Complaints against two products have been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decisions can be read here and here.
The complaints, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], were against Gweilo’s Rainbow Sherbet Sour Beer and against Manchester Drinks’ Mystical Unicorn Gin Liqueur.
Considering, the overall impression conveyed by Rainbow Sherbet Sour the Panel concluded that the combination of the confectionary theme, name, lack of a recognised beer descriptor, rainbow background and relatively small positive alcohol cues meant that the drink’s alcoholic nature was not communicated with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.1.
The Panel also concluded that the theme of rainbow laces, sweets imagery and sweet-flavoured language, reference to childhood and bright primary colours all combined to give an overall impression that the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, therefore this complaint was also upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Zenith Global raised two concerns against Manchester Drinks’ Mystical Unicorn Gin Liqueur, the first under Code Rule 3.2(h), that the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, and Code Rule 3.2(j), whereby a product should not suggest that it has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
Under Code Rule 3.2(h) the Panel considered that the packaging could have a certain level of appeal to children and that it was close to the line of acceptability given the inclusion of a sweet flavour, shimmering pink liquid and unicorn imagery. However, the Panel concluded that the sophisticated label, lack of strong contrasting colours and detailed illustrations meant that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s, and so the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Under Code Rule 3.2(j), the Panel concluded that the words on the label suggested that the drink would ‘transport’ a consumer to a magical land and could change their perception of reality. This was compounded by the instruction to ‘shake’ the drink to awaken its ‘mysteries’, whilst ‘transporting’ a consumer mentally to a more whimsical world. On that basis the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(j).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “Both these cases demonstrate the fine line between universal appeal to all ages and particular appeal to under-18s. When it comes to Code Rule 3.2 (h), the Panel must carefully consider the combination of elements on a product’s label as well as looking at precedent-setting cases from the past to decide when a product tips over that line of acceptability.”
Richard Benjamin, Managing Director of Manchester Drinks, said: “We appreciate the Panel’s acceptance that the label graphics are not appealing to under 18’s and we accept that the text on the back of the label could have been written with a clearer message and we are making the necessary changes to the back of our labels written text immediately.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended