Product:
BEAK GIFT PACK
Producer:
Beak Brewery
Complaint:
The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others. The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books. There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol.
The Beak Christmas Gift Pack also features a pack of brightly coloured stickers which, given their aesthetic, feels too close in merchandising terms to children’s sticker packs that often come free with books/toys/magazines. This I feel is also against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h) – A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported.
The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.
The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.
In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.
In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.
The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.
The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.
Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.
The company refuted that the stickers included in the gift pack could have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted that sticker collecting was a well-established hobby within the craft beer sector as evidenced by a recent book dedicated to the pastime which celebrated the visual culture of craft beer. The company explained that its own stickers were only available via its age-gated website and were sold at a premium price. The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the Gift Pack could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted that the gift pack included six beers which consisted of the brands DÉŠŤ, HUM, LULLA, a beer glass and a variety pack of stickers. The Panel noted that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design of each element with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel discussed the individual elements of the Gift Pack before considering the overall impression conveyed by the items.
The Panel noted that the size of the glass was a standard style for a beer glass. The Panel noted that it had a ‘half pint’ measurement on it, which was typical for a beer glass and the Beak Logo which was a simple line drawing. The Panel noted that the overall design was fairly simple and minimalist. When considering HUM, the Panel referred to its final decision in relation to the packaging and stated that the artwork was fairly abstract and akin to a piece of adult art. When assessing the artwork in detail, the Panel noted that while it was playful in tone, the characters were adult in appearance and were depicted engaging in activity that would appeal to an adult; socialising while consuming alcohol. The Panel also noted that there were no other elements, such as anthropomorphic depictions or broader themes which would particularly resonate with under-18s.
The Panel then considered LULLA which depicted two adults in a stylised embrace on the front label. The Panel considered that the label was not overly busy and that the depiction of the people was created through simple line drawings made up of the contrasting primary colours of yellow, red and blue. The Panel discussed these elements and noted they could contribute to a level of appeal to under-18s but that these were factors, alongside the simplistic design, to be considered in context of the overall impression conveyed by the product artwork. In that context, the Panel noted that the out of proportion bodies gave the artwork an abstract feel. The Panel also considered that the embrace between the characters, who were clearly adult, reflected a sophisticated piece of art which would not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel then referred to its decision regarding the packaging of DÉŠŤ where it had concluded that that the combination of the simple design, anthropomorphic characters, contrasting colours, inadvertent similarity of font and presentation to the well-known Mr Men books and bold keylines meant that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel then discussed the inclusion of the sticker pack. The Panel discussed that sticker collecting was a hobby enjoyed by people of all ages and noted the company’s response that sticker collecting was a part of the craft brew culture. The Panel discussed that beyond craft brewers, other activities such as skateboarding also had a long tradition of sticker collecting or decorating equipment with stickers to express individuality and that this was a hobby enjoyed by all ages outside of the alcohol industry. The Panel noted that stickers held a level of appeal to children and could contribute to the potential overall appeal that the gift pack had to under-18s but that this would depend on the specific artwork depicted on each sticker. To that end, the Panel reviewed each of the individual stickers noting that one included a twin version of red and blue seals which were smiling and outlined with black keylines. The Panel noted that the seals had been anthropomorphised and were depicted as being friendly which would enhance the appeal they had to children. The Panel then noted that the artwork for DÉŠŤ, which depicted an anthropomorphic weather system of a sun hugging a tearful cloud, was also included in sticker form.
The Panel emphasised that the principle of compiling a gift pack with a beer glass, beer cans and stickers was acceptable under the Code provided that the individual items did not have particular appeal to under-18s in and of themselves. However, as the gift pack included DÉŠŤ packaging, the sticker of the twin smiling anthropomorphised seals and the artwork sticker of DÉŠŤ, the Panel concluded that these specific elements meant that the gift pack in this instance created an overall impression that would have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
Was limited edition.
Product:
BEAK FRENDS 8% DIPA
Producer:
Beak Brewery
Complaint:
The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others.
The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books. There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1 – The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h) – A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported. The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.
The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.
In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.
In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.
The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.
The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people. Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking. The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the artwork on the front label which depicted an anthropomorphic smiling elephant alongside a humanoid character with enlarged facial features that partially mimicked the elephant. The Panel noted that the design was not overly busy and that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel acknowledged that minimalistic and simple design trends had grown popular in recent years as referenced by the producer in its response and stated that a simple or minimal design in and of itself would not necessarily indicate a particular appeal to under-18s. The overall art style on the packaging was fairly simplistic and the colour palette, while muted, included contrasting colours such as green, blue and red and a black keyline around the characters. The Panel considered that such elements could contribute to a level of appeal to under-18s but that these were factors to be considered in the context of the overall impression conveyed by the artwork.
The Panel then assessed the two characters in detail and noted that the side profile of the elephant appeared to be similar to ‘Elmer the Patchwork Elephant’, a popular character from a children’s book. The Panel discussed the complainant’s concern and noted that the green and blue colour palette with the black keyline illustration did bear a resemblance to the well-known Miffy books. The Panel noted the longevity of the books but also considered that the series was still popular with children today.
The Panel discussed the human-like character that had exaggerated flappy ears and an enlarged nose, which made the character appear friendly, playful and engaging for young children. The Panel noted that the rounded lines used on both characters made them appear softer and in combination with the friendly disposition and exaggerated facial features meant the illustration had a particular appeal to under-18s. This was compounded by the overall theme of friendship, which the Panel considered would be a message that would resonate with children and enhance the appeal.
The Panel discussed the producer’s response, in particular the point that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent. The Panel noted that the product was predominantly sold to independent specialist adult beer and wine shops but sought to remind the producer that all products could be purchased and taken into the home environment, with some retailers also distributing products wider than a producer’s original intention and out of their ultimate control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied to the product packaging and its fundamental compliance with the Code as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed in an adult context.
The Panel stated that it was clear from the company’s articulate and detailed response that it had not intended the packaging to have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the points mentioned above and considered that the packaging was an example where individual elements that were not inherently problematic under the Code in isolation, such as simplistic artwork, anthropomorphic characters, bold keylines and bright contrast colours could become problematic when combined, creating an overall impression that was likely to have a particular appeal to under-18s. Therefore, the Panel considered the overall impression conveyed by the packaging and concluded that the combination of simple style, contrasting colours, exaggerated smiling anthropomorphic characters, thick black key line, similarity to some children’s book styles and theme of friendship meant the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘DIPA’. The Panel noted that most consumers would be familiar with an IPA descriptor for a beer. In addition to this, when considering the back label, the Panel noted that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to beer, ale, brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV. When considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
Was limited edition.
Product:
BEAK DÉŠŤ 5% CZECH PILS
Producer:
Beak Brewery
Complaint:
“The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others.
“The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books.
There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.”
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1 – The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h) – A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported.
The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.
The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.
In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.
In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.
The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.
The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.
The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.
The company explained that Déšť was the Czech word for ‘rain’ and the artwork for the label was chosen to reflect rain with nuanced messaging. The sun was presented as supporting the cloud, which was intended to point to a symbiotic mechanism in ecological terms while playfully recognising the importance of supporting others. The company noted that the intention was not to obfuscate this message with details that did not serve a purpose and refuted that ‘adult sophistication’ could only refer to artwork which was artistically detailed in style.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label and noted that it depicted a minimal and simplistic design of an anthropomorphic weather system which included a tearful rain cloud embraced by a smiling sun. The Panel noted that the design was not overly busy and that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel acknowledged that minimalistic and simple design trends had grown popular in recent years as referenced by the producer in its response and stated that a simple or minimal design in and of itself would not necessarily indicate a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel considered the simplistic art style which employed thick black keylines and contrasting bright colours; white, yellow and blue. The Panel discussed these elements and noted that thick black keylines and contrasting primary colours were elements which could contribute to a level of appeal to under-18s but that these were factors, alongside the simplistic design, to be considered in context of the overall impression conveyed by the product artwork.
Noting the simplistic artwork style, the Panel discussed the precedent set by Laverstoke Park Farm Lager and Ale which included a child’s drawing and was found to have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel assessed the anthropomorphic weather system illustration and considered that because of its simplicity, it did appear to be a design that a child could mimic or create themselves. The Panel also considered that the anthropomorphising of the sun, hugging the tearful cloud, made the illustration appear cute, friendly and comforting in appearance. The Panel considered this would particularly appeal to a child and that it was similar to imagery used in nurseries which employed basic illustrative representations of feelings to help young children understand how to verbalise and understand such emotions.
The Panel then considered this in the context of the complainant’s assertion that the thick geometric styling of the word ‘BEAK’, combined with the illustration, resembled the cover of Mr Men books. The Panel noted the company’s response and discussed the design’s similarity to the illustrations found in Mr. Men books. The Panel noted that the Mr. Men series was still in publication and that the books were still popular amongst contemporary children. The Panel therefore considered that despite the longevity of the books, the series would not be considered ‘retro’ because it was still popular with children today. While it was acknowledged than the similarity was unintended, it was the view of the Panel that the illustration did bear a likeness to the Mr. Men series and as such could appeal to a child who enjoyed the books.
The Panel discussed the typography used on the packaging and in particular the stylisation of ‘BEAK’ which appeared prominently on the top of the front label. The Panel acknowledged that Brandon Grotesque font had been used and that as it was a universal font, it was unlikely to have a particular appeal to under-18s in isolation. In this case however, the Panel did consider that the font bore similarity to the ‘Mr. Men’ font and in combination with the imagery, did contribute to the overall impression conveyed. However, the Panel stressed the font alone was not an inherent breach of Code rule 3.2(h).
The Panel discussed the producer’s response, in particular the point that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent. The Panel noted that the product was predominantly sold to independent specialist adult beer and wine shops but sought to remind the producer that all products could be purchased and taken into the home environment, with some retailers also distributing products wider than a producer’s original intention and out of their ultimate control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied to the product packaging and its fundamental compliance with the Code as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed in an adult context.
The Panel stated that it was clear from the company’s articulate and detailed response that it had not intended the packaging to have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel discussed the points mentioned above and considered that the packaging was an example where individual elements that were not inherently problematic under the Code in isolation, such as simplistic artwork, anthropomorphic characters, bold keylines and bright contrast colours could become problematic when combined, creating an overall impression that was likely to have a particular appeal to under-18s.
Therefore, when assessing the impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety, the Panel considered that the combination of the simple design, anthropomorphic characters, contrasting colours, inadvertent similarity of font and presentation to the well-known Mr Men books and bold keylines in combination meant that the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘Pils’. The Panel discussed that Pilsner was a well-known type of beer but that some consumers may be less familiar with the abbreviation ‘Pils’. When assessing the back label, the Panel considered that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to beer, lager, brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV of 5.5%. When considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
Producer working with Advisory Service.
Product:
BEAK HUM 4.8% PALE
Producer:
Beak Brewery
Complaint:
“The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others. The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books. There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.”
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1 – The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(f) – A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h) – A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported.
The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.
The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception. The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.
In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.
In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.
The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.
The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.
Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.
The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel observed that the front label depicted several characters drinking and socialising around a large, opened bottle. The Panel noted that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel considered that the illustration on the front of the packaging was simple and included contrasting primary colours as well as a black keyline. The Panel acknowledged that depending on presentation, these elements could contribute to a level of appeal to under-18s but that these were factors to be considered in context of the overall impression conveyed by the product artwork. The Panel considered that the image and the juxtaposition of the size of the overly large bottle compared to the size of the characters sitting around it gave a fairly abstract impression which was more akin to a piece of adult art. When assessing the artwork in detail, the Panel noted that while it was playful in tone, the characters were adult in appearance and were depicted engaging in activity that would appeal to an adult; socialising while consuming alcohol. The Panel also noted that there were no other elements, such as anthropomorphic depictions or broader themes which would particularly resonate with under-18s.
After careful consideration of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging in its entirety, the Panel concluded that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘Pale’. The Panel acknowledged that ‘Pale’ as a descriptor was typically followed by a type of beer and that the word ‘Pale’ in isolation may not necessarily be indicative of an alcoholic product. However, when considering the back label, the Panel noted that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to beer, ale, brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV. Therefore, when considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.
3.2(f)
The Panel discussed the scene depicted by the artwork which included a large bottle of alcohol and characters consuming alcohol and decided there was merit in considering the packaging under Code rule 3.2(f) to determine whether it encouraged immoderate or irresponsible consumption.
The Panel assessed the image on the front of the packaging and noted that the representation of the characters was fairly abstract given their presentation alongside the overly large and out of scale bottle. The Panel discussed the presentation of two characters in detail; one leaning over the bottle and the other lying on the ground with their feet in the air which could suggest the characters were intoxicated in the context of alcohol consumption.
The Panel discussed two previous precedents under Code rule 3.2(f), Piggin’ Drunk Ale and Easy IPA. In both cases, which were upheld under Code rule 3.2(f), the Panel noted that the packaging had images of characters which depicted drunkenness, as well as other additional text which compounded that interpretation. The Panel considered the wording of the Code rule which stated that packaging must encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption to breach the Code which had been the case in both previous decisions.
After careful consideration, the Panel noted that the two characters in question, while engaged in a slumped position or on the floor, which could be associated with drunkenness, instead appeared alert and involved in conversation, therefore any potential intoxication level was ambiguous. The Panel therefore considered that the character artwork did not encourage a consumer to drink immoderately as while the scene depicted characters that were happy and socialising, they did not appear to be drunk or intoxicated.
The Panel then considered the inclusion of a large open bottle on the packaging. The Panel noted that each character only had one glass, which suggested that the group was sharing the bottle and that there was no implication that any of the characters had consumed multiple drinks or had consumed alcohol immoderately. Instead, the scene suggested that the drink was being shared collectively and did not depict behaviour which may encourage a consumer to drink immoderately or irresponsibly.
After discussion, the Panel concluded that while some characters were presented in slumped positions consuming alcohol next to an overly large bottle, on balance, there was no clear depiction of immoderate or irresponsible consumption. As there was nothing else on the packaging which encouraged, either directly or indirectly, irresponsible or immoderate consumption the Panel found that the packaging did not breach the Code on this point. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold packaging under Code rule 3.2(f).
Action by Company:
None required.
Producer:
Twickenham Brewery
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
“I would like to express deep concerns about the name, branding and pump clip design of Twickenham Brewery’s ale Naked Ladies.
“In itself, the school-child sniggering tone of the name is offensive, representing outmoded and sexist attitudes to women which should have no place in public life, and certainly not in any industry that wishes to survive in the 21st century.
“Moreover, from my recent experience of ordering a pint in a London pub in which this was the only available real ale, the name of the beer and pump clip imagery present real problems of offence and embarrassment. As a middle-aged man, the experience of saying the name of the beer to the young woman serving at the bar was awkward and unsettling for all concerned. As a pub-goer, I would obviously prefer not to be made uncomfortable by the simple act of ordering a pint. More importantly, bar staff should be able to go to work without being subjected to sexist and sexualised language and imagery which, given age/power differentials with customers, could well be interpreted as harassment or abuse.
“I therefore strongly suggest that the name and branding be changed so that pub-goers can enjoy this otherwise excellent beer without concern for perpetuating the kind of sexist bigotry which should have long been consigned to the dustbin of history.
“The name: I understand that the justification of the name “Naked Ladies” is that it’s named of a statue near the Twickenham brewery. This is not the name given by the sculptor; the statue is thought to be a representation of Oceanids. The statue is colloquially known as The Naked Ladies. However, the beer name removes the definite article (the), however, which is a subtle but important difference. The Naked Ladies arguably refers to a statue. Naked Ladies (as the beer is named) places focus on nudity and gender.
“The pump clip: Following the Unshaven Maiden verdict the rationale of the decision does seem to hold here. The shading draws attention to the breasts, the hop flower placement is, well, very much suggestive. Over the years the clip has become more stylised and further from an accurate representation of the statue. It isn’t immediately obvious that this relates to a real-life statue.”
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.3
A drink’s name, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not cause serious or widespread offence.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company stated that Naked Ladies was a best-selling beer and had been available for over 19 years. The company explained that it was one of a range of beers which were all named after local landmarks, with the name ‘Naked Ladies’ relating to statues at York House, the home of Richmond and Twickenham Council. While the statues had no official name, locally they had become known as the ‘Naked Ladies’ and usage of the local name had transferred more formally with the statues also listed as an entity with Historic England. The company explained that in addition to this, the name was also used to refer to the statues in several other sources, including The York House Society, reflecting that the name was well known by the general public.
The company explained that the pump clip included a graphical representation of the largest statue and it had used such branding for approximately 10 years. The company explained that at all stages, it endeavored to ensure the link between the name and the statue was obvious and clear. This included a description of where the name derived on the company’s website and on the packaging of the bottles which referenced the local landmark.
The company referenced the wording of Code rule 3.3. which stated that a name would need to cause ‘serious’ or ‘widespread’ offence to be in breach of the Code and stated that the name was descriptive as opposed to pejorative or derogatory. The company explained that similar names were used to describe plants such as the Amaryllis Belladonna, known as the Naked Lady Lilly which were commonplace at garden centers. The company stated that there was no inference of sexual activity in the name of the beer, nor had it attempted to use the name as a double entendre in any of its marketing communications. The company explained that the image used on the pump clip was highly stylised and an extremely low definition of the female form which removed any risk of sexualisation in contrast to two similar cases considered by the Panel, namely Quickie Wine and Unshaven Maiden.
The company noted that the decision against Unshaven Maiden reflected that the figure was life-like and disproportionate in context. The company stated that in contrast, the image used for the Naked Ladies pump clip was not lifelike and the form was in proportion to the original statue. The company explained that shading was used on the statue’s face, arms and legs and did not highlight or draw attention to the statue’s breasts or any part of the body in isolation. The company stated that the placement of hops on the image was not suggestive or teasing as the hops covered a large area from stomach to thigh and when combined with the inclusion of other hops on the pump clip gave the impression of a ring of hops around the statue and did not draw attention to any particular body part.
The company stated that it did not believe that the name caused widespread offence as the drink had been distributed nationally in both the off-trade and the on-trade for 19 years without complaint.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel considered whether the Naked Ladies name or artwork on the pump clip could cause serious or widespread offence as raised by the complainant.
The Panel discussed the product name ‘Naked Ladies’ and its historical context as explained by the producer. The Panel noted that the name was a colloquial one used to refer to a group of statues at York House in Twickenham which was a fairly well-known landmark as an entity listed with Historic England. The Panel discussed the company’s response and noted that the name had not been used gratuitously as the packaging and company website incorporated descriptive language designed to explain the historical context of the statue. The Panel noted that due to its smaller size and limited space the pump clip did not include the same information but considered that the reference to Twickenham in the company’s name did provide some context between the name of the beer and the local landmark. The Panel determined that the name may be distasteful to some but that the overall impression, as opposed to the name in isolation, would determine whether the pump clip caused serious or widespread offence under Code rule 3.3.
The Panel discussed the artwork presented on the pump clip which depicted one of the referenced local statues, a naked woman, at York House. The Panel considered the Portman Group’s accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.3 and noted that to breach the rule in relation to sexual objectification the packaging or marketing would need to incorporate elements that were demeaning, derogatory, gratuitous or overly sexualised. The Panel considered that the design was artistically stylised and akin to art deco in style with no identifying detail added to any of the statue’s features. The Panel noted that the naked statue was modestly presented with its pubic area covered by hops and considered that nudity in and of itself would not inherently cause serious or widespread offence, particularly nudity depicted by an art deco statue. The Panel noted that there was no undue focus on the statue’s breasts which were low definition and portrayed through a shadowing technique in keeping with the depiction of the rest of the statue. The Panel discussed the pose of the statue and noted that it was not positioned in a sexualised manner which meant that it did not objectify the statue based on its gender or sexuality. The Panel considered the artwork in its historical context alongside the name ‘Naked Ladies’ and considered that the pump clip was not demeaning, discriminatory or derogatory in its portrayal of women more broadly.
After careful consideration of the overall impression conveyed by the pump clip, the Panel considered that the depiction of the statue and the name ‘Naked Ladies’ did not cause serious or widespread offence. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.3.
Action by Company:
None required.
A complaint against Yonder pink lemonade beer has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), after a member of the public complained their 13-year-old daughter had asked them to buy it in a shop. The full decision can be read here.
The complaint said: “This afternoon my 13 year old daughter chose a can of drink from the chiller cabinet at Gloucester Services northbound service station…She gave it to me, I bought it and gave it back to her to drink. When she opened the can, thankfully she thought it smelt a bit odd so asked me about it, it was only then I realised it was alcohol.”
The Panel ruled that the product did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity under Code Rule 3.1. However, the Panel did not rule that the product had particular appeal to under-18s under Code Rule 3.2(h). The Panel assessed the packaging and noted the presentation of the soft drink term ‘Pink Lemonade’ in large prominent bubble writing on the front label.
The Panel also noted that while the product’s ABV was included on the front of the label, its presentation was far less prominent, with ‘Pink Lemonade’ the dominant theme of the label. The Panel discussed the yellow and pink gradient colours which created a further link to pink lemonade, as yellow and pink were colours typically associated with non-alcoholic lemonade, further enhancing the drink’s link to a soft drink.
The Panel then assessed the back label and noted the inclusion of some positive alcohol cues. However, the Panel also noted that text on the back label referred to ‘citrus juice’, ‘adult version of a childhood favourite’, ‘sweetness and acidity’ and ‘rose water and blackcurrant juice’. The Panel considered that the language used on the packaging primarily focused on the drink’s fruit flavours.
When assessing the overall impression conveyed by the product packaging the Panel considered it was likely to cause confusion for consumers when assessing the drink’s alcoholic nature, which additionally in this case had been evidenced by the complainant. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the drink’s packaging did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.1.
The company has agreed to make amends to the product packaging to bring it in line with the Code.
Rachel Childs, Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel (ICP) said: “It’s vital that producers take care to communicate the alcoholic nature of their products, as this is a pertinent example of the confusion that can be caused otherwise. In this case, it’s really positive that the producer is willing to work with the Portman Group Advisory service to make the necessary amendments to the packaging to bring it in line with the Code.”
Producer:
Yonder Brewing & Blending Limited.
Complainant:
Member of the public.
Complaint:
“This afternoon my 13 year old daughter chose a can of drink from the chiller cabinet at Gloucester Services northbound service station. Attached photo, Yonder pink lemonade. She gave it to me, I bought it and gave it back to her to drink. When she opened the can, thankfully she thought it smelt a bit odd so asked me about it, it was only then I realised it was alcohol. I was pretty shocked as you can imagine. Why Gloucester services are selling this as single cans in a fridge next to fizzy flavoured water I have no idea, especially when their customers are drivers and largely families.
But my main concern is the branding if this drink. It is completely irresponsible. Has direct appeal to young girls in particular and is totally hiding its alcoholic content. I see from a brief scan of your guidance document point 3.1 which this drink in no way complies with.
“In my view this drink ought to be pulled from the shelves and rebranded before it’s allowed to be retailed. I now see from the brewers website many of their other products are similar in their masking of their alcoholic nature and also need addressing. I have no experience of the alcoholic industry are you able to help to address my concerns or ought I to be contacting trading standards or similar?
These kind of products really are letting our younger generation down and this one could also cause serious injury with adults it being retailed in a service station!”
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1
The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
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 that it took all complaints seriously and was sorry to learn that a complaint had been made about the branding of Yonder Pink Lemonade IPA.
The company explained that the branding of Pink Lemonade was intended to reflect the product inside the can. The company stated that the product’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) was clearly depicted on the front label, while the back label also included the ABV, unit content, the word ‘beer’ and responsible drinking logos; all of which communicated the product’s alcoholic nature.
The company disagreed with the complainant’s view that the drink’s packaging had a direct appeal to young girls as it believed this was a subjective viewpoint. The company highlighted that 99% of its customers were independent specialist bottle shops and bars, which specialised in alcoholic drinks. The company stated that there was little danger of a person under 18 years of age picking up or purchasing the drink. The company committed to investigate the incident described in the complaint with the retailer in question to ensure its products were retailed in the alcohol section of the store.
Finally, the company stated that it would also review the clarity of information on the front and back of the packaging, and if such information could be made clearer to avoid a similar situation in the future, it would take action to do so.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.1
The Panel discussed the Portman Group’s accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.1 which stated that when determining whether the alcoholic nature of a drink had been communicated with absolute clarity 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. However, the Panel also noted that guidance stipulated that compliance with the law would not be the only determining factor in judging compliance with the Code under rule 3.1. The Panel noted that packaging could still be found in breach of the Code if it had the potential to mislead about its alcoholic nature or was likely to cause consumer confusion.
The Panel discussed Loose Juice as a comparable precedent under rule 3.1 and noted that, in that instance, the packaging had a number of positive alcohol cues which clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature, despite the reference to ‘Juice’. The Panel also considered Blossom Hill Spritz as a related precedent and noted that any alcoholic drink which used words or language commonly associated with a soft drink needed to work harder to communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity to minimise the potential for consumer confusion.
The Panel assessed the packaging of Pink Lemonade and noted the presentation of ‘Pink Lemonade’ in large prominent bubble writing on the front label. The Panel considered that ‘Pink Lemonade’ was a well-known soft drink that most consumers would be familiar with and was not a descriptor typically associated with beer or alcohol. The Panel noted that underneath ‘Pink Lemonade’ the product used the secondary descriptor ‘fruit and flower citrus sour’ in smaller, thinner lettering and that this was positioned above the drink’s ABV of ‘4%’ at the bottom of the can. The Panel discussed ‘sour’ as a descriptor and acknowledged that some consumers, particularly those who were familiar with the craft beer category, might recognise the word as a reference to a type of beer. However, the Panel considered that ‘sour’ as a beer descriptor was not particularly well-known without a more direct reference to alcohol such as ‘sour beer’ and that in this case, the proceeding descriptive words of ‘fruit and flower citrus’ compounded the link to a soft drink with no clarifying alcoholic descriptor on the front label.
The Panel noted that while the product’s ABV was included on the front of the label, its presentation was far less prominent, with ‘Pink Lemonade’ the dominant theme of the label, secondary to the company’s name ‘Yonder’. The Panel also noted that the presentation of the company name did not include the word ‘Brewing’ which could have created an additional positive alcohol cue on the front label. The Panel discussed the yellow and pink gradient colours which created a further link to pink lemonade, as yellow and pink were colours typically associated with non-alcoholic lemonade and further enhanced the drink’s link to a soft drink.
The Panel then assessed the back label and noted the inclusion of some positive alcohol cues such as the drink’s ABV, unit content, a responsible drinking message and reference to beer. However, the Panel also noted that text on the back label referred to ‘citrus juice’, ‘adult version of a childhood favourite’, ‘sweetness and acidity’ and ‘rose water and blackcurrant juice’. While the Panel noted that the required information under rule 3.1 did not need to be present on the front label, the Panel considered that the language used on the packaging primarily focused on the drink’s fruit flavours and, in the wider context of ‘Pink Lemonade’, was likely to cause confusion for consumers as to whether the drink contained alcohol, as evidenced by the complainant’s experience.
When assessing the overall impression conveyed by the product packaging, the Panel considered that the prominence of the typically non-alcoholic ‘Pink Lemonade’ name, in combination with the secondary descriptor ‘fruit and flower citrus sour’, the back label text which included multiple references to non-alcoholic fruit flavours and the comparatively minimal references to alcohol, were likely to cause confusion for consumers when assessing the drink’s alcoholic nature, which additionally in this case had been evidenced by the complainant. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the drink’s packaging did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.1.
The Panel noted the company’s willingness to review the front and back label to avoid a similar situation in the future and welcomed this part of its response.
3.2(h)
The Panel then considered whether there was anything on the packaging which could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel observed that the packaging used a gradient of pink and yellow but noted that the inclusion of bright colours was not enough to create a particular appeal to under-18s under the Code. The Panel considered the overall impression conveyed by the packaging and noted that ‘Pink Lemonade’ was presented in a bubble writing style and that the label incorporated ‘doodle’ style drawings of stars, circles and crosses as well as the company logo which was a simple cartoon image. The Panel also noted that the back label included the phrase ‘adult version of a childhood favourite’ which was designed to evoke a sense of nostalgia. The Panel considered that while these elements had a level of appeal to younger people, none of them individually, or when combined, were enough to constitute a particular appeal to under-18s. Therefore, on balance, the Panel concluded that the product did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
Made amends to product packaging to bring in line with the Code.
Producer:
Asahi
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
‘I only drink non-alcoholic beers. A friend of mine recently told me that Asahi have a great zero alcohol beer and there were some in the fridge.
Asahi bottles currently have a big zero *like* looking character on the front – a tool that many zero-alcohol beers have to denote their beer is alcohol-free or low alcohol.
I’m not militantly against alcohol or anything, I love beer and love the explosion of non-alcoholic beers. I am genuinely a bit concerned that people could drive, or someone with a health condition could drink a full-blooded Asahi because I grabbed one absolutely certain it was an Asahi Zero.
The Asahi zero is very clear with 0.0% on it, I get that, but having not seen that before I assumed the square-y zero character on the front was a stylized zero.
My suggestion is that there’s some signage next to the character that shows the beer is alcoholic. perhaps the strength below it or something.’
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1
3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company stated it was a longstanding signatory to the Portman Group Codes of Practice and held itself to the highest standards of responsible alcohol marketing, including packaging. This commitment was demonstrated through the company’s commercial communication policy and public commitments to industry standards
through membership of multiple UK and international organisations. The company explained that all of its packaging was reviewed by a ‘Sales & Marketing Responsibility Committee’ made up of senior leaders from Marketing, Corporate Affairs, Sustainability and Legal departments to ensure all packaging complied with the Code of Practice, internal policies, and legislation.
The company disagreed that Asahi Super Dry was in breach of the Code and explained that the packaging complied with Code rule 3.1 and communicated its alcoholic nature in several ways. The company stated that the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and a responsible drinking message were present on the back of the packaging alongside the mandatory labelling requirements which were unobscured and in the same field of vision.
The company noted that it was not a requirement of the Code for mandatory labelling requirements to be presented on the front label, so long as the packaging did not mislead consumers regarding the drink’s alcoholic nature. To that point, the company highlighted other elements on the packaging which communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature, this included:
• ‘beer’ on the front label;
• a crown cap;
• a dark brown coloured bottle typical of alcohol containers;
• ‘Asahi’ which was a well-established alcohol brand;
• the drink did not have a ‘novel’ container and
• the front label included the descriptors ‘brewing’ and ‘Japanese master brewers’.
The company then addressed the complainant’s concern regarding to the ‘zero’ like symbol. The company explained that the character in question was a traditional Japanese Kanji character, which formed part of a longer Japanese script ‘辛口‘ (pronounced ‘karakuchi’). It was only used on the packaging in that form and was clearly a square shape which the company refuted was zero like. In terms of the Kanji character resembling zero-alcohol beers, the company explained that in comparison, its Asahi Super Dry alcohol-free version incorporated ‘Alc. 0.0% Vol’ which significantly differed from the Kanji character, most notably by including an Alc. abbreviation, 0.0, and a ‘%’ figure. While the company could not confirm that all UK zero alcohol beers followed this practice, it did not believe that the wider industry used a symbol like the Kanji character to market 0.0% alcohol.
The company explained it was committed to ensuring all its drinks were consumed responsibly and as such included the Chief Medical Officer’s guidelines, the unit content, a drink-driving logo, a pregnancy warning, and an age restriction logo on the drink’s packaging.
Finally, to highlight that a consumer would not misconstrue Asahi Super Dry with alcohol-free Asahi Super Dry, the company noted several differences in the packaging which included:
• The colour palette: the alcohol beer had a black colour palette, whilst the alcohol-free palette was blue;
• The text ‘alcohol-free’ was included on the front label of the alcohol-free beer;
• The front label of the alcohol-free beer stated ‘Alc. 0.0% vol’ twice;
• The back label of the alcohol-free beer stated ‘Alc. 0.0% vol’ twice;
• The text on the alcohol-free front label referenced 0.0% twice
The Panel’s Assessment:
The Panel discussed the concerns raised by the complainant and expressed a degree of sympathy regarding the potential for confusion between alcoholic and non-alcoholic products that shared branding. However, the Panel discussed the requirements laid out in the Code and noted that the Code’s requirement for a product to communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity meant that, after consideration of a product’s packaging, there should be no confusion as to whether a product was alcoholic or not, regardless of shared branding. The Panel clarified that the basis of its consideration would therefore relate to the alcoholic version of Asahi Super Dry and whether the packaging of that drink specifically communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and that this would not be assessed comparatively against the alcohol-free version.
The Panel assessed the front and back label of the drink and noted that there were several instances of positive alcohol cues on the front label. This included references to ‘beer’ and ‘brewing’ several times. The Panel considered the back label and observed further positive alcohol cues such as the word ‘beer’, a responsible drinking message, unit content information and the drink’s ABV. After assessing the packaging in its entirety, the Panel considered the product sufficiently communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity.
The Panel then discussed whether the square on the front label could cause consumer confusion as to the drink’s alcoholic nature as raised by the complainant. The Panel considered that the square was presented as a Kanji character and was presented in a wider Japanese context on the label, as opposed to an isolated symbol which possibly denoted the drink contained zero alcohol. The Panel noted that the character was a square rather than a circle and therefore considered that the majority of consumers would be unlikely to mistake it as a reference to a drink containing zero alcohol.
Therefore, the Panel concluded that the drink’s packaging did communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint.
Action by Company:
None required.
Producer:
Wolfie’s Drinks Ltd
Complainant:
Portman Group acting in lieu of a member of the public
Complaint:
“The packaging, website and social media all contain a childish cartoon character which breaches code 3.2(h). They use the following terminology “THE HELLRAISING, FOOTLOOSE WHISKY” and “A RASCAL OF A THING.” This breaches codes 3.2(b) and 3.2(f) as it’s bravado and suggests irresponsible consumption and behaviour.”
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(b):
A drink, it’s packaging or 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(f):
A drink, it’s packaging or and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as binge drinking, drunkenness or drink-driving.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h):
A drink, it’s packaging or 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 explained that Wolfie’s Whisky was a blended Scotch Malt Whisky made in collaboration with recording artist Rod Stewart. The company highlighted that Scotch Whisky was a drink principally purchased by those aged over 45, and the demographic of fans of Rod Stewart were born between 1946-1964. Therefore, the product by its nature was unlikely to appeal to under-18s.
The company stated that the wolf design did not contain bright contrasting colours and was not a form or style which was current and was instead reminiscent of cartoons from the period 1920-1950. The bottle design was in the format of a standard whisky bottle and was not modified to have appeal to younger consumers. The company explained that ‘Rascal’ was not a term in general use by, or known to, younger people and was rather a term known to older generations.
The company analysed the following previous Panel decisions: Carbon Crush, Flagingo Electric Blue and Scottish Raspberry Gin Liqueur, Dragon Soup Venom, Dead Man’s Fingers Tequila Reposado, Show Off, Running with Sceptres, Mango & Black Pepper Gin, Realm of the Unicorn Premium Gin Liqueur, Thrillseeker and Piggin’ Drunk Ale. The company outlined how these key precedent setting decisions demonstrated that Wolfie’s Whisky was acceptable under the Code.
The company explained that the wolf image was a design reminiscent of pre-1970s cartoons and therefore would not appeal to contemporary children as it drew from an older stylistic period which was not utilised in recent decades. The company stated that wolves did not have a particular appeal to children in and of themselves and noted that the top hat of the character included an ace of spades card which was reminiscent of hard rock and made popular by bands such as Motorhead. The company noted that these elements were likely to appeal to an older adult audience, and this was compounded by the use of the term ‘rascal’.
The company explained that the word ‘rascal’ was of Middle English origin and was widely regarded as being old fashioned and was a word which would only be understood by older consumers. Therefore, it could not be considered to generate any degree of appeal amongst young people.
The company also stated that the use of ‘rascal’ did not imply lawlessness but at most referred to annoyance or lack of respect. The company noted that in the Panel’s final decision against ‘Lawless’ it had previously stated that ‘Maverick’ or ‘breaking the mould’ did not equate to breaking the law, and that positioning beer as ‘maverick’ or highlighting quirky or mould-breaking qualities could be acceptable.
The company stated that ‘THE HELLRAISING, FOOTLOOSE WHISKY’, while not in the remit for the Panel to consider, had nonetheless been removed from online marketing. The company stated that on the basis of the above it did not believe that the complaint should be upheld.
The Panel’s assessment:
The Panel Chair explained that the text appearing on the company’s website ‘THE HELLRAISING, FOOTLOOSE WHISKY’ was not within remit of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice and therefore the Panel would not consider this element of the complaint.
3.2(b)
The Panel first considered whether there was anything on the packaging of the drink which created an association with bravado as raised by the complainant.
The Panel discussed Dragon Soop Venom as a precedent under Code rule 3.2(b) and noted that the packaging had included an image of a snake which was presented in an aggressive pose with its fangs bared in the context of a drink with the word ‘Venom’ in its name. This had contributed to an overall impression that a consumer would need to be bold or daring to consume the drink.
The Panel discussed the term ‘rascal’ and noted that it was a word still in use in the UK and that most consumers would be familiar with it. The Panel noted that ‘rascal’ was typically used as a light-hearted term to refer to cheekiness as opposed to being synonymous with illegal behaviour or criminal activity. Similarly, the Panel considered that the line ‘a rascal of a thing’ was portrayed as a link to mischievous behaviour in the context of the smiling, winking wolf and that the text did not create an association with bravado.
The Panel further considered the line in the context of the rest of the packaging which included a prominent illustration of a wolf smiling and winking. The Panel noted that the wolf was presented in a friendly albeit cheeky way, and this contributed to the impression that ‘rascal’ was intended to refer to mischievous characteristics, rather than creating an association with bravado. As there was nothing else on the packaging which created an association with bravado or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b).
3.2(f)
The Panel then discussed whether the drink’s packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption as raised by the complainant. The Panel considered that as the packaging did not create an association with bravado, there was nothing in that regard which encouraged irresponsible consumption. When assessing the rest of the packaging, the Panel noted that the drink was a collaboration with Rod Stewart but stated that a connection to a rock star was not enough to encourage consumers to drink irresponsibly. After carefully assessing the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging, the Panel concluded that no element encouraged illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
3.2(h)
The Panel then considered whether the packaging of Wolfie’s Whisky had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant.
The Panel discussed similar decisions, including Running with Sceptres and Mango and Black Pepper Gin, which were upheld under Code rule 3.2(h). In both cases, the packaging had included storybook-like illustrations and anthropomorphic animals which had contributed to the drinks having a particular appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel noted that this did not mean that the use of anthropomorphic animals inherently breached the Code.
With that in mind, the Panel discussed the image of the wolf which was prominently displayed on the front label. The Panel noted that the wolf was depicted in a smiling friendly way and that the illustration was complex and detailed using only a black and white palette with small amounts of red, reminiscent of pre-1970s cartoons. The detailed monochrome drawing was a mature design in contrast to some current animation styles aimed at children which typically employed simpler designs and bright colours.
Additionally, the Panel noted that the wolf had a top hat which included a playing card that could be understood as a reference to adult card games or rock and roll culture as highlighted by the company and created a further separation from contemporary children’s cartoons. On that basis, the Panel considered that the wolf was presented as a nostalgic black and white animation which would resonate with older adults that had enjoyed similar cartoons in their childhood.
The Panel discussed Portman Group guidance which made it clear that producers needed to be careful when appealing to an adult’s sense of nostalgia as there was a risk that such elements could also appeal to contemporary children. However, in this case, the Panel considered that the black and white detailed illustration of the wolf and clear distinction from modern children’s media meant that the wolf did not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel then considered the wolf image in combination with the rest of the packaging. The Panel noted that the text style was mature and similar to font used in baseball designs which had broad appeal to all age groups. The bottle was typical of spirits packaging and there were no other elements on the front or back which were likely to have a particular appeal to under-18s. Therefore, the Panel concluded that Wolfie’s Whisky did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and did not uphold the complaint.
Action by Company:
None required.
Producer:
BrewDog
Complainant:
Member of the public
Complaint:
Brewdog’s new launch is being marketed in a way that could particularly appeal to or resonate with children. The packaging features a cartoon-style character using bright colouring and reflects comic strips aimed at children. The wider marketing includes a mascot suit similar to those used at sports matches to appeal to children.
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(d)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with sexual activity or sexual success.
Not Upheld
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)
3.2(h) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s.
Not Upheld
The company’s submission:
The company explained that it took its compliance obligations seriously and developed Wingman Session IPA with those obligations in mind. The company understood the basis of the complaint was that Wingman Session IPA could have a particular appeal to under-18s but explained it did not believe that the packaging was in breach of the Code.
The company stated that BrewDog was a well-known brand in the UK and provided YouGov data as evidence. The company explained that Wingman Session IPA represented a key new brand for it and significant resource had been employed to develop the drink, which had been warmly received by consumers since its launch. The company provided a selection of quotes from consumers posted on its age gated social media as well as advertising data, which demonstrated the strong appeal the drink had to an adult audience.
The company explained it had not received any other complaints suggesting the packaging appealed to under-18s, and off the back of the complaint received by the Portman Group, the company commissioned a survey to specifically understand which age group consumers believed Wingman Session IPA was targeted at. The company stated the results demonstrated that the vast majority of participants believed the product was aimed at adults.
The company stated that the product was available to purchase through its online website and at two supermarkets. The company explained that the product was not generally viewed by under-18s because its website was age gated, and retailers stocked the drink in the alcohol aisle.
The company was disappointed to learn that a member of the public had complained about the product and noted that only one complaint had been received despite the drink’s wide distribution. The company also acknowledged that the matter was not considered a clear-cut breach of the Code by the Panel Chair at the Informal Resolution stage of the process.
In specific defence of the product packaging the company highlighted the following points:
• The product was an Indian Pale Ale which was made clear on all formats of packaging. The containers used were commonplace in the category and were themselves unlikely to appeal to under-18s. The words ‘Session IPA’ were shown on the label in prominent gold letters which was a phrase known by
adults to relate exclusively to alcoholic drinks. The packaging included prominent BrewDog branding in multiple places which was a recognised beer brand and the word ‘brew’ also immediately connected the product with beer.
• The drink was an ale and did not include any flavourings which might have particular appeal to under-18s.
• The character on the packaging was a new concept which did not relate to any other subject matter, such as well-known cartoons or characters that might have a particular appeal to under-18s.
• The character was deliberately designed to ensure it did not appeal to under-18s and incorporated; a serious, unfriendly, unwelcoming demeanour; was dressed in a dark, dull military uniform; was portrayed as frowning rather than smiling and had black tattoos including an anchor and a teardrop on its face to add to its adult appearance.
• The company analysed the Panel’s previous decision regarding Mango and Black Pepper Gin which stated the artwork was similar to that which may appear in a child’s storybook. In contrast, the company noted the character which appeared on Wingman Session IPA was different and would not appeal to under-18s.
• The colours used on the character were muted and employed a single blue colour with an orange beak. The background colour was similar to other products on the market, the main lettering was BrewDog’s standard black font and the rest of the packaging was not dominated by bright contrasting primary colours. The company noted that many craft beers employed cartoon imagery and bright colours and stated that Wingman Session IPA would not stand out as bright or particularly appealing to children. The company explained that the product used a similar colour palette as ‘Gamma Ray’ which had previously been considered by the Panel and was found to be acceptable under the Code. The company also noted that illustrations were commonplace in the craft beer category and that the Panel had also previously found that Neck Oil, which had an illustrative art style, was acceptable under the Code.
• The name of the drink ‘Wingman Session IPA’ referred to military co-pilots which would not resonate or be relevant to children.
The company stated it understood that to breach the Code, packaging must have a particular appeal to under-18s, by which it must be more appealing to under-18s than over-18s. The company explained that Wingman Session IPA was deliberately designed to appeal to a market of adult IPA drinkers and that it was clear that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The company also provided two pieces of research-based evidence to highlight that the eagle illustrative character did not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
Finally, the company explained that the eagle mascot character which appeared in promotional marketing activities was only used in locations where children were less likely to be present and that it would continue to exercise caution on the mascot’s inclusion in further marketing. The company reiterated that it believed that Wingman Session IPA and any promotional materials or activities associated with it were compliant with the Code.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(h)
The Panel discussed whether the packaging of Wingman Session IPA had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the packaging and noted that it included a prominent large design of a cartoon anthropomorphised bird on the front of the can. The Panel considered that while anthropomorphised animals could have a particular appeal to under-18s, the character in this case had a stern, unfriendly expression that contrasted with anthropomorphised animals which usually appeared in children’s media. The Panel noted that the character design was complex, with the bird dressed as a military pilot with elements such as facial tattoos which ensured the character appeared more adult in nature. The Panel noted that while the design did include contrasting colours which could have appeal to children, the packaging had used a limited colour palette which was presented in a muted tone as highlighted by the company.
The Panel noted that the eagle character was presented in a World War II aviation style which would have universal appeal. The Panel noted that the text included on the side of the can, ‘the eagle has landed’, was a classic military communication phrase and was unlikely to resonate with children. The Panel also considered that while there was a clear link to a World War II aviation theme, the overall impression lacked a story-telling narrative which may have enhanced the appeal to children. The Panel noted that these elements created a distinction with cartoon imagery aimed at children which tended to include friendly characters with bright colours, simple illustrations and easily understood phrases.
After assessing the packaging in its entirety, the Panel considered that while the style was cartoon-like and the character was the dominant theme, on balance, the design was retro in style, mature and reasonably complex. The Panel concluded that while the design may have a level of appeal to children, it did not constitute a particular appeal to under-18s and did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.2(b)
The Panel agreed there was merit in discussing whether the packaging created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour because of the link to a World War II aviation theme. The Panel discussed the narrative of the packaging that clearly related to service in the military. This was apparent in the design of the character who was dressed like a pilot and had several references on its garb relating to the Royal Air Force (RAF). The Panel noted that this link was further compounded by the drink’s name ‘Wingman’ and the text included on the can which all overtly created a link to the armed services. The Panel then considered whether these elements were enough to create an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive behaviour.
The Panel considered that while military personnel could potentially be conscripted to serve in battle, there was nothing on the packaging which depicted violent or aggressive behaviour or acts of war. Similarly, while the character was presented with a stern expression, there was nothing which suggested that a consumer needed to be bold or daring to drink Wingman Session IPA.
As that was the case, the Panel concluded that no individual element, or the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive behaviour. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the product under Code rule 3.2(b).
3.2(d)
The Panel raised Code rule 3.2(d) as a point of discussion to determine whether the name Wingman Session IPA created an association with sexual activity or sexual success. The Panel considered that ‘wingman’ in slang could refer to a person that helps a friend succeed in romantic or sexual endeavours and that this phrase would be well-known to consumers. However, the Panel also considered that ‘Wingman’ had a dual meaning and could refer to a pilot of a secondary aircraft which provided support or protection to a primary aircraft. The Panel assessed the packaging and concluded that there were many overt references to armed forces, through the design and presentation of the character and in the language used. On that basis, the Panel considered that ‘Wingman’ was used clearly as a reference to a pilot. As there was nothing else on the packaging which created an association with sexual activity or sexual success the Panel did not uphold the product under Code rule 3.2(d).
3.1
The Panel also raised Code rule 3.1 as a point of discussion to determine whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel noted that although the character was prominent on the front label, ‘Session IPA’ was clearly included in bold yellow text alongside the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV). The Panel considered that ‘IPA’ was a well-known descriptor for beer and would be understood by most consumers as a positive cue to communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature. The Panel noted there were several other references to the drink’s ABV on the packaging and the pregnancy warning logo. Therefore, the Panel considered that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues to communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the product under Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
None required.