London, 30 June 2023: Complaints made by the Wine and Spirit Trade Association against AU Vodka Bubblegum and AU Vodka GOAT have not been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (Panel). A copy of the full decisions are available here and here.

AU Vodka Bubblegum

A complaint was made about AU Vodka Bubblegum under three Code rules which raised concerns that the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, did not clearly display its alcoholic nature, and that text on the product implied it could aid social success and popularity (Code rules 3.1, 3.2(e), 3.2(h)).

The Panel examined the product and noted there were several positive alcohol cues on the front and back label which included a responsible drinking messaging, the product’s ABV, a pregnancy warning, Drinkaware signposting and the unit content per container and serve. The Panel considered that while the brand was positioned as a premium product, there was nothing on the product packaging which suggested that consumption of the drink could help a consumer’s social success or popularity. Regarding particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel considered that the presentation of the name, and its reference to a confectionary item, was close to the line of acceptability under the Code. However, given that the text was used as part of a minimalistic design which did not incorporate any other elements that could have a particular appeal to under-18s, such as use of cartoon imagery, the Panel concluded that the presentation of the product’s flavour was not strong enough to constitute a particular appeal to under-18s. Therefore, the Panel did not uphold any aspect of the complaint.

AU Vodka GOAT

The complaint about AU Vodka GOAT was raised on the grounds that the product suggested it had therapeutic qualities and was linked to treatment for alcohol use disorder.

The complainant stated that there were two understandings of the term GOAT; the first relating to treatment for alcohol use disorder and the second as an abbreviation for ‘Greatest Of All Time’. AU Vodka stated that it had intended the latter understanding and that this definition was well known by consumers. The Panel noted that there was nothing on the packaging or accompanying marketing which suggested that the drink could be used as part of a treatment for alcohol use disorder. The Panel agreed that it was more likely that consumers would understand the abbreviation as standing for ‘Greatest Of All Time’ and that there was no suggestion by the product, or accompanying marketing which implied that drinking the product would improve someone’s mood, behaviour or physical/mental capabilities. Therefore, the Panel concluded there was no breach of the Code and did not uphold the complaint.

Commenting on the decisions, the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Nicola Williams, said: “Time and again the Panel considers the overall impression conveyed by product packaging and in these cases it was the crux of the decisions for both. When portraying flavour, it is fair the styling can be reflected in the typography, however extra care must be taken to ensure that when a product is sweet flavoured, there are no other elements on the packaging which could have a particular appeal to under-18s. Equally, it is important to ensure that a name with a dual meaning is marketed with the appropriate intention so that it is not misconstrued. In these cases, AU Vodka has ensured that the overall impression of Bubblegum Vodka and GOAT were compliant with the Code”.

Commenting on the decisions, Head of Legal at Au Vodka, Dylan Withanage, said: “We appreciate the Panel’s thorough review of our Au Vodka Bubblegum and Au Vodka GOAT products. We are pleased that the Panel has upheld our position, having found no breach of the Code for either of these two products. We value the Panel’s insights and will continue to uphold the Code in our future offerings.”

-ENDS-

For more information contact: jmeaden@portmangroup.org.uk / 07709 525971

Today, the Portman Group launches a consultation reviewing Code rule 3.2(h) on particular appeal to under-18s in the Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks Code (Code). The consultation closes on 7 July and can be read here.

The consultation seeks views on proposed changes to the wording of Code rule 3.2(h), following an issue that has arisen in the daily application of the Code and to ensure alignment with the Portman Group’s Alcohol Sponsorship Code.

The proposed change to the Code rule adds the following text: “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.” Consultation respondents are invited to give their views on whether the Code rule should be changed and if they agree with the proposed wording.

Since the Code was launched in 1996, nearly a third (30%) of all cases considered by the Independent Complaints Panel (Panel) have been under Code rule 3.2(h); and since 2018, more cases have been considered under this rule than any other.

The Code, which has undergone six reviews since its launch, ensures that alcohol is promoted in a socially responsible way, only to those aged 18 and over, and in a way that does not appeal particularly to those who are vulnerable.

Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group – the alcohol social responsibility body and marketing regulator said: “Self-regulation is at its most effective when it enables robust, proportionate action quickly and in a way that also allows the views of all interested parties to be heard.

“This consultation seeks to address an issue the Portman Group identified following a complaint. While a technical breach did not occur, we believe it is appropriate to tighten the wording of Code rule 3.2(h) to prevent any marketing from creating a link between alcohol and products intended for or with particular appeal to children. .

“I look forward to seeing the responses to this consultation so that the regulation of alcohol marketing remains fit for purpose and ensures that alcohol is promoted in a socially responsible way.”

In response to the Public Accounts Committee alcohol treatment services report, Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group – the alcohol social responsibility body and marketing regulator said:

“We are pleased the Committee has focused on alcohol treatment and ensuring that the minority who drink at the heaviest and most harmful rates are able to access the services they need. The Portman Group has long called for measures to be targeted at this minority of people who drink at the most harmful rates and were greatly impacted by the pandemic. The report is a timely and rare reminder of the high level of success of treatment – when people are able to access high quality services their chances of laying a foundation for lasting recover vastly increased.

“We also support the Committee’s calls to tackle the persistent barriers people who drink at the most harmful levels face, including overcoming stigma, improving integrated care, and helping those who also suffer from co-occurring mental health issues.”

London, 5 May 2023: A complaint made against four Four Loko drinks, which suggested that the word ‘loko’ in its name caused serious or widespread offence, has not been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (Panel). A copy of the full decision is available here.

The complaint was against Four Loko Blue, Four Loko Fruit Punch, Four Loko Gold, and Four Loko Sour Apple. The complainant suggested that the name was phonetically similar to ‘loco’ in Spanish, translating to ‘crazy’ in English and caused offence on mental health grounds. The Panel had previously considered Four Loko in 2014 and, in the absence of any new evidence, agreed the case would only be considered under Code rule 3.3 – causing serious or widespread offence – as it had not been part of the Code in 2014.

The Panel considered the 2021 Ofcom and Ipsos Mori study on offensive language¹ which did not include either ‘loco’ or ‘crazy’ as words which were likely to cause offence. The Panel also noted that the Ofcom report highlighted the importance of context when determining whether something could cause serious or widespread offence. The Panel discussed the context of the packaging and noted that the cans had a muted design and included factual text, none of which referenced mental health or ‘crazy’ and ‘loco’ behaviour. Considering the overall impression of the packaging, and the absence of any elements which would emphasise the complainant’s concerns about the name, the Panel concluded that Four Loko did not cause serious or widespread offence, and the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.3.

The complaint was raised by a consultant on behalf of Corinthian Brands Ltd.

Commenting on the decision, the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Nicola Williams, said: “The Code of Practice ensures that alcohol marketing should not cause serious or widespread offence, particularly anything that could be considered discriminatory, derogatory or demeaning. However, the Panel has not found Four Loko to be in breach of this rule and has not caused serious or widespread offence.”

-ENDS-

For more information contact: portman@mhpc.com / 07710 845 531

Notes to editors

1. Ofcom and Ipsos Mori study entitled ‘Attitudes to potentially offensive language and gestures on TV and Radio. 2021: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/225336/offensive-language-summary-report.pdf
2. Images provided
3. A spokesperson is available for interviews upon request.
4. The Portman Group was formed in 1989. It is the alcohol industry regulator and social responsibility body. It has over 160 Code signatories from producers, retailers and membership bodies.
5. The Portman Group is funded by 17 member companies: Asahi UK Ltd; Aston Manor Cider; Bacardi; Brown-Forman; Budweiser Brewing Group UK&I; Campari; C&C; Diageo GB; Edrington UK; Heineken UK; Mark Anthony Brands International; Mast-JäegermeisterUK; Molson Coors Beverage Company; Pernod Ricard UK; SHS Drinks; Thatchers’; and Treasury Wine Estates.
6. The Code of Practice for the Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks was first published in 1996. In 2021, we celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Code. The Code seeks to ensure that alcohol is promoted in a socially responsible way, only to those aged 18 and over, and in a way that does not appeal particularly to those who are vulnerable. The Code has helped create an industry that works effectively within the context of a self-regulatory model, while encouraging design, innovation and creativity. This has been done in an effective, responsive and inexpensive way.

• Effectively – over 170 products have been amended or removed from the market. Many hundreds more have been helped to adhere to the Code before appearing on shelves through the support of the Advisory Service;
• Responsively – there have been five updates to the Code over 25 years responding to changes in public attitudes and expanding its reach; all without recourse to Government or Parliamentary time;
• Inexpensively – the leading members of the industry are currently funding the model for all to be protected at no cost to the public purse.

A complaint by a member of the public against Engine Organic Gin was upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (Panel) for suggesting consumption of the drink could change a consumer’s mood and had a therapeutic quality. A copy of the full decision is available here.

The drink is produced by Engine S.r.l and distributed in the UK by Disaronno. The Panel stated that the wording on the back label which read ‘sage and lemon is a traditional remedy to cure a sour mood’ suggested that consumption of the drink could ‘cure’ a consumer’s bad mood. Furthermore, the Panel was concerned the suggestion of a ‘cure’ could directly appeal to those with poor mental health who may be more susceptible to substance misuse. When considered alongside the wording ‘fuel the dream’ on the front label, the Panel considered that these combined elements suggested that the drink had a therapeutic quality and upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(j).

Commenting on the decision, the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Nicola Williams, said: “Linking alcohol with improving a consumer’s mood is a clear infringement of the Code and alcohol producers should not suggest their drink has therapeutic qualities. Producers should carefully consider every aspect of a product’s marketing and packaging to ensure such suggestions are avoided.”

The complaint was not upheld under four other Code rules that read as: the alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity – 3.1;  should not suggest consumption can lead to social success or popularity – 3.2(e); should not encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness – 3.2(f); and should not have a particular appeal to under-18s – 3.2(h).

The Panel noted:

• There were numerous positive alcohol cues presented clearly on both the front and back label which sufficiently communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity (3.1);
• There were no elements on the label which suggested consumption of the gin would make a consumer more popular, or contribute towards social success (3.2(e));
• While the packaging was in the style of a 1970’s era motor vehicle engine oil can, there was nothing which directly or indirectly encouraged a consumer to drink irresponsibly (3.2(f));
• The packaging was not found to have a particular appeal to under-18s (3.2(h)).

A complaint by a member of the public against King William Fortified Wine was upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (Panel). A copy of the full decision is available here.

The drink is produced by Belcondie and the complaint was upheld for causing serious offence.

The Panel noted that King William of Orange was a historical British monarch and that in some communities, his image and certain events associated with him, could be intrinsically linked to sectarianism, especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland. As part of its discussion, the Panel noted that sectarianism still caused serious conflict in some areas of the UK today. The Panel discussed the meaning of symbolism and noted that in this particular instance, there would be some individuals who would celebrate King William of Orange and others who would find reference to him offensive, meaning that the overall impression conveyed by the packaging was very important.

The Panel noted that the product had an alcohol by volume (ABV) strength of 16.90% which was an unusual presentation of a drink’s ABV, as UK labelling legislation stipulated it should be presented to one decimal place. The Panel considered that the ABV was intentionally presented in this manner to associate it with a year, particularly in the context that it appeared five times on the packaging. The producer explained that 16.90 had been used as a reference to the 1690 Distilling Act. However, the Panel considered it would be far more likely to be understood by consumers as a reference to the year when the Battle of the Boyne took place; a significant event in British history that was a key turning point in terms of its ramifications for religious and political views, particularly in relation to sectarianism. The Panel considered this in the context of the product packaging which also incorporated the colour orange, imagery of King William on horseback as though leading his troops into battle, above the description of the product as “fortified” and repetition of 16.90 beyond factually communicating the drink’s ABV.

The Panel stated that while King William of Orange, in and of himself as a monarch, did not cause serious offence, the combination of elements on the label were likely to be divisive and inflammatory, fuelling division in certain communities where religiously aggravated crime was prevalent. The Panel therefore concluded that the presentation of the packaging, particularly the overt references where the product’s ABV had been used to signify a year that linked the product, and King William, to a specific conflict associated with sectarianism, was likely to cause serious offence to certain communities. The complaint was therefore upheld under Code rule 3.3.

Commenting on the decision, the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Nicola Williams, said: “The overall impression of a product should always be considered carefully and in this instance, it was a combination of elements that when considered together, created a clear link to sectarianism in a manner that could still be considered divisive and inflammatory today. I welcome the producer’s intention to make changes to the product packaging and encourage other producers to note how a combination of factors can lead to a breach of the Code.”

Retailers have been asked to stop placing orders for Bearded Brewery’s Unshaven Maiden, after it was found to have an indirect association with sexual activity and causing widespread offence. A copy of the full decision is available here.

The complaint was upheld by the Portman Group’s Independent Complaints Panel, resulting in the most severe sanction as a result of the producer’s failure to comply.

This release confirms recent reports surrounding the Panel’s provisional decision which was unfortunately pre-announced and leaked by the producer to the media.

The Panel considered the imagery on the label which showed a prominent, partially nude, bearded mermaid figurehead. The Panel noted that ‘maiden’ could relate to a virgin or an unmarried young woman and when considered alongside the tagline “search for the cherry’d treasure”, reinforced the innuendo linking to virginity. For these reasons, the Panel concluded that the product had an indirect association with sexual activity and upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(d).

The Panel also noted there was undue focus on the mermaid’s body which objectified the character and, to a certain extent, women more broadly. The Panel expressed concern surrounding the tagline which, combined with the image of the mermaid, resulted in sexual objectification. The Panel, therefore, concluded that the overall impression of the packaging was likely to cause widespread offence and upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.3.

A Retailer Alert Bulletin (RAB) is only issued by the Portman Group following an upheld complaint by the Panel and when the producer chooses not to comply with that decision. A RAB requests that retailers cease placing orders for the product three months after the publication date and informs wider groups about the Panel decision.

Commenting on the decision, the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Nicola Williams, said: “It was clear that this product was damaging – promoting sexual stereotypes, in this way is out of place with modern-day societal values. Producers all have a duty to consider how their products will be perceived, not only by their local community but the wider UK market in which the products are sold. I hope Bearded Brewery takes note of the reasons outlined by the Panel for why this product clearly infringed the two Code rules in question.”

In response to “New Leadership, A Fresh Start for Scotland” speech by First Minister Humza Yousaf, Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group – the alcohol social responsibility body and marketing regulator said:

“We welcome the announcement by First Minister Humza Yousaf and support his comments that ‘the business community itself recognises that unrestricted marketing is incompatible with the well-being of our people’. This is why the Portman Group exists – to ensure that alcohol is marketed responsibly and particularly not to under-18s, and have done so effectively for over 25 years.

“We also support other not-for-profit groups which help ensure underage alcohol consumption continues to fall, as seen in the past decade and more*. These include measures that restrict sales of alcohol so they cannot be made to those under 18 (Challenge 25); youth education schemes (Alcohol Education Trust), and community groups which work with the police and social workers to divert children from drinking (Community Alcohol Partnerships).

“We welcome the call to engage, and hope to work with the Scottish Government to continue to address harmful and underage drinking and actively support and extend the good work of other not-for-profit groups.”

* Scottish Health Survey, November 2022

London, 1 March 2023: Today, the Independent Complaints Panel (Panel) which adjudicates on complaints under the Portman Group Codes of Practice – welcomes two new members – Hina Parmar and Phil Pick – further strengthening and enhancing the Panel’s expertise and diversity.

Members of the ten-person Panel can serve two terms of not more than six years in total, and recruitment is staggered to hire representatives with different experiences. This means that the Panel always seeks to have members with experience of public health, children’s services, licensing, and the law. The two new hires bring valuable marketing and industry experience to the table. With 82 applications, 12 shortlisted to make the final two, the robust recruitment process demonstrated the depth of understanding of the Code across the sector and the huge talented pool of professionals from which to draw.

All Panel members must declare any conflict of interest and recuse themselves in the event of a potential conflict with the agreement of the Chair.

Hina Parmar is a highly experienced Legal Counsel for consumer brands with extensive experience across the fields of law on intellectual property, marketing, food law and compliance. She currently serves as legal counsel to Mondelez International, a worldwide confectionery, food, beverage, and snack food company, responsible for messaging around packaging, content and placement. She has provided legal advice and support for Budweiser Brewing Group UK&I, Selfridges Retail, and the Institute of Promotional Marketing.

Phil Pick has a wealth of UK and international consumer marketing experience, having worked for a range of alcohol and food businesses including Molson Coors, AB InBev, Scottish & Newcastle United Biscuits and Weetabix. His work with Stella Artois saw him become an award winner of the Media360: Advertiser of the Decade in 2013. Now taking a career break, Phil is currently a stay-at-home dad.

This follows the departure of Graeme McKenzie and Claire Fowler who have served on the Panel since 2017. The Chair thanks them for their service and wishes them well in their next endeavours.

Commenting on the new additions to the Panel, the Chair, Nicola Williams, said: “The appointment of two new Panel members is greatly welcomed, and will further enhance the Panel’s breadth and diversity of experience. I was delighted by the calibre of candidates across the recruitment making the choice incredibly difficult. Candidates showed a considerable depth of understanding of the Code demonstrating its welcome reach and use by the industry. I very much look forward to working with Hina and Phil. I would also like to thank Graeme and Claire for their dedicated service to the Panel.”

For more information about the Independent Complaints Panel, please visit the Portman Group’s website here.

ENDS

For more information contact:

Joseph Meaden

Mobile: 07709 525 971

Notes to editors

1. A spokesperson is available for interviews upon request.
2. The Portman Group was formed in 1989. It is the alcohol industry regulator and social responsibility body. It has over 160 Code signatories from producers, retailers and membership bodies.
3. The Portman Group is funded by 17 member companies: Asahi UK Ltd; Aston Manor Cider; Bacardi; Brown-Forman; Budweiser Brewing Group UK&I; Campari; C&C; Diageo GB; Edrington UK; Heineken UK; Mark Anthony Brands International; Mast-Jäegermeister UK; Molson Coors Beverage Company; Pernod Ricard UK; SHS Drinks; Thatchers’; and Treasury Wine Estates.
4. The Code of Practice for the Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks was first published in 1996. In 2021, we celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Code. The Code seeks to ensure that alcohol is promoted in a socially responsible way, only to those aged 18 and over, and in a way that does not appeal particularly to those who are vulnerable. The Code has helped create an industry that works effectively within the context of a self-regulatory model, while encouraging design, innovation and creativity. This has been done in an effective, responsive and inexpensive way.

• Effectively – over 170 products have been amended or removed from the market. Many hundreds more have been helped to adhere to the Code before appearing on shelves through the support of the Advisory Service;
• Responsively – there have been five updates to the Code over 25 years responding to changes in public attitudes and expanding its reach; all without recourse to Government or Parliamentary time;
• Inexpensively – the leading members of the industry are currently funding the model for all to be protected at no cost to the public purse.

Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group – the alcohol social responsibility body and marketing regulator said:

SHAAP’s concerns are unfounded and are an unhelpful attack on products which are used by, and targeted at, existing alcohol drinkers to help them moderate their consumption and reduce harms including drink driving.

“Our annual low and no YouGov survey shows that Scotland has the highest proportion of low and no drinkers in the UK, and over one fifth (22%) report that their weekly alcohol consumption has fallen as a result of low and no alternatives. The survey also shows that the vast majority (85%) of consumers first try a low and no alcohol alternative through a product that shares its branding with a regular strength drink. This is due to familiarity of taste and opportunity to see through marketing campaigns.

“The growth of the category is a great example of industry responding to changing consumer demands by providing a wide range of lower strength products which are part of familiar long-established brands. It is counter intuitive to reduce the opportunities for consumers to see products that help them moderate their consumption of alcohol.”

Portman Group / YouGov study 2022:

• Almost a third (32%) of Scottish drinkers consume low and on alcohol alternatives semi-regularly