Product:
SURPS 8% DIPA
Producer:
Beak Brewery
Complaint:
The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others.
The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books.
There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.
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(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
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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported.
The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.
The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.
In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.
In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.
The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.
The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.
Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and
represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.
The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.
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 noted that the artwork on the front label depicted a snake wrapped around a can of drink. The Panel considered that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel discussed the artwork’s colour palette, noting that while it was somewhat muted it did include the contrasting colours of blue, yellow, red and green as well as a black keyline which outlined the snake and can. The Panel considered that these elements could contribute to an appeal to under-18s but noted that such factors needed to be considered in the context of the overall impression conveyed by the artwork.
The Panel discussed the presentation of the anthropomorphic snake and noted that its mouth was drawn with an upwards curve giving the impression that it was smiling. The Panel noted that the snake was wrapped around the can in a crushing manner to open the drink and taste the liquid with its red tongue extended outward towards the liquid. The Panel considered that because of these elements, the snake was anthropomorphised and presented as a friendly, happy character. The Panel stated that these elements created a narrative on the packaging which was humorous and this, combined with the artistic representation of the anthropomorphised snake, was reminiscent of a scene that might be found in a children’s book which would be of particular appeal to children.
The Panel discussed the producer’s response, in particular the point that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent. The Panel noted that the product was predominantly sold to independent specialist adult beer and wine shops but sought to remind the producer that all products could be purchased and taken into the home environment, with some retailers also distributing products wider than a producer’s original intention and out of their ultimate control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied to the product packaging and its fundamental compliance with the Code as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed in an adult context.
Therefore, the Panel concluded that the smiling anthropomorphic snake, humorous narrative, contrasting colours and black keyline meant the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘DIPA’. The Panel noted that most consumers would be familiar with an IPA descriptor for a beer. In addition to this, when assessing the back label, the Panel considered that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to beer, ale, brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV. When considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.
3.2(b)
The Panel noted that the artwork included similar elements considered in a previous decision regarding Dragon Soop Venom, namely a snake with fangs, and therefore raised Code rule 3.2(b) to discuss whether the product created a direct or indirect association with bravado.
The Panel noted that the snake appeared to have a friendly, smiling disposition and was not bearing its fangs in an aggressive manner nor was it positioned in a hostile striking stance. While the snake was crushing the can, the narrative portrayed reflected an action of opening the can to access the liquid which supported the view that the snake was playful and contributed to the overall humorous impression.
The Panel discussed the droplets of liquid depicted around the snake and noted that it was clear the droplets were spilling out of the opened container rather than representing the snake’s venom. In that context, the Panel considered that a consumer would not interpret the artwork as suggesting the drink had a powerful effect, like venom, so that a person must be daring to drink it. After assessing the rest of the packaging in its entirety the Panel noted there was nothing else on the label which created an association with bravado. Accordingly, the packaging was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(b).
Action by Company:
Was limited edition.
Product:
CREEKS 6.3% BRIGHT IPA
Producer:
Beak Brewery
Complaint:
The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others.
The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books.
There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.
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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported. The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture.
The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.
The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.
In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.
In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.
The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.
The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.
Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.
The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(h)
The Panel assessed whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted that the artwork on the front label included a line drawing of an anthropomorphic character. The Panel noted that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel noted that the creature featured prominently on the front label and was bright yellow, positioned on a blue background and outlined with a black keyline. The Panel discussed these elements and noted that thick black keylines and contrasting primary colours were elements which could contribute to a level of appeal to under-18s but that these were factors, alongside the simplistic design, to be considered in context of the overall impression conveyed by the product artwork.
With that in mind, the Panel noted that the character had exaggerated facial features such as a large nose, flappy ears and had a friendly and smiling demeanour. The image was a fairly basic line drawing which only employed two colours, adding to the simplicity of the design. The Panel discussed the precedent set by Laverstoke Park Farm Lager and Ale which included a child’s drawing and was found to have a particular appeal to under-18s. While the Panel acknowledged that the character had not been drawn by a child, its exaggerated facial features and anthropomorphised nature, along with the finer detail of having two mis-sized nostrils, was a character that possessed traits similar to one that a child could create themselves. The Panel also noted that the character would not look out of place in a children’s book and that its smiling and friendly demeanour further enhanced its particular appeal to young children.
The Panel discussed the producer’s response, in particular the point that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent. The Panel noted that the product was predominantly sold to independent specialist adult beer and wine shops but sought to remind the producer that all products could be purchased and taken into the home environment, with some retailers also distributing products wider than a producer’s original intention and out of their ultimate control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied to the product packaging and its fundamental compliance with the Code as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed in an adult context.
The Panel stated that it was clear from the company’s articulate and detailed response that it had not intended the packaging to have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the points mentioned above and considered that the packaging was an example where individual elements that were not inherently problematic under the Code in isolation, such as simplistic artwork, anthropomorphic characters, bold keylines and bright contrast colours could become problematic when combined, creating an overall impression that was likely to have a particular appeal to under-18s.
Therefore, after carefully assessing the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel concluded that the simple drawing with a black keyline, anthropomorphic character, bright contrasting primary colours and exaggerated friendly depiction of the character had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘IPA’. The Panel noted that most consumers would be familiar with an IPA descriptor for a beer. In addition to this, when assessing the back label, the Panel considered that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to beer, IPA, brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV. When considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
Was limited edition.
Products:
BEAK COLUMNS 6.5% IPA
Producer:
Beak Brewery
Complaint:
“The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others.
The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books.
There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.”
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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported.
The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.
The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.
In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.
In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.
The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.
The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.
Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.
The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.
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 noted the image on the front label which included numerous columns of different colours, sizes and positions, each with varying facial expressions. The Panel stated that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel noted that bright contrasting colours were used for the columns on a white background and were outlined with a black keyline. The Panel discussed these elements and noted that thick black keylines and contrasting colours were elements which could contribute to a level of appeal to under-18s but that these were factors, alongside the simplistic design, to be considered in context of the overall impression conveyed by the product artwork.
The Panel noted the producer’s response which stated that its products did not feature depictions of toys or things commonly associated with children. The Panel discussed the presentation of the columns and noted that the white, yellow, blue, red and green columns were reminiscent of children’s wooden toy blocks and to a certain extent, children’s crayons or chalk. The Panel noted that each inanimate object had been personified with each column reflecting a different emotion such as happiness, shock and annoyance. The Panel discussed the personification of the columns and noted that the combined effect of adding emotive expressions to inanimate objects, simplicity of the faces, overall basic design and bright contrasting colours created a particular appeal to under-18s, particularly in the context of an inadvertent similarity to toy building blocks.
The Panel discussed the producer’s response, in particular the point that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent. The Panel noted that the product was predominantly sold to independent specialist adult beer and wine shops but sought to remind the producer that all products could be purchased and taken into the home environment, with some retailers also distributing products wider than a producer’s original intention and out of their ultimate control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied to the product packaging and its fundamental compliance with the Code as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed in an adult context.
The Panel stated that it was clear from the company’s articulate and detailed response that it had not intended the packaging to have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the points mentioned above and considered that the packaging was an example where individual elements that were not inherently problematic under the Code in isolation, such as simplistic artwork, bold keylines and bright contrast colours could become problematic when combined, creating an overall impression that was likely to have a particular appeal to under-18s.
Therefore, after carefully assessing the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel concluded that the combination of personified inanimate objects, contrasting bright colours, black keyline, simplicity of design and inadvertent similarity to toy building blocks, meant that the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘IPA’. The Panel noted that most consumers would be familiar with an IPA descriptor for a beer. In addition to this, when assessing the back label, the Panel considered that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV. When considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
Was limited edition.
Product:
BEAK ILLU 6.5% IPA
Producer:
Beak Brewery
Complaint:
“The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others.
The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books.
There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.”
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(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
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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported.
The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.
The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.
In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can. The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.
In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.
The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.
The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.
Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and
represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.
The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.
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 assessed the front label which depicted a character holding an enlarged match surrounded by trees with flames on. The Panel noted that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel noted that the design did not include black keylines and had instead appeared similar to print illustrations which resonated with a Scandinavian style. The Panel considered the block shapes which were presented in solid contrasting bright primary colours and were the prominent feature of the design which was fairly simplistic. The Panel noted that the artwork was abstract in appearance as it included geometric shapes used to build artistic representations, with triangles used for trees and square elements for the character’s limbs.
The Panel discussed the prominence of the character on the packaging, noting that it had a basic form with the body and appendages being made up of square shapes in solid primary colours of blue and red. The character had enlarged ears and a basic line drawn face which made it appear anthropomorphic rather than human. The Panel considered that the building of an anthropomorphic character from simple shapes and exaggerated facial features would be elements that would appeal to children. The Panel discussed the precedent set by Laverstoke Park Farm Lager and Ale which included a child’s drawing and was found to have a particular appeal to under-18s. While the Panel acknowledged that the character had not been drawn by a child, its geometric presentation and line drawn face with exaggerated features was a character that possessed traits similar to one that a child could mimic or create themselves.
The Panel discussed the producer’s response, in particular the point that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent. The Panel noted that the product was predominantly sold to independent specialist adult beer and wine shops but sought to remind the producer that all products could be purchased and taken into the home environment, with some retailers also distributing products wider than a producer’s original intention and out of their ultimate control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied to the product packaging and its fundamental compliance with the Code as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed in an adult context.
Therefore, when assessing the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel considered that the combination of the inclusion of bright primary colours and the prominence of the simple, anthropomorphic character constructed of geometric shapes with a line drawing face and exaggerated features meant that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘IPA’. The Panel noted that most consumers would be familiar with an IPA descriptor for a beer. In addition to this, when assessing the back label, the Panel considered that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to beer, ale, brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV. When considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.
3.2(b)
The Panel discussed the design which depicted a character holding an enlarged match, surrounded by trees with flames in them and raised consideration of Code rule 3.2(b) to discuss whether the packaging created an association with dangerous or anti-social behaviour.
The Panel noted that the presentation of the design was fairly stylised and similar to Scandinavian art, with bright block colours and no black outlines. The Panel therefore considered that the flames in the trees could be interpreted as a stylised depiction of candles which could link to an overall festive theme, which was supported by the pine tree depictions. Alongside this, the Panel considered that the flames in the trees all appeared to be deliberately lit and burning in a controlled manner similar to lighted candles which the panel believed were still a traditional Christmas feature in parts of Scandinavia, rather than burning haphazardly as an out-of-control fire which would engulf the whole tree.
The Panel discussed that while the character was holding a large match, it appeared to be fully in control of the flame. Alongside this, the character appeared calm, friendly and smiling and was not positioned in an aggressive stance or with a hostile facial expression.
Therefore, when considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel concluded that the controlled presentation of the fire, in combination with the festive setting and lack of evidence to suggest anything otherwise, did not create an association with dangerous or anti-social behaviour. Accordingly, it was not found in breach of Code rule 3.2(b).
Action by Company:
Was limited edition.
Product:
BEAK NONIC 8% DIPA
Producer:
Beak Brewery
Complaint:
“The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others.
The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books.
There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol.
I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.”
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code rule 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.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported.
The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.
The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.
In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.
In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.
The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.
The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.
Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.
The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(h)
The Panel discussed whether the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel considered the image on the front label which depicted several people inside the shape of a glass. The Panel noted that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel considered that the image included contrasting primary colours and a black keyline which were elements that could contribute to an appeal to under-18s but noted that such elements needed to be considered in the context of the overall impression conveyed by the artwork. When assessing the image further, the Panel noted that the style was a simple line drawing, but that the imagery was complex with the characters stacked in an abstract manner with their bodies positioned in a surreal fashion. The Panel considered that the intricacy of the design was akin to modern art similar in style to Pablo Picasso or Henri Matisse and that the design would have appeal to those who were fans of that artistic style. Alongside this, the Panel considered that the characters were all adults which contributed to the illustration’s mature and sophisticated appearance.
Therefore, when assessing the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel concluded that the complex design, abstract nature and inclusion of adult characters meant that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘DIPA’. The Panel noted that most consumers would be familiar with an IPA descriptor for a beer. In addition to this, when assessing the back label, the Panel considered that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to beer, DIPA, brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV. When considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
None required.
Product:
BEAK AND THE RED LEVIATHAN 6.8% SOUR ALE
Producer:
Beak Brewery
Complaint:
The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others.
The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books.
There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol.
Additionally, Beak AND THE RED LEVIATHAN 6.8% SOUR ALE features a cartoon of a man effortlessly carrying a barrel above his head, suggesting the product enhances the drinker’s physical strength (Rule 3.2(j)). The name ‘Leviathan’ itself suggests this drink is excessively strong (Rule 3.2(a)), with Leviathan in modern usage meaning something that is overwhelmingly monstrous and powerful. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.
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(a) – A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way give the higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis.
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.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(j) – A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that the product has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported.
The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.
The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception.
The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.
In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.
In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.
The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.
The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.
Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.
The company refuted the complainant’s claim that the packaging suggested it could enhance a consumer’s strength. The company explained that Beak and the Red Leviathan was one of two beers in a series, the first called ‘The Mariner, The Barrel’ and the second being ‘and the Red Leviathan’. The company explained that both drinks had the same base beer, with one that was fruit flavoured and were marketed as a duo set of drinks. The full name of the series ‘The Mariner, the Barrel and the Red Leviathan’ was employed to invoke old seafaring tales and inspire the imagination of the customer. The company explained that the barrel being carried in the image was a reference to the fact the beer was a blend of barrel-aged beers and that this information was clearly stated on the label. The company considered it was tenuous to interpret the image as a suggestion that consumption of the drink would enhance a consumer’s strength.
Finally, the company stated it was incorrect to consider that the word ‘Leviathan’ related to the strength of the drink. The company explained that ‘Leviathan’ was a term used to describe a sea monster or whale and the inclusion of ‘Leviathan’ was to tie into the nautical theme of the packaging. The company explained that the beer’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) was 6.5% which was slightly above the average of the other beers it sold, but lower than a number of beers in its range. The company stated that for consumers familiar with beer, it did not believe that 6.5% ABV would be considered a strong beer.
The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.
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 considered the front label which included an illustration of a person lifting a barrel above their head on a beach by the sea. The Panel noted that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel noted that the style of the design was a simple line drawing and included a black keyline. Colour had been used sparingly, with small elements being coloured while the majority of the design was black and white. The Panel discussed these elements and noted that thick black keylines and contrasting primary colours could contribute to a level of appeal to under-18s but that these were factors, alongside the simplistic design, to be considered in context of the overall impression conveyed by the product artwork. The Panel then considered the character in more detail, noting that it was an adult carrying a barrel and such an activity, which would usually be performed as part of a job, would not resonate particularly with children. The Panel also noted that there were no other elements, such as anthropomorphic depictions or broader themes which would particularly resonate with under-18s.
After careful consideration of the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel considered that the inclusion of an adult character, minimal use of colour and lack of any imagery that would particularly resonate with under-18s meant that the product did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘Sour Ale’. When assessing the back label, the Panel considered that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to beer, ale, brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV. When considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.
3.2(a)
The Panel considered whether the packaging gave the higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis as raised by the complainant. The Panel considered the front label and discussed whether the image of the person carrying a barrel could emphasise the strength or intoxicating effect of the alcoholic drink. The Panel considered that while the image represented a strong person, it did not create a link to the drink’s strength or its intoxicating effect. The Panel then assessed the rest of the label and noted that there was nothing else on the packaging which marketed the drink on its higher alcoholic strength or its intoxicating effect. Noting the company’s response, the Panel also acknowledged that the ABV of the drink was not a particularly strong beer comparatively to the rest of the BEAK range.
In light of the above, the Panel concluded that there were no elements on the product packaging or product artwork which gave the higher alcoholic strength, or the intoxicating effect of the drink, undue emphasis. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(a).
3.2(j)
Finally, the Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging suggested that the drink had therapeutic qualities or could enhance physical capabilities as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted that the character on the front of the label was lifting a barrel and that a person would need to be particularly strong in order to do so but that it was not reflective of an inhuman feat of strength. The Panel then considered the meaning of the word ‘leviathan’ and noted the company’s response that it was intended to reference a mythical sea creature or large whale. The Panel discussed the company’s explanation that the drink was part of a duo, with the accompanying beer named ‘The Mariner, The Barrel’ which would give more context to the interpretation of ‘leviathan’ referring to a sea creature. However, the Panel noted that the two drinks could be purchased individually and that it was therefore reasonable to consider ‘Beak and The Red Leviathan’ in isolation. With that in mind, the Panel discussed the word ‘leviathan’ and noted that it could mean something that was ‘overwhelmingly powerful’ but that the word was not a commonly used one and had multiple meanings. The Panel then assessed the rest of the label and noted there was nothing else on the packaging which suggested that consumption of the drink could make a person physically strong. In that context, the Panel considered that the name ‘leviathan’ did not categorically infer that drinking the beer would provide a therapeutic quality or enhance physical capabilities.
Therefore, the Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the packaging did not suggest that the drink had therapeutic properties or could enhance physical capabilities. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under 3.2(j).
Action by Company:
None required.
Product:
BEAK GIFT PACK
Producer:
Beak Brewery
Complaint:
The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others. The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books. There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol.
The Beak Christmas Gift Pack also features a pack of brightly coloured stickers which, given their aesthetic, feels too close in merchandising terms to children’s sticker packs that often come free with books/toys/magazines. This I feel is also against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported.
The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.
The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.
In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.
In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.
The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.
The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.
Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.
The company refuted that the stickers included in the gift pack could have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted that sticker collecting was a well-established hobby within the craft beer sector as evidenced by a recent book dedicated to the pastime which celebrated the visual culture of craft beer. The company explained that its own stickers were only available via its age-gated website and were sold at a premium price. The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the Gift Pack could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted that the gift pack included six beers which consisted of the brands DÉŠŤ, HUM, LULLA, a beer glass and a variety pack of stickers. The Panel noted that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design of each element with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel discussed the individual elements of the Gift Pack before considering the overall impression conveyed by the items.
The Panel noted that the size of the glass was a standard style for a beer glass. The Panel noted that it had a ‘half pint’ measurement on it, which was typical for a beer glass and the Beak Logo which was a simple line drawing. The Panel noted that the overall design was fairly simple and minimalist. When considering HUM, the Panel referred to its final decision in relation to the packaging and stated that the artwork was fairly abstract and akin to a piece of adult art. When assessing the artwork in detail, the Panel noted that while it was playful in tone, the characters were adult in appearance and were depicted engaging in activity that would appeal to an adult; socialising while consuming alcohol. The Panel also noted that there were no other elements, such as anthropomorphic depictions or broader themes which would particularly resonate with under-18s.
The Panel then considered LULLA which depicted two adults in a stylised embrace on the front label. The Panel considered that the label was not overly busy and that the depiction of the people was created through simple line drawings made up of the contrasting primary colours of yellow, red and blue. The Panel discussed these elements and noted they could contribute to a level of appeal to under-18s but that these were factors, alongside the simplistic design, to be considered in context of the overall impression conveyed by the product artwork. In that context, the Panel noted that the out of proportion bodies gave the artwork an abstract feel. The Panel also considered that the embrace between the characters, who were clearly adult, reflected a sophisticated piece of art which would not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel then referred to its decision regarding the packaging of DÉŠŤ where it had concluded that that the combination of the simple design, anthropomorphic characters, contrasting colours, inadvertent similarity of font and presentation to the well-known Mr Men books and bold keylines meant that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel then discussed the inclusion of the sticker pack. The Panel discussed that sticker collecting was a hobby enjoyed by people of all ages and noted the company’s response that sticker collecting was a part of the craft brew culture. The Panel discussed that beyond craft brewers, other activities such as skateboarding also had a long tradition of sticker collecting or decorating equipment with stickers to express individuality and that this was a hobby enjoyed by all ages outside of the alcohol industry. The Panel noted that stickers held a level of appeal to children and could contribute to the potential overall appeal that the gift pack had to under-18s but that this would depend on the specific artwork depicted on each sticker. To that end, the Panel reviewed each of the individual stickers noting that one included a twin version of red and blue seals which were smiling and outlined with black keylines. The Panel noted that the seals had been anthropomorphised and were depicted as being friendly which would enhance the appeal they had to children. The Panel then noted that the artwork for DÉŠŤ, which depicted an anthropomorphic weather system of a sun hugging a tearful cloud, was also included in sticker form.
The Panel emphasised that the principle of compiling a gift pack with a beer glass, beer cans and stickers was acceptable under the Code provided that the individual items did not have particular appeal to under-18s in and of themselves. However, as the gift pack included DÉŠŤ packaging, the sticker of the twin smiling anthropomorphised seals and the artwork sticker of DÉŠŤ, the Panel concluded that these specific elements meant that the gift pack in this instance created an overall impression that would have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
Was limited edition.
Product:
BEAK FRENDS 8% DIPA
Producer:
Beak Brewery
Complaint:
The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others.
The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books. There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.
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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported. The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.
The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.
In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.
In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.
The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.
The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people. Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking. The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the artwork on the front label which depicted an anthropomorphic smiling elephant alongside a humanoid character with enlarged facial features that partially mimicked the elephant. The Panel noted that the design was not overly busy and that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel acknowledged that minimalistic and simple design trends had grown popular in recent years as referenced by the producer in its response and stated that a simple or minimal design in and of itself would not necessarily indicate a particular appeal to under-18s. The overall art style on the packaging was fairly simplistic and the colour palette, while muted, included contrasting colours such as green, blue and red and a black keyline around the characters. The Panel considered that such elements could contribute to a level of appeal to under-18s but that these were factors to be considered in the context of the overall impression conveyed by the artwork.
The Panel then assessed the two characters in detail and noted that the side profile of the elephant appeared to be similar to ‘Elmer the Patchwork Elephant’, a popular character from a children’s book. The Panel discussed the complainant’s concern and noted that the green and blue colour palette with the black keyline illustration did bear a resemblance to the well-known Miffy books. The Panel noted the longevity of the books but also considered that the series was still popular with children today.
The Panel discussed the human-like character that had exaggerated flappy ears and an enlarged nose, which made the character appear friendly, playful and engaging for young children. The Panel noted that the rounded lines used on both characters made them appear softer and in combination with the friendly disposition and exaggerated facial features meant the illustration had a particular appeal to under-18s. This was compounded by the overall theme of friendship, which the Panel considered would be a message that would resonate with children and enhance the appeal.
The Panel discussed the producer’s response, in particular the point that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent. The Panel noted that the product was predominantly sold to independent specialist adult beer and wine shops but sought to remind the producer that all products could be purchased and taken into the home environment, with some retailers also distributing products wider than a producer’s original intention and out of their ultimate control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied to the product packaging and its fundamental compliance with the Code as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed in an adult context.
The Panel stated that it was clear from the company’s articulate and detailed response that it had not intended the packaging to have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the points mentioned above and considered that the packaging was an example where individual elements that were not inherently problematic under the Code in isolation, such as simplistic artwork, anthropomorphic characters, bold keylines and bright contrast colours could become problematic when combined, creating an overall impression that was likely to have a particular appeal to under-18s. Therefore, the Panel considered the overall impression conveyed by the packaging and concluded that the combination of simple style, contrasting colours, exaggerated smiling anthropomorphic characters, thick black key line, similarity to some children’s book styles and theme of friendship meant the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘DIPA’. The Panel noted that most consumers would be familiar with an IPA descriptor for a beer. In addition to this, when considering the back label, the Panel noted that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to beer, ale, brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV. When considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
Was limited edition.
Product:
BEAK DÉŠŤ 5% CZECH PILS
Producer:
Beak Brewery
Complaint:
“The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others.
“The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books.
There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.”
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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported.
The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.
The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.
In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.
In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.
The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.
The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.
The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.
The company explained that Déšť was the Czech word for ‘rain’ and the artwork for the label was chosen to reflect rain with nuanced messaging. The sun was presented as supporting the cloud, which was intended to point to a symbiotic mechanism in ecological terms while playfully recognising the importance of supporting others. The company noted that the intention was not to obfuscate this message with details that did not serve a purpose and refuted that ‘adult sophistication’ could only refer to artwork which was artistically detailed in style.
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 assessed the front label and noted that it depicted a minimal and simplistic design of an anthropomorphic weather system which included a tearful rain cloud embraced by a smiling sun. The Panel noted that the design was not overly busy and that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel acknowledged that minimalistic and simple design trends had grown popular in recent years as referenced by the producer in its response and stated that a simple or minimal design in and of itself would not necessarily indicate a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel considered the simplistic art style which employed thick black keylines and contrasting bright colours; white, yellow and blue. The Panel discussed these elements and noted that thick black keylines and contrasting primary colours were elements which could contribute to a level of appeal to under-18s but that these were factors, alongside the simplistic design, to be considered in context of the overall impression conveyed by the product artwork.
Noting the simplistic artwork style, the Panel discussed the precedent set by Laverstoke Park Farm Lager and Ale which included a child’s drawing and was found to have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel assessed the anthropomorphic weather system illustration and considered that because of its simplicity, it did appear to be a design that a child could mimic or create themselves. The Panel also considered that the anthropomorphising of the sun, hugging the tearful cloud, made the illustration appear cute, friendly and comforting in appearance. The Panel considered this would particularly appeal to a child and that it was similar to imagery used in nurseries which employed basic illustrative representations of feelings to help young children understand how to verbalise and understand such emotions.
The Panel then considered this in the context of the complainant’s assertion that the thick geometric styling of the word ‘BEAK’, combined with the illustration, resembled the cover of Mr Men books. The Panel noted the company’s response and discussed the design’s similarity to the illustrations found in Mr. Men books. The Panel noted that the Mr. Men series was still in publication and that the books were still popular amongst contemporary children. The Panel therefore considered that despite the longevity of the books, the series would not be considered ‘retro’ because it was still popular with children today. While it was acknowledged than the similarity was unintended, it was the view of the Panel that the illustration did bear a likeness to the Mr. Men series and as such could appeal to a child who enjoyed the books.
The Panel discussed the typography used on the packaging and in particular the stylisation of ‘BEAK’ which appeared prominently on the top of the front label. The Panel acknowledged that Brandon Grotesque font had been used and that as it was a universal font, it was unlikely to have a particular appeal to under-18s in isolation. In this case however, the Panel did consider that the font bore similarity to the ‘Mr. Men’ font and in combination with the imagery, did contribute to the overall impression conveyed. However, the Panel stressed the font alone was not an inherent breach of Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel discussed the producer’s response, in particular the point that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent. The Panel noted that the product was predominantly sold to independent specialist adult beer and wine shops but sought to remind the producer that all products could be purchased and taken into the home environment, with some retailers also distributing products wider than a producer’s original intention and out of their ultimate control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied to the product packaging and its fundamental compliance with the Code as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed in an adult context.
The Panel stated that it was clear from the company’s articulate and detailed response that it had not intended the packaging to have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the points mentioned above and considered that the packaging was an example where individual elements that were not inherently problematic under the Code in isolation, such as simplistic artwork, anthropomorphic characters, bold keylines and bright contrast colours could become problematic when combined, creating an overall impression that was likely to have a particular appeal to under-18s.
Therefore, when assessing the impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety, the Panel considered that the combination of the simple design, anthropomorphic characters, contrasting colours, inadvertent similarity of font and presentation to the well-known Mr Men books and bold keylines in combination meant that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘Pils’. The Panel discussed that Pilsner was a well-known type of beer but that some consumers may be less familiar with the abbreviation ‘Pils’. When assessing the back label, the Panel considered that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to beer, lager, brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV of 5.5%. When considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
Producer working with Advisory Service.
Product:
BEAK HUM 4.8% PALE
Producer:
Beak Brewery
Complaint:
“The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others. The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books. There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.”
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(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.
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.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported.
The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.
The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.
In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.
In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.
The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.
The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.
Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.
The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.
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 observed that the front label depicted several characters drinking and socialising around a large, opened bottle. The Panel noted that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel considered that the illustration on the front of the packaging was simple and included contrasting primary colours as well as a black keyline. The Panel acknowledged that depending on presentation, these elements could contribute to a level of appeal to under-18s but that these were factors to be considered in context of the overall impression conveyed by the product artwork. The Panel considered that the image and the juxtaposition of the size of the overly large bottle compared to the size of the characters sitting around it gave a fairly abstract impression which was more akin to a piece of adult art. When assessing the artwork in detail, the Panel noted that while it was playful in tone, the characters were adult in appearance and were depicted engaging in activity that would appeal to an adult; socialising while consuming alcohol. The Panel also noted that there were no other elements, such as anthropomorphic depictions or broader themes which would particularly resonate with under-18s.
After careful consideration of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging in its entirety, the Panel concluded that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘Pale’. The Panel acknowledged that ‘Pale’ as a descriptor was typically followed by a type of beer and that the word ‘Pale’ in isolation may not necessarily be indicative of an alcoholic product. However, when considering the back label, the Panel noted that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to beer, ale, brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV. Therefore, when considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.
3.2(f)
The Panel discussed the scene depicted by the artwork which included a large bottle of alcohol and characters consuming alcohol and decided there was merit in considering the packaging under Code rule 3.2(f) to determine whether it encouraged immoderate or irresponsible consumption.
The Panel assessed the image on the front of the packaging and noted that the representation of the characters was fairly abstract given their presentation alongside the overly large and out of scale bottle. The Panel discussed the presentation of two characters in detail; one leaning over the bottle and the other lying on the ground with their feet in the air which could suggest the characters were intoxicated in the context of alcohol consumption.
The Panel discussed two previous precedents under Code rule 3.2(f), Piggin’ Drunk Ale and Easy IPA. In both cases, which were upheld under Code rule 3.2(f), the Panel noted that the packaging had images of characters which depicted drunkenness, as well as other additional text which compounded that interpretation. The Panel considered the wording of the Code rule which stated that packaging must encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption to breach the Code which had been the case in both previous decisions.
After careful consideration, the Panel noted that the two characters in question, while engaged in a slumped position or on the floor, which could be associated with drunkenness, instead appeared alert and involved in conversation, therefore any potential intoxication level was ambiguous. The Panel therefore considered that the character artwork did not encourage a consumer to drink immoderately as while the scene depicted characters that were happy and socialising, they did not appear to be drunk or intoxicated.
The Panel then considered the inclusion of a large open bottle on the packaging. The Panel noted that each character only had one glass, which suggested that the group was sharing the bottle and that there was no implication that any of the characters had consumed multiple drinks or had consumed alcohol immoderately. Instead, the scene suggested that the drink was being shared collectively and did not depict behaviour which may encourage a consumer to drink immoderately or irresponsibly.
After discussion, the Panel concluded that while some characters were presented in slumped positions consuming alcohol next to an overly large bottle, on balance, there was no clear depiction of immoderate or irresponsible consumption. As there was nothing else on the packaging which encouraged, either directly or indirectly, irresponsible or immoderate consumption the Panel found that the packaging did not breach the Code on this point. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold packaging under Code rule 3.2(f).
Action by Company:
None required.