and also needs to account for the strengthening of industry rules when appropriate.

In 2001, the Panel first considered Shag Lager under the Second Edition of the Code and noted that while the name ‘Shag’ did create an association with sexual activity, it did not imply sexual success and under the wording of the rule did not believe the product was in breach of the Code.  The product itself included imagery of a Shag seabird which the Panel also acknowledged was a common meaning for the word.

In 2003, another complaint was received about Shag Lager Lime which still incorporated imagery of a Shag seabird on the neck of the bottle.

The Third Edition of the Code broadened the rule’s wording to ‘any association with sexual success’ and the Panel considered that the case could be considered again in that context.  The producer, Spirit Hop and Grape Holdings Ltd, maintained that Shag was a type of seabird and the packaging included a cartoon visual which was featured on the neck label.  The producer explained that it had also refreshed the brand to appeal to its target market of 18–35-year-old clubbers.

However, the Panel considered that shag was a commonly used slang word for sexual intercourse, particularly among the product’s target market, and considered this was how consumers were most likely to interpret the brand name.  In a precedent setting case, the Panel also determined that in view of alcohol’s potential to impair judgement and affect behaviour, to link alcohol and sexual activity in a product’s name, packaging or promotional material was undesirable because it might encourage potentially harmful attitudes and behaviour.

The rule was later strengthened in the Fifth Edition of the Code and we’ll revisit how the sexual success/activity rule continued to reshape the market over the coming years.

“Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice”.  In this case, it’s summoned Dr Thirsty’s Beetlejuice and the Panel’s decision from 1997.  A Trading Standards Officer from Bristol complained that the product suggested it was a reputed aphrodisiac and that the character on the bottle would predominantly appeal to under-18s.

When considering the product, the Panel noted that the name was identical to a 1988 film about a ghost and a spin-off children’s animated series.  The bottle design included black and white stripes, the same as the suit worn by the character Beetlejuice, and included the line ‘Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice…release the spirit’.  Therefore, the Panel concluded that there was a link between the product and the film Beetlejuice and that the character, which was popular in predominantly under-18s culture, was a breach of the Code.

The Panel also found that the line ‘reputed aphrodisiac’ suggested sexual success and upheld that part of the complaint too.

These days, nostalgia-based marketing has become more popular as a way to appeal to adults with themes from their teens/childhoods.  However, care should be taken if including childhood nostalgia in alcohol marketing as inclusion of elements which were popular with children many years ago may still hold an appeal to children today.  You can find more guidance on nostalgia-based marketing here.

This is another decision from the first year of the Code and a blast from the past!  In October 1996, Alcohol Concern complained about TNT Liquid Dynamite highlighting that the name suggested an association with dangerous behaviour which was emphasised by the packaging designed to look like a stick of dynamite.

The company, Round Imports, disagreed with the complainant’s concerns and stated that the product had never caused or been associated with violent or dangerous behaviour.  Instead, the company supplied an indicative list of achievements for dynamite (the explosive) and pointed out that its use had always been beneficially more for the social good than anti-social.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Panel didn’t quite agree with that assessment and concluded that a reasonable person looking at TNT Liquid Dynamite’s packaging, including the product name, would reasonably conclude that there was an association with dangerous behaviour and found the product in breach of the Code.

Unique packaging shapes can often help a product to stand out on shelf but basing such designs on explosives and weaponry will lead to a clear-cut breach of the Code.  While these breaches are few and far between, there are a handful of cases that became memorable for doing just that and we’ll revisit this theme later in the series.