Producer:
Bearded Brewery
Complaint:
The logo features the strapline ‘Man go hard or man go home’. “Go hard or go home” is a well known modern idiom meaning to either give a task maximum effort or don’t bother at all. I think this is irresponsible as an alcohol slogan as it could very easily be taken by a consumer to champion drinking to excess, ie giving it ‘all or nothing’. On the website the strapline is written as ‘Mango hard or mango home’, which could possibly be referring to a strong mango flavour, but on the logo the words have been split and create this different, additional and potentially dangerous meaning. (Against rule 3.2(f) A drink, its packaging or promotion should not encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption).
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(f)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company acknowledged that complaints were dealt with on a case-by-case basis and that the Portman Group did not seek out cases to prosecute. However, the company stated that it believed the complaint was vexatious and that many worse examples of alcohol marketing existed. Nonetheless, in the spirit of cooperation, the company agreed to engage with the complaints process.
The company stated that the line ‘man go hard or man go home’ referred to the strong mango flavour of the cider and was selected after being submitted via social media by a fan of the brand. The company explained that compared to other mango ciders, Moustache Mango Cider was known for its distinct strong flavour profile which made it the company’s best-selling cider. The company acknowledged the phrase used as the tagline was an idiom but explained that the intention was to refer to the strong flavour of the cider and was not designed to encourage irresponsible alcohol consumption.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(b)
The Panel first discussed whether the packaging created any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label and noted that it included imagery of a skull decorated with flowers above text which read ‘Moustache Mango’ and ‘Man go hard or man go home’. The Panel considered that the inclusion of a skull did not inherently create an association with violent or aggressive behaviour and that the skull was presented as decorative, comparable to a day of the dead theme. The Panel also discussed the name ‘Moustache Mango’ and agreed with the company that it clearly referred to the flavour of the drink and did not create any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.
The Panel then considered the phrase ‘man go hard or man go home’ in further detail. The Panel acknowledged the company’s explanation that the phrase was intended to emphasise the mango flavour of the drink. However, the Panel also noted that the line read as a play on words for the well-known idiom ‘go hard or go home’. The Panel considered the presentation of the line and noted that the word ‘mango’ had been separated to ‘man go’ which further compounded the link to the well-known phrase, ‘go hard or go home’. With that in mind, the Panel then discussed the meaning of ‘go hard or go home’. The Panel noted that ‘go hard or go home’ was generally understood to convey that if undertaking a challenge, a person should make a bold, superior effort or forgo the challenge all together. In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that the line did present drinking as a challenge and on that basis, found that the line did create an association with bravado. Accordingly, the Panel found the packaging in breach of Code rule 3.2(b).
3.2(f)
In the context of its decision under Code rule 3.2(b), the Panel discussed the phrase
‘man go hard or man go home’ in relation to Code rule 3.2(f) to determine whether it also encouraged immoderate consumption. The Panel reiterated the phrase was presented as a play on words to create a connection to the idiom ‘go hard or go home’ and that to ‘go hard’ in the context of alcohol could read as encouragement for a person to drink an immoderate amount.
The Panel considered that ‘Man go’ read as an instruction and the rest of the line suggested that a person should ‘go hard’ and drink above and beyond what they would normally or ‘go home’. The Panel acknowledged that the producer had not intended for the phrase to encourage a style of consumption, which was evident from the rest of the packaging as it did not contain any other elements that encouraged immoderate consumption. Nonetheless, the Panel considered that the phrase ‘man go hard or man go home’ on an alcoholic drink encouraged immoderate consumption and was unacceptable in this context. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(f)
Action by Company:
Working with Advisory Service to bring product in line with the Code.
Producer:
Bearded Brewery
Complaint:
The logo features an illustration of a fox, with an excess of liquid splashes sloshing from his tankard. The use of the word ‘Shaky’ in the drink’s name, in combination with this image, suggests the fox is unable to keep his drink still due to immoderate consumption. It appears there is a subtle celebration here of drinking until one is ‘shaky’. (Against rule 3.2(f) A drink, its packaging or 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.)
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
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
The company’s submission:
The company acknowledged that complaints were dealt with on a case-by-case basis and that the Portman Group did not seek out cases to prosecute. However, the company stated that it believed the complaint was vexatious and that many worse examples of alcohol marketing existed. Nonetheless, in the spirit of cooperation, the company agreed to engage with the complaints process.
The company explained that the name ‘Todd’ was an alternative name for a fox and that this term was still dialect in some parts of the UK. The company explained that ‘shaky’ did not in any way relate to the sloshing tankard and was instead used in some parts of the UK as an alternative meaning for ‘sly’ or ‘dodgy’. The company explained that the name ‘Shaky Todd’ was therefore another name for a ‘sly fox’.
The company stated that the packaging did not subtly celebrate drinking to excess and that it did not condone such behaviour in any way. The company explained that as a family business it would not want the Panel or its potential clients to perceive that it encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption.
The Panel’s assessment:
The Panel considered whether anything on the packaging encouraged illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the packaging which included an anthropomorphic fox drinking from a tankard which had drops of liquid splashing around the rim and the name ‘Shaky Todd’ presented alongside. The Panel first discussed the name ‘Shaky Todd’ and acknowledged the company’s response that ‘shaky’ was an alternative word for ‘sly’. However, the Panel also considered that the dialectal meaning of ‘sly’ was not well known throughout the UK even though it may be used in some areas. Instead, the Panel noted that ‘shaky’ was more likely to be understood by the general population as akin to trembling. Therefore, the Panel considered how the word could be interpreted in the context of alcohol. The Panel noted that ‘shaky’ could imply that a person was unsteady after alcohol consumption and noted that shaking or tremors were a common symptom of withdrawal for those with alcohol use disorder. However, the Panel acknowledged that ‘shaky’ could have a number of meanings and therefore it was important to consider how the word was presented in the wider context of the packaging.
With that in mind, the Panel considered the presentation of the fox in more detail and noted that it did not appear to be drunk. The Panel noted that the fox was not in a slumped or slouching position, did not appear to be shaking or unsteady and did not have drooping eyelids which were all common markers of inebriation. Instead, the fox appeared composed with a bow tie and monocle clearly in place which gave the impression it was not drunk as it was not in a state of disarray. The Panel considered that while there were droplets around the rim of the tankard, the tankard was positioned in a tilted fashion to suggest that the fox was taking a drink as opposed to it being incapable of holding the container steady and spilling the drink due to drunkenness. After careful assessment of the fox, the Panel considered that it did not appear drunk and there was nothing else on the label which encouraged an immoderate style of consumption.
In light of this, the Panel concluded that while shaky could be interpreted as a reference to alcohol withdrawal, it could be interpreted in various ways and that the overall impression conveyed by the label would always determine compliance with the Code. As there was nothing else on the packaging which encouraged drunkenness, the Panel concluded that the label did not encourage immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint.
Action by Company:
None required.
Producer:
Accolade Wines Ltd
Complaint:
‘This advertising stand was prominently placed near the checkout at a supermarket. The slogan and spirit of the advert is plainly obvious: don’t think about alcohol consumption, just consume thoughtlessly. There is no way this promotion can be reconciled with the notion of responsible drinking where adults carefully consider the benefits and harms of alcohol. The message is quite the opposite. The message to children and young people especially is potentially very harmful as it creates an association between alcohol and consumption under any and all circumstances. I believe the material breaches 3.2(g) by indirectly encouraging rapid drinking. I believe the message of ‘ don’t think – drink’ as I believe it can be summarised could be seen to encourage rapid and repeated drinking.’
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
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(g)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company explained that it took its obligations regarding the responsible marketing of alcohol seriously. The company had not intended to promote irresponsible consumption and had actively taken steps to ensure compliance, as demonstrated by the implementation of an internal policy ‘Code of Responsible Practices for Alcohol Advertising, Marketing and Digital Media’ which applied globally. The company stated that it believed the Jam Shed point-of-sale material display was compliant with the Portman Group’s Code of Practice but had withdrawn the material in good faith to demonstrate its commitment to responsible advertising.
The company explained that Jam Shed had launched in the UK in 2017 and had grown to become the tenth biggest wine brand.
The company stated that Jam Shed was positioned as a wine without the confusing rules and perceptions that were associated with the wine category. The company explained that the marketing did not use traditional wine terminology and instead had a reputation for simple, light-hearted and nontraditional marketing that consumers would be familiar with. The company therefore emphasised that the Jam Shed point-of-sale material display should be viewed in that wider context.
The company explained that in its opinion, the marketing line ‘wine for drinking, not overthinking’ was compliant with the Code. The company stated that the Cambridge Dictionary defined ‘overthinking’ as the action of thinking about something too much and in a way that was not useful. In contrast, the company added that the definition of ‘thinking’ referred to the activity of using one’s mind to consider something. The company highlighted that there was a key distinction between the two terms, where ‘not thinking’ would mean not using a mind at all but ‘not overthinking’ would involve ‘use of the mind’ but not to the point it wouldn’t be helpful. The company explained that consumers may find the wine category overly serious, complex and potentially arrogant. The company stated that ‘overthinking’ therefore referred to the common practice of overcomplicating wine, the antithesis of the Jam Shed ethos which sought to demystify and simplify wine.
The company stated that in the context of the Jam Shed brand the average consumer would interpret the phrase ‘wine for drinking, not overthinking’ to mean a simple wine without the complexity that is often attributed to the category. The company also stated that it believed the average consumer would interpret the line from this perspective even without the context of the wider brand positioning due to the meaning of the word ‘overthinking’. In addition to this, the company explained that the Jam Shed point-of-sale material display included the relevant Drinkaware logos and the phrase ‘please drink responsibly’ which further reduced the risk that a consumer would interpret the marketing as encouraging alcohol consumption without due consideration.
The company reiterated that while it did not believe the point of sale material was in breach of the Code, it had voluntarily removed it and would not use the phrase in future campaigns to demonstrate its commitment to responsible alcohol marketing.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(f)
The Panel considered whether the point of sale material could encourage illegal irresponsible or immoderate consumption as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed the definition of ‘overthinking’ and noted the company’s response that it could be understood to give something consideration to the point of detriment. In contrast, the Panel considered that ‘thinking’ was understood as giving something due
consideration. The Panel discussed that ‘overthinking’ was generally perceived to have negative connotations but considered that in relation to alcohol consumption it was important that consumers make informed decisions. The Panel discussed this point at length and expressed concern that the line ‘wine for drinking, not overthinking’ in isolation could be misconstrued as encouragement to drink without due care and attention. However, the Panel noted that it was important to consider the overall impression conveyed by the point of sale marketing material in its entirety.
The Panel considered Jam Shed more broadly and acknowledged the company’s response that it was a well-known brand marketed on being a simple and easy choice for consumers who may find the wine category intimidating. The Panel also noted that there was nothing else on the marketing material that suggested that a consumer should drink irresponsibly or immoderately. The Panel considered that the brand identity provided a certain level of context to the intended meaning of the line, however, the Panel also considered that there was an element of ambiguity which could have been made clearer as to the intended meaning of ‘overthinking’. The Panel warned producers that where marketing was ambiguous it could lead to an unintentional breach of the Code. However, in this specific case, the Panel considered that the wider context of the Jam Shed brand meant that the line was more likely to be understood as encouragement not to overthink the wine category and enjoy a simple product. The Panel considered that even if a consumer was not aware of the wider brand context, the word ‘overthinking’, while ambiguous, did not quite meet the threshold of encouraging consumers to drink irresponsibly or immoderately as it did not suggest that consumers should not think at all.
After much deliberation, the Panel concluded that while the wording was very close to the line of acceptability, the marketing material did not encourage immoderate or irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the Panel did not find the point of sale material in breach of Code rule 3.2(f).
3.2(g)
The Panel then considered whether the point of sale material urged a rapid or ‘down in one’ style of consumption. The Panel discussed the wording ‘wine for drinking, not overthinking’ in light of its decision under Code rule 3.2(f). The Panel considered that ‘not overthinking’ was understood in the context of the Jamshed brand to mean not overthinking the ‘rules’ of the wine category and did not suggest more broadly that consumers should not think at all about their alcohol consumption. The Panel then assessed the rest of the marketing material and considered that it did not contain any cues which suggested a consumer should drink rapidly or encouraged a ‘down in one’ style of consumption. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the material did not breach Code rule 3.2(g) and accordingly did not uphold the complaint.
Action by Company:
None required.
Producer:
Torti Wine
UK Distributor:
Locosoco Limited/Personalised Your Gifts
Complaint:
The Portman Group acting in lieu of a referral from the Advertising Standards Authority
Complainant:
‘Astonished to see alcohol sold under a children’s toy brand. How can that possibly be
legal?’
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 disagreed that Hello Kitty was a children’s toy brand and explained that it was not considered as such by Sanrio, the owner of Hello Kitty. The company stated that Hello Kitty was regarded as the second largest media franchise of all time and that it respected consumer values and made correct, scrupulous and respectful choices in regard to its drinks with consumer protection in mind. The company explained that the Hello Kitty brand was 50 years old and had been
popular with all age groups since the 1990s; particularly mothers, grandmothers and older celebrities. The company stated that there were Hello Kitty branded products and theme parks which were enjoyed by Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Mariah Carey and Kim Kardashian who were all adult, loyal supporters of the brand.
The company explained that the wine was created to celebrate and pay homage to ladies who had handed down the ‘Hello Kitty’ brand through generations, respecting the unique beautiful moments of youth. The wine was a limited-edition drink, which was a tribute and toast to the loyal adult fans of the brand who had enjoyed it for many years. This was in keeping with the way other brands had also licenced the use of Hello Kitty for various products. The company explained that it complied with the strict rules in any market it exported its wine to and had been making wine since 1910. The company explained that in its 114 years of operation it had gained a tremendous reputation because of the quality of its drinks and the manner in which it conducted its business.
The company stated that the wines it produced were only sold to adults, never to children and in places where alcohol consumption was legal. The company explained
that it created wines which respected tradition, history and the culture of its region. Finally, the company reiterated that it did not intend for the wine to have appeal to
under-18s.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging of Hello Kitty Pinot Noir could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the producer’s response which stated that the Hello Kitty brand had broad appeal across all ages and that the intention of the wine was to appeal to an older age group who had enjoyed Hello Kitty generationally. The Panel noted that the producer response had highlighted that Hello Kitty was passed down through generations suggesting that the brand was suitable and age appropriate for a younger age group. The Panel considered the appeal of the Hello Kitty brand more broadly and noted that there was a level of nostalgia attached to the brand which remained popular with some adult consumers who had enjoyed it in their childhood. The Panel acknowledged that globally the age demographic of fans for the brand included adults and children alike but that it was important to consider how Hello Kitty was perceived and marketed in the UK. The Panel noted that the Hello Kitty franchise included a children’s TV show and video game which were suitable for children aged three and above. Alongside this, the Panel noted that the Hello Kitty website included a children’s privacy policy which reinforced the perception that the website and its content not only targeted those under the age of 18 but that the younger age group was of significant relevance to warrant a separate policy. While the Panel acknowledged that the intention of the producer was to create a Hello Kitty wine which appealed to adults, the Panel considered that wider Hello Kitty marketing in the UK reflected that Hello Kitty was a brand which was predominantly marketed towards children. After careful consideration of the above points, the Panel concluded that while the Hello Kitty brand may have nostalgic appeal to some adults in the UK, it would have a particular appeal to children at whom the brand was aimed.
In light of the brand’s particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel considered that any inclusion of the ‘Hello Kitty’ name or branding on an alcoholic drink would have a
particular appeal to under-18s on that basis. The Panel then also assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety. The Panel noted that the packaging included a large image of ‘Hello Kitty’ which was prominently displayed on the front label. The Panel discussed that the character was presented as an anthropomorphised cat wearing a bow, peering over a larger bow. The Panel noted that the design had exaggerated features, such as the oversized bow, and the cat had a large head which gave it the appearance of being kitten-like and cute. The Panel noted that the design was a simplistic cartoon with a limited contrasting colour palette of red, white and black which used a thick bold keyline. The Panel considered that these were all elements which could have an appeal to under-18s and that in this case the combination gave an overall impression that would resonate with younger children who would find the simple cartoon art style, contrasting colours and anthropomorphic cute kitten particularly appealing. Taking all these points together, the Panel considered that the overall impression of the packaging also had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
The Panel considered that the drink had been imported into the UK and that the majority of text on the product was presented in Italian. Therefore, the Panel raised
consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel noted that it was important to consider the overall impression conveyed by the packaging and that regard would be given to a drink’s compliance with Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers and the UK Food Information Regulations 2014 when determining whether the alcoholic nature of the drink had been communicated with absolute clarity. In line with Portman Group guidance, the Panel noted that a product could still be found in breach of Code rule 3.1 even if it met legal labelling requirements if it had the potential to cause consumer confusion. In this case, the Panel noted that the product had been found to have a particular appeal to under-18s and that the prominent inclusion of the Hello Kitty brand and imagery could detract from the alcoholic nature of the product.
The Panel discussed the front label of the drink and noted that it did not include the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) or the word ‘wine’. However, the Panel
noted that the front label incorporated the descriptor ‘Pinot Noir’ which was presented in white font on a dark background which ensured it was clearly legible. The Panel discussed the term ‘Pinot Noir’ and considered that most UK consumers would associate the descriptor with wine. The Panel then considered the back label and noted that it included very limited English which meant that the alcoholic nature of the drink could be less clear for UK consumers. However, the Panel noted that there were a number of positive alcohol cues on the back label which included the drink’s ABV, a pregnancy warning logo and the producer’s website which included ‘torti wine’. The Panel noted that the word ‘vino’ was also included and considered that some consumers in the UK would recognise this to mean wine.
Alongside this, the Panel also discussed the shape and colour of the bottle as well as the cork stopper top which were all elements that consumers would likely associate with wine and therefore helped to communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature. After careful consideration, the Panel concluded that the packaging was close to the line of acceptability and that more could have been done to communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature, particularly in the context of a product that incorporated branding which was not typically associated with alcohol and had a particular appeal to under18s. However, on balance, the Panel concluded that the number of positive alcohol cues were just about sufficient to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not find the packaging in breach of Code rule 3.1 but encouraged the producer to work with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service in the future.
Action by Company:
Product no longer produced for sale in the UK.
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.