Producer:
Glenmorangie
Complaint:
‘I saw this new whisky on the internet and thought the Portman Group might object to the product on the grounds of its potential appeal to youngsters. Please look into this as a matter of urgency as, in my opinion, this is definitely entering “alcopop” territory. I thought even the strength of the words ICE CREAM might be emotionally attractive enough to lead young people into experimenting with it. In fact I liked it a lot, despite my age, but I felt its “dreamt up in an ice cream parlour” could make the product even more attractive to those younger than 18, even if older people also eat ice cream. I have seen vapes with the same sweet terminology , though with more vibrant colours. It certainly seems strange to me that ICE CREAM is printed bigger than the whisky’s brand name’.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1
The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. 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 explained that it was committed to promoting responsible alcohol consumption and took its legal and social obligations under the Portman Group Code of Practice seriously. The company stated that it respectfully did not agree that the packaging of the drink had particular appeal to under-18s and referenced the Portman Group’s Guidance under Code rule 3.2(h). The company stated that to breach this rule, packaging must resonate with under-18s in a way that it did not with over-18s and the company did not believe that ‘Glenmorangie A Tale of Ice Cream’ met that threshold.
The company stated that the packaging had been created to appeal to discerning adults. The design was inspired by a traditional luxury ice cream parlour and used muted pastels and gold accents to evoke an adult aesthetic rather than a childlike one. The company stated that as the complainant had themselves liked the design, this demonstrated that the packaging resonated with adults. The packaging avoided elements typically associated with children, such as bright colours, childish fonts, or cartoonish illustrations. Instead, the design featured abstract representations of ice cream and patterns that suggested a sophisticated dessert, more aligned with an upscale ice-cream parlour or restaurant than with products targeted at children. The form of the packaging itself was also designed to resemble a whisky bottle rather than a child-friendly ice cream cone or bar. The product was called “A Tale of Ice Cream” because of the way it was aged and the impact this had on the flavour. The company emphasised that the reference to ice cream was not intended to appeal to children, but instead, was used as a taste cue, necessary for food law purposes.
The company noted that a previous precedent set by the Panel had accepted that ice cream in general appealed to all age groups and that a reference to ice cream alone did not automatically breach Code rule 3.2(h). The company explained that the product packaging did not include any imagery that could particularly appeal to children, unlike products such as Double 99, which also featured teddy bear imagery. The company therefore reiterated that the name “Ice Cream” alone could not be considered a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) because the concept of ice cream did not appeal more to under-18s than to over-18s.The company disagreed that the phrase “dreamt up in an ice cream parlour” would appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the mention of the ice cream parlour experience was simply to provide context for the “Ice Cream” reference and to explain the inspiration behind the product’s flavour. Furthermore, the product was only sold through channels where access for under-18s was restricted. These included specialist wine sellers, online retailers with age-gated access to alcohol purchases and in-retail stores where age verification was expected to take place for every purchase. Therefore, the company stated that the risk of an under-18 purchasing the product was very low.
Finally, the company stated that the price point of the product was relatively high, which further reduced the likelihood of under-18s purchasing it. The price was not only a barrier from an affordability perspective but also served as a clear indication that the product was not intended for under-18s.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed relevant precedent cases, including Double 99, 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 that basis, the Panel considered that the inclusion of ice cream, while not inherently problematic, required careful consideration of the overall impression conveyed by the packaging which would ultimately determine compliance with the Code.
In that context, the Panel initially considered the primary packaging in more detail. The Panel noted that the word ‘ice cream’ was the most prominent text on the front label of the bottle and that this 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. The Panel noted that the muted pastel colours were presented alongside a mature font style and that the back label text on the bottle was minimal and only related to alcohol health-related information.
The Panel then considered the secondary box packaging and 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 side. 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. The Panel discussed the accompanying text on the back of the secondary packaging which referenced the flavours of the drink such as peach melba, honeycomb, brioche and marzipan. The Panel noted that the text focused on ice cream as a flavour concept by referencing complex tasting notes as highlighted by the company. The Panel considered that this was presented alongside elegant shapes, textures and gold highlights which conveyed a level of sophistication. The Panel also noted that the design did not include bright contrasting primary colours, cartoon imagery or thick keylines which may have particular appeal to under-18s.
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).
3.1
During discussion of its decision under Code rule 3.2(h), the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and considered whether the primary and secondary packaging communicated the alcoholic nature of the product with absolute clarity.
The Panel discussed the primary packaging and noted that it included several positive alcohol cues such as ‘whisky’, the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV), unit content information and the pregnancy warning logo. Alongside this, the Panel also discussed the shape and colour of the bottle which were elements that consumers would likely associate with whisky and therefore helped to communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel considered that while the secondary packaging was more vibrant and did have ‘ice cream’ prominently displayed in several places, it also included positive alcohol cues like ‘highland single malt scotch whisky’, the ABV and the outline of a typical whisky bottle shape. The Panel considered that on balance, whilst there were prominent references to ice cream which was not a flavour typically associated with alcohol, the number of positive alcohol cues were sufficient to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not find the packaging in breach of Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
None required.
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.
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 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.
Producer:
Little Mesters Brewing
Complaint:
The idea of Stan is a homage to one of the last ‘little Mesters’ in Sheffield. As much as I appreciate the respect to the history of the city of Sheffield in feel using a knife handle as a tap handle is perhaps a step too far and could encourage alcohol related violence.
Complainant:
Member of the public.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.3
A drink’s name, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not cause serious or widespread offence.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company explained that the Stan IPA tap was a single tap handle in situ at a bar in Sheffield and there were no plans to roll it out further. The tap was a specially made ornamental knife handle to commemorate the craftsmanship of Stan Shaw, a master craftsman who made various knives ranging from ceremonial swords to pocket knives which included intricate designs known for their high quality. The company explained that Stan Shaw was widely regarded as the last Little Mester in Sheffield and he had made knives for numerous notable people including Queen Elizabeth II.
The company explained that the beer was over four years old and it had received no
other complaints about it during this time. The company stated that it had recently taken over a new outlet where the tap was included as part of a wall with various branded taps. The company explained that the handle had no blade, nor any suggestion of a blade and without background understanding of Stan Shaw, the tap would be interpreted as unrelated to a knife. The company did not believe therefore, that the Stan beer tap created any association with adverse behaviour as the blade was in no way harmful.
Furthermore, the company explained that it was a talking point between staff and customers and without context a person may not even recognise the tap as being a knife handle.
Finally, the company stated that it would remove the tap handle if it was required to but that this would be disappointing for the friends, family and supporters of Stan Shaw together with the charitable trust it worked in conjunction with to keep the memory of the Little Mesters alive.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(b)
Before assessing the case, the Panel noted that the tap handle was accompanied by a pump clip which was positioned above the handle and provided further context to the promotional piece. The Panel stated that both elements should be considered as they combined to create an overall impression of the marketing and therefore raised the pump clip for consideration as part of the case.
The Panel noted the company’s response that the tap handle was an honorific design to commemorate Stan Shaw who was a Little Mester, a title which referred to a master craftsmen usually associated with Sheffield. The Panel was aware that images of blades and knives were used more widely on UK alcohol packaging. While the Panel had previously concluded that the use of gun-shaped products was highly likely to be in breach of 3.2(b), it acknowledged that knives were not necessarily used as weapons, and may not automatically create a sufficiently strong link with violence and aggression, such that marketing material breaches 3.2(b).
With this in mind, the Panel went on to assess the specifics of this case. The Panel considered the image on the pump clip which included a stylised cartoon depiction of Stan Shaw posing with a knife. The knife was held in an upright position with Mr Shaw’s body turned towards it. The Panel considered that this image drew attention to the knife and made it the central focus of the design. This image of Stan Shaw was surrounded by numerous other blades in a circular fashion alongside the word ‘Stan’.
The Panel discussed the wider societal context that knife crime within Sheffield1 and the wider UK was prevalent and noted that careful consideration needed to be given to alcohol marketing which included the depiction and any potential glamourisation of knives. The Panel expressed concern about the number of blades included in the imagery, particularly as they formed a prominent part of the design and appeared to be more akin to sharp weapons than utensils. The Panel noted that there were no handles attached to any of the blades which also made them appear more like dangerous weaponry than ceremonial or cutlery knives.
The Panel then discussed the image of ‘Stan’ and noted that the knife was being held in an upright vertical fashion. The blade was curved into a tip at the end which gave the appearance that the blade was akin to a sharp dagger, rather than a blunted ceremonial knife. The Panel considered the combination of these elements meant that the imagery could potentially glamourise the depiction of sharp knives which were often used as weapons in violent crime.
The Panel then considered the tap handle in the context of the pump clip imagery. The Panel noted the company’s response that the handle did not include a blade and that without context the tap handle would not be recognised as a knife handle. However, the Panel noted that as the tap handle appeared alongside the pump clip, it contributed to the overall impression conveyed by the marketing as a whole and increased the likelihood that a consumer would recognise it as a knife handle. The Panel considered the design was intended to mimic a knife handle and this was reinforced by the action required of pulling the tap, where a person’s hand would be required to grip it in a similar fashion as one might brandish a knife.
While the Panel acknowledged that the producer had simply sought to celebrate an important local craftsman, it was of the view that any depiction of knives on alcoholic packaging had to be approached with great caution. Rates of knife crime in Sheffield and the rest of the UK had risen over recent years and generate a high level of public concern. In this instance, the Panel concluded that, when considering the overall impression conveyed by the tap handle and the pump clip, the combination of the image of a male presenting a sharp dagger-like knife, the multiple sharp knife blades and the tap handle which was designed to mimic a knife handle all resulted in a cumulative effect which glamourised knives that were not ceremonial or cutlery-like but instead sharp blades which could potentially be associated with knife-related violence. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the pump clip and tap handle under Code rule 3.2(b) for creating an indirect association with violent behaviour.
3.3
In the context of its decision under Code rule 3.2(b) and the association with UK knife crime, the Panel decided there was merit in considering whether the marketing could cause serious or widespread offence. The Panel discussed that knife crime was prevalent in the UK and that for communities affected by it, glorifying violent behaviour could be seriously offensive. However, the Panel considered that while the pump clip and tap handle created an indirect association with knife-related violence, through the emphasis placed on the blades on the pump clip alongside the tap handle, it did not directly depict the knives being used as weapons. Furthermore, no complaint had been raised by a consumer which suggested that the pump clip or tap handle had caused serious or widespread offence. The Panel acknowledged the producer’s explanation that this was one tap handle with one pump clip in one sports bar in Sheffield and there were no plans to roll the design out more widely. The Panel considered that it would be difficult to conclude that widespread offence might be caused given the marketing material’s very limited placement. The Panel carefully considered the overall impression conveyed by the marketing and stated that while some may find any inclusion of a knife in alcohol marketing distasteful, there was no evidence in this particular case that the marketing caused serious or widespread offence.
Therefore, the Panel did not consider that an indirect association with knife related crime was sufficient to result in a breach of 3.3. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.3.
Action by Company:
The company discontinued the product.
Producer:
Bearded Brewery
Complaint:
The logo features a bird being stabbed in the back by a sword which exits through the bird’s chest, with red blood on the sword tip from the impalement. Although this sword/swallow scene is a take on a traditional tattoo design, these are usually more stylised, less violent looking. Graphically depicting an aggressive and violent act towards an animal does not seem fitting for the promotion of an alcoholic drink. It appears to breach rule 3.2(b) association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company acknowledged that complaints were dealt with on a case-by-case basis and that the Portman Group did not seek out cases to prosecute. However, the company stated that it believed the complaint was vexatious and that many worse examples of alcohol marketing existed. Nonetheless, in the spirit of cooperation, the company agreed to engage with the complaints process.
The company explained that Swallows Rest was the name of its brewhouse which was given that moniker because of the multitude of swallows that frequented the property. The company stated that the design of the logo was a traditional tattoo theme and was based on a similar real-life design used by one of the company’s directors. However,
the company stated that it would be willing to adapt the design if required to comply with the Code.
The Panel’s assessment:
The Panel considered whether the packaging created any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label which depicted a swallow impaled by a knife and noted the company’s response that the image represented a tattoo. The Panel acknowledged that the design was in keeping with a traditional tattoo style but stated that careful consideration needed to be given to the inclusion of a knife. The Panel discussed previous case precedents under Code rule 3.2(b) and noted that in some circumstances inclusion of weapons on packaging had been deemed acceptable as the depiction was fantastical or otherworldly and as such had a degree of separation from real life violence. The Panel therefore considered the imagery in that context and noted that the bird was not a fantastical creature and that the knife was not a fictional weapon. The Panel noted that the design employed a fine line style which created a realistic depiction, with the knife tip dripping with blood compounding the life-like portrayal of the bird being stabbed. The Panel expressed concerned about the representation of a knife being used as a weapon and considered the imagery depicted a fairly aggressive and violent act of killing a bird.
The Panel stated that while it was clear that the imagery had a close personal link to the company, the realistic and violent depiction of killing a bird created an association with aggressive and violent behaviour. The Panel acknowledged that the company had not set out to breach the Code but encouraged all producers to think carefully before transferring violent graphic imagery to alcohol packaging. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b).
Action by company:
Working with
Producer:
Bearded Brewery
Complaint:
The drink’s name, slogan and logo are themed around motorcycling, and therefore there’s a dangerous link to drink driving. (Against rule 3.2(f) Immoderate / Irresponsible consumption). The logo features an aggressive looking bearded skull wearing a motorcycle helmet and goggles, with two motorcycle engine pistons behind the skull. The name ‘tank slapper’ is motorcyclists’ slang for a potentially life-threatening speed wobble when riding fast. The drink’s slogan ‘Get yer wobble on’ could be read as an encouragement of dangerously excessive speeding, drinking, or possibly both.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(f)
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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company acknowledged that complaints were dealt with on a case-by-case basis
and that the Portman Group did not seek out cases to prosecute. However, the company stated that it believed the complaint was vexatious and that many worse examples of alcohol marketing existed. Nonetheless, in the spirit of cooperation, the company agreed to engage with the complaints process.
The company explained that while the drink’s name was motorcycle themed it did not mean that there was a dangerous link to driving. The company stated that the image used on the packaging was similar to a biker’s patch and had been made for a member of the company. The company did not agree that the packaging encouraged anyone to drink or speed excessively and that the name was intended to be a play on words.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(b)
The Panel considered whether anything on the drink’s packaging suggested any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel first considered the imagery on the label which included a grimacing skeleton wearing motorcycle-style goggles with pistons positioned at either side and noted that the design was clearly inspired by motorbiking culture. The Panel discussed the spirit of Code rule 3.2(b) and noted that an association between an alcoholic drink and motorbiking was not inherently problematic under the Code and that compliance would determined by the overall impression conveyed by the label and name.
The Panel discussed the meaning of ‘Tank Slapper’ which referred to a rapid side-to-side shaking of a vehicle’s wheels which usually occurred at high speeds and could lead to a loss of control. The Panel considered that such a manoeuvre would be undesirable as it was particularly dangerous and carried a high risk of injury. The Panel discussed the meaning of ‘Tank Slapper’ and noted that while it was arguably not common parlance, it only had one meaning for those familiar with the terminology. On this basis, the Panel considered that the name created a direct link between the drink and a dangerous driving manoeuvre. The Panel then assessed the phrase ‘get yer wobble on’ in this context. The Panel noted that ‘Tank Slapper’ could also be known as a ‘wobble’ or ‘death wobble’ and considered that the wording of the phrase was a direct imperative for a person to perform a ‘tank slapper’. The Panel considered that the clear references to driving on the label and the direct instruction to ‘get yer wobble on’ compounded the link between the drink and dangerous driving.
The Panel then discussed the product under Code rule 3.2(f) which is detailed below. In light of its decision that the packaging encouraged an individual to consume alcohol immoderately the Panel revisited Code rule 3.2(b) and determined that ‘get yer wobble on’ also created an indirect association with drinking before driving and also created an association with dangerous behaviour.
The Panel therefore concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety created an association with dangerous behaviour. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b).
3.2(f)
In the context of the decision under Code rule 3.2(b), the Panel considered whether the phrase ‘get yer wobble on’ encouraged illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption. The Panel reiterated that ‘tank slapper’ was not well-known terminology and a was niche phrase unlikely to be understood outside of those involved in motorbiking. With that in mind, the Panel considered that ‘get yer wobble on’ for those unfamiliar with the definition of ‘tank slapper’ could refer to consuming alcohol immoderately to the point where someone has a ‘wobble’.
The Panel discussed the word ‘wobble’ and considered that it could be understood to mean being inebriated to the point where a person would become unsteady. After discussion, the Panel therefore considered that ‘get yer wobble on’ could read as a direct instruction for a person to consume alcohol immoderately. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging did encourage immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
Action by Company:
Working with the Advisory Service to bring the product in line with the Code.