Complaints against two products have been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decisions can be read here and here.
The complaints, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], were against Gweilo’s Rainbow Sherbet Sour Beer and against Manchester Drinks’ Mystical Unicorn Gin Liqueur.
Considering, the overall impression conveyed by Rainbow Sherbet Sour the Panel concluded that the combination of the confectionary theme, name, lack of a recognised beer descriptor, rainbow background and relatively small positive alcohol cues meant that the drink’s alcoholic nature was not communicated with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.1.
The Panel also concluded that the theme of rainbow laces, sweets imagery and sweet-flavoured language, reference to childhood and bright primary colours all combined to give an overall impression that the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, therefore this complaint was also upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Zenith Global raised two concerns against Manchester Drinks’ Mystical Unicorn Gin Liqueur, the first under Code Rule 3.2(h), that the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, and Code Rule 3.2(j), whereby a product should not suggest that it has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
Under Code Rule 3.2(h) the Panel considered that the packaging could have a certain level of appeal to children and that it was close to the line of acceptability given the inclusion of a sweet flavour, shimmering pink liquid and unicorn imagery. However, the Panel concluded that the sophisticated label, lack of strong contrasting colours and detailed illustrations meant that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s, and so the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Under Code Rule 3.2(j), the Panel concluded that the words on the label suggested that the drink would ‘transport’ a consumer to a magical land and could change their perception of reality. This was compounded by the instruction to ‘shake’ the drink to awaken its ‘mysteries’, whilst ‘transporting’ a consumer mentally to a more whimsical world. On that basis the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(j).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “Both these cases demonstrate the fine line between universal appeal to all ages and particular appeal to under-18s. When it comes to Code Rule 3.2 (h), the Panel must carefully consider the combination of elements on a product’s label as well as looking at precedent-setting cases from the past to decide when a product tips over that line of acceptability.”
Richard Benjamin, Managing Director of Manchester Drinks, said: “We appreciate the Panel’s acceptance that the label graphics are not appealing to under 18’s and we accept that the text on the back of the label could have been written with a clearer message and we are making the necessary changes to the back of our labels written text immediately.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
Earlier this year, UK alcohol regulator, the Portman Group, commissioned a proactive independent audit, carried out by Zenith Global, to measure responsible marketing across the alcoholic drinks market.
Accordingly, Zenith Global, brought complaints against a small number of products from a selection of 500 alcoholic drinks in the UK market, which were assessed against the Portman Group’s Code of Practice on Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks.
The most recent complaints considered by the Independent Complaints Panel (the Panel) were against Sazerac’s Burst Blue Raspberry, Brewdog’s Lucky Break and Beavertown’s Lupuloid. Following careful consideration, the three complaints were not upheld, the full decisions can be read here.
All three of the cases were considered under Code Rule 3.2(h) which states that a product cannot have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The auditor raised concerns that Burst Blue Raspberry resembled a soft drink by using bright colours and a flavour that could appeal to under-18’s. The Panel noted that although the colour and flavour were fairly common in confectionary items which were popular with children, it was also well-established in adult targeted products including alcohol. In addition to this, the label clearly stated the alcoholic nature of the drink and did not use any font or imagery which might have a particular appeal to under-18s. Taking all these aspects into account, the complaint was not upheld.
The complaint against Brewdog’s Lucky Break highlighted that it featured an image of a Japanese lucky cat, often associated with cartoons and pop culture, which combined with bold colours could appeal to those under-18. After considering the packaging in its entirety, the Panel concluded that while the illustrated cat was the dominant theme on the front of the label, it was recognisable as an adult-orientated maneki-neko cat and had been depicted in a mature, adult-style. The Panel therefore concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and the complaint was not upheld.
Finally, the Panel considered Zenith Global’s complaint against Beavertown’s Lupuloid which it believed had a strong appeal to children as it featured a bright green monster and amusing product name. The Panel considered that while the overall impression was close to the line of acceptability, the complex art style was detailed and sophisticated in nature. In addition to this, there were no distinguishable or cute characters which ensured the product conveyed an abstract style of design targeted at adults. On this basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and did not uphold the complaint.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “All three of these decisions show how creative and innovative marketing can exist while remaining compliant under the Code. While some can be close to the line of acceptability, all three producers had considered Portman Group guidance and the products were found not to have a particular appeal to under-18s”.
A complaint against Heli Imperial Gose has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], raised concerns under Code Rule 3.1, that the product did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity.
The producer explained that the design was purposefully minimal and reflected a refined, artisanal product. Additionally, the term ‘Imperial Gose,’ as both the product name and a recognised beer style, appeared in the product description which communicated the product’s alcoholic nature. The producer expressed willingness to make minor adjustments in future print runs if deemed necessary by the Panel.
While not required by law or the Code, the Panel noted that the front label did not include any positive alcoholic cues such as the legal name of the drink, alcoholic drink descriptors or the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV), making it difficult to know what type of drink it was.
Considering the back label, the Panel noted there were positive alcohol cues such as the drink’s ABV, the word ‘beer’ in different languages and the pregnancy warning logo. However, the Panel noted there was no other best practice information such as unit content information, the Chief Medical Officer’s low risk drinking guidelines or responsibility messaging. The font size on the back of the can was particularly small and difficult to read and the term ‘Gose’ was not a particularly well-known beer descriptor and would not be understood as a reference to alcohol in and of itself. This combined with the fruit flavour descriptors underneath it meant that the Panel found that the drink did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.1.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “The Panel were mindful that this was part of a small batch of beers sent to the UK and intended for craft beer enthusiasts. However, it’s important for producers to remember that for regulatory consistency and fairness, all products are treated equally under the Code. Not all consumers will be familiar with specialist terms and producers should consider this when communicating a product’s alcoholic nature. We’re pleased to see that the producer is willing to make amends to the product and I’m confident this can be achieved while retaining its brand identity.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
A complaint against Chronic Cellars Space Doubt Zinfandel has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], raised concerns that the term ‘chronic’ was associated with high-strength marijuana and that the name Space Doubt, was a play on words sounding similar to ‘spaced out’ which had an association with drug taking.
The Panel also considered whether the name of the product, Space Doubt, alongside the name of the producer, Chronic Cellars, could be in breach of Code Rule 3.2(b)for creating an association with illegal behaviour.
The producer argued that the name ‘Chronic’ was surfer lingo meaning ‘the best’ and that the surfer slang reflected the founders’ passion for surfing and the idea of selecting the best grapes to create exceptional wines The producer also explained that the name ‘Space Doubt’ was created to reflect the complexity and wonderment of the world, encouraging moments of contemplation with the double meaning reflecting on vineyard row spacing during replanting.
The Panel considered the meaning of the word ‘chronic’ and noted that, whilst it had a number of meanings including ‘persistent’ and ‘the best’, it could also refer to strong cannabis. Given the number of ways ‘chronic’ could be interpreted, the Panel considered how the word was presented in the wider context of the rest of the packaging.
The Panel considered the front label, including the company name ‘Chronic Cellars’, a stylised image of a skeleton sitting on top of the Earth observing a planet and the brand name ‘Space Doubt’ alongside it. The Panel noted that the packaging was absent of any reference to surfing to give context to the intended meaning of ‘Chronic’ as explained by the producer. The Panel noted that the brand name ‘Space Doubt’ sounded phonetically like ‘spaced out’, a phrase commonly used to infer impairment due to the effects of illicit drugs.
The Panel considered all of the elements of the packaging including the word ‘chronic’ in the context of being ‘spaced out’ and the positioning of the skeleton, which was sitting cross-legged in a relaxed pose staring into space, and concluded that whilst each element could have been acceptable in isolation, taken together they gave an overall impression of an association with illicit drugs. The Panel also considered that because the packaging created an association with illicit drugs and alluded to the effects of cannabis use, the product packaging also indirectly created an association with illegal behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code Rules 3.2(c) and 3.2(b).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “This case highlights how important it is to consider the overall impression conveyed by a product’s name and labelling when assessing compliance under the Code. Elements that may be acceptable in isolation can take on a different meaning when combined together. It’s important that producers take this into account when choosing a product name and designing associated labelling.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
Earlier this year, UK alcohol regulator, the Portman Group, commissioned a proactive independent audit, carried out by Zenith Global, to measure responsible marketing across the alcoholic drinks market.
Accordingly Zenith Global, brought complaints against a small number of products from a selection of 500 alcoholic drinks in the UK market, which were assessed against the Portman Group’s Code of Practice on Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks.
The first complaints to have been considered by the Portman Group’s Independent Complaints Panel (the Panel) were made against Chin Chin Vinho Verde, Violet Beauregard Malbec and Oloroso Encontrado. Following the Panel’s careful consideration these three complaints were not upheld, the full decisions can be read here.
The complaint against Chin Chin Vinho Verde concerned whether the name of the product and the imagery on the label could be in breach of Code Rule 3.2 (f) whereby a drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.
The Panel discussed all the elements of the packaging and heard from the producers that the packaging reflected their playful and exuberant brand identity and that the name, Chin Chin, was intended to reflect celebration and not immoderate consumption. Taking these points into account, the Panel concluded that while the imagery, name and font style were distinctive, the overall impression conveyed did not encourage immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.
The complaint against Violet Beauregard Malbec questioned whether the name of the product could have particular appeal to under-18’s under Code Rule 3.2 (h) and if the wine’s label included the image of someone who is, or looks as if they are, under 25 years of age under Code Rule 3.2(i). The Panel heard that the image on the bottle was an artistic representation based on the story behind the wine’s name. Although inspired by the fictional character from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl, the design deliberately avoided depicting the actual character on the label and that the design aimed to evoke the whimsical nature of the story while highlighting the wine’s unique blueberry characteristics.
The Panel reviewed the imagery, discussed the drink’s name and noted the company’s response that their depiction of Violet Beauregard was based on an adult over the age of 25. The Panel considered that the sophisticated artwork, combined with the adult features of the woman illustrated, meant she did not appear to be under-25. The complaint was therefore not upheld under Code rule 3.2(i). The Panel also concluded that the character was presented as a reimagined adult version of Violet Beauregard and was unlikely to be recognised by children, and so the complaint was not upheld under Code Rule 3.2 (h).
The complaint against Oloroso Encontrado was that the image of a woman on the label could be under the age of 25, potentially breaching Code Rule 3.2(i).
The Panel heard from the producer and UK importer that the label was inspired by vintage designs from the early 20th century and emphasised the wine’s historical and artisanal character.
The Panel assessed the label and noted that the character had a full-figured body and was wearing lipstick and high heels suggesting that she was an adult. In addition, the imagery was stylised, with a sepia tone, invoking a nostalgic feeling which contributed to the impression that the woman was older in age. The Panel also considered the attire of the character and noted that it was not typical of contemporary fashion that would particularly resonate with children and therefore was not likely to inspire aspiration in those under the age of 18.
After careful consideration of the above points, the Panel concluded that the nostalgic, retro stylisation of the image and the woman’s presentation meant that the character did not appear to be under 25 years of age. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under 3.2(i).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs said: “The Panel welcomed the opportunity to review and discuss the first cases that have come from the proactive audit process. I am pleased to say that these products did not meet the threshold for being in breach of the Code. It’s important to be open and transparent about all the products that come before the Panel and the decisions we reach as this allows the industry to see where the boundaries of compliance lie.”
The Portman Group is delighted to welcome Lucky Saint as an associate member, making them the first alcohol alternative member company in our history.
Lucky Saint was launched in the UK in 2018 by its founder Luke Boase with a 0.5% unfiltered lager product. Since then, it’s become one of the most recognised and popular alcohol alternative brands, now featuring on draught in over 1250 pubs in the UK and expanding their range to include a 0.5% hazy IPA in January 2024.
The Portman Group has long been an advocate of the low and no category, as we know from our own annual research with YouGov that alcohol alternative products have become a vital tool for helping people to moderate their drinking and to reduce alcohol harms such as drink driving.
Lucky Saint join Coca-Cola GB and Punch Pubs, our first dedicated UK pub company, who are also associate members. Suntory Global Spirits, who joined the Portman Group as associate members in August last year, have now become full members.
The associate member category was launched last year to further increase representation across the entire sector, bringing The Portman Group’s overall membership to 21 companies from across the drinks industry – the largest ever.
The new associate member tier allows more flexibility for companies who are keen to engage with and support the work of the Portman Group whilst tailoring the commitment level that is best suited to them. Associate members receive access to the latest alcohol news, policy summaries, insight into research, rapid 24-hour product advice and free Code training.
Luke Boase, Founder of Lucky Saint, said: “The Portman Group has long championed the growth of alcohol-free options, setting the standard for responsible marketing across our industry as the category continues to grow rapidly.
“We’re incredibly proud to become the first dedicated alcohol-free member of the Portman Group, ensuring that brands like Lucky Saint – and the alcohol-free category as a whole – continue to be represented.
“Together we look forward to working with the Portman Group to help to shape the future of the industry moving forward, showcasing the positive role alcohol-free can play for individuals and the industry.”
Matt Lambert, CEO of The Portman Group said: “We are thrilled to welcome Lucky Saint as our newest associate members, not to mention our first alcohol alternative member. As low and no products continue to grow in popularity it’s more important than ever for our membership to include this representation, and for both categories to work in partnership to market their products responsibly and be leaders in best practice across the drinks industry.
“We’re also delighted that Suntory Global Spirits have become a full member, thereby demonstrating their commitment to responsible business practices”
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.”
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.”
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.”