Producer:
Keeling Andrew & Co
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)
Complaint:
“Illustration image on the front shows a man’s body with a dog’s head holding two glasses and the character looks like it is kneeling, having trouble standing and holding the two drinks without spilling them. This, coupled with the product name “Chin Chin”, meaning good wishes before drinking or finishing an alcoholic drink quickly is viewed to be encouraging immoderate consumption”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(f)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company stated that it did not believe that Chin Chin Vinho Verde wine breached Code rule 3.2(f) and did not encourage immoderate alcohol consumption. The company emphasised its commitment to promoting wine appreciation and responsible drinking, targeting adult professionals and creatives rather than individuals seeking excessive consumption. The company highlighted the expertise of its founders, Dan Keeling and Mark Andrew, as respected figures in the wine industry and whose storytelling and authentic wine culture had been reflected through their restaurants, magazine ‘Noble Rot’ and books. This underscored the company mission to promote authentic wine culture through storytelling, using a distinctive, exuberant, and irreverent style that challenged a traditional conservative approach to wine appreciation.
The company explained that the image on the Chin Chin label reflected its playful and exuberant brand identity, which aligned with the artwork featured in Noble Rot magazine over the years. The label featured a character in a balanced, athletic kneeling pose inspired by ancient Greek sculptures which was presenting glasses of wine in celebration. The character’s bright-eyed expression and broad smile were intended to convey celebration rather than drunkenness, aiming to make wine culture more inclusive and less traditional. The company described the design as fun and irreverent, with no intention of promoting immoderate alcohol consumption.
The company refuted the claim that the expression “Chin Chin” promoted rapid alcohol consumption, arguing that it traditionally conveyed “good wishes” or “good health” and was associated with the civilised enjoyment of wine. The company emphasised that wine, unlike drinks typically linked to “down-in-one” culture, was not consumed quickly and the suggestion that the phrase encouraged such behaviour was entirely misconceived.
The company emphasised that Chin Chin Vinho Verde had a relatively low alcoholic strength of 11.5% and was unlikely to appeal to consumers seeking to drink excessively. The company highlighted its retail price of approximately £12.50, which while moderate for wines of similar quality, made it an expensive option for purchasing alcohol solely for intoxication. Instead, the company stated that consumers were more likely to have bought it for its refreshing style, ethical production and trusted source.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel discussed whether the brand name encouraged immoderate consumption as raised by the complainant. The Panel considered the name ‘Chin Chin’ and noted that it was typically understood as an expression to communicate good wishes, usually prior to drinking. The Panel discussed that while the phrase was not completely antiquated, it was not an expression that was commonly used and tended to be associated with older generations. The Panel noted that the phrase ‘chin chin’ was typically used in social situations, for instance at dinner parties to signal a toast to celebrate good company, as opposed to an instruction that a person should drink rapidly or as encouragement to drink immoderately. On that basis, the Panel did not consider that the name alone encouraged immoderate consumption.
The Panel then considered the rest of the packaging to determine if there were any other elements that might encourage a person to drink immoderately. The Panel noted that the front label included a stylised image of a humanoid creature with a canine head, balancing in a kneeled position with a drink in each hand with ‘Chin Chin Vinho Verde’ above it presented in a wavy font. The Panel assessed the dog in more detail and discussed the company’s response that the pose was a reference to ancient Greek statues. The Panel noted that the imagery did invoke an antiquity style, with the dog-headed creature bearing a resemblance to the ancient Egyptian god Anubis which was reinforced by the two-dimensional perspective. The Panel considered that the dog did not appear to be intoxicated because it was able to hold a position with one drink in front and one behind which would require precise balance. Furthermore, the drinks were not spilling or sloshing over the rims of the glasses which suggested that the dog was in control and not inebriated.
The Panel discussed the depiction of one character holding two drinks and whether this could encourage immoderate consumption. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.2(f) which advised that a person should not be encouraged to drink more than four units of alcohol in one sitting. The Panel also considered this in the wider context of the Chief Medical Officer’s Low Risk Drinking Guidelines which recommend that men and women should not regularly consume more than 14 units of alcohol a week. The Panel noted that neither of these thresholds prevented the consumption of multiple drinks in one sitting as long as an alcohol producer did not encourage a consumer to exceed four units in one sitting. In this case, whilst the Panel acknowledged that it was difficult to specifically determine the exact number of units within a glass, on balance, taking into account the strength of the wine and a standard glass size, it was unlikely that the drinks would exceed four units. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the dog was not shown consuming the drinks but was instead using them as a display of balancing skill with one drink positioned behind the dog and away from his mouth. On this basis, the Panel considered that the imagery did not directly suggest that a person should consume two drinks nor did it encourage immoderate consumption.
The Panel considered the wavy font style used for the brand name ‘Chin Chin’ and noted that it could be suggestive of blurred vision that one might have as a result of drunkenness. However, in the absence of any other elements which could be seen to encourage immoderate consumption, the Panel did not think the font alone was sufficient to link to the effects of intoxication.
Taking the above points into account, the Panel concluded that on balance, while the imagery, name and font style were distinctive and unique, the overall impression conveyed did not encourage immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
Action by Company:
None required.