Producer:
Origin Wine Stellenbosch
UK importer:
Tesco Stores Ltd.
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:
“Combining the text on the back with the known drinking game that shares the same name. The phrase on the back of the bottle, “Fuzzy Duck doesn’t just quack; it waddles too,” is very similar to the well-known drinking game “Fuzzy Duck,” where players alternate saying “Fuzzy Duck” and “Ducky Fuzz,” often leading to confusion and excessive drinking. Because of this, the wording on the label could unintentionally link the product to a drinking game, 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.
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. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The producer’s response
The company explained that it was willing to work cooperatively and would implement any changes required by the Panel. The company explained that the decision behind the brand and design was to create a unique style of South African wines to showcase the country’s diversity, flexibility and competitiveness against other international wine producers. The company’s aim was to challenge the stigma that only certain countries could succeed in producing specific wine styles. To achieve this, the Fuzzy Duck label was designed to stand out on shelves, using a disruptive style and incorporated an animal, which was a popular trend in wine branding.
The company stated that as part of the design and its participation in UK initiatives like Drinkaware, which promoted conscious alcohol consumption and healthy living, the alcohol levels in Fuzzy Duck products had been made lower compared to similar wine products from other countries.
The importer’s response
The importer stated that it understood the rationale behind the complaint and agreed it did not seem like a clear-cut breach of the Code. The importer welcomed the Panel’s view on the product and volunteered several points for the Panel’s consideration.
The importer explained that it considered the branding and labelling a good fit for the wine style and had not anticipated a breach of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice. The importer addressed the concern regarding the phrase on the back of the bottle, “Fuzzy Duck doesn’t just quack; it waddles too”. The importer stated that references to a duck quacking and waddling were common and did not inherently suggest inebriation or promote excessive drinking. The importer also acknowledged the potential concern that the word “doesn’t” in the phrase might reinforce an association with the drinking game involving the phrase “does he?” However, the importer pointed out that “doesn’t” and “does he” differed phonetically, in writing, and in meaning. Additionally, the importer highlighted that the combination of “Fuzzy Duck” and “doesn’t” combined alliteration and internal rhyme and was chosen for that reason without any connection to the drinking game.
The importer stated that the product had a relatively low alcohol by volume (ABV) of 10.5% which it believed did not encourage immoderate consumption. The importer highlighted that the description “Buttery Chardonnay” on the front of the product was more prominent than the product’s name and was likely to have played a greater role in influencing a customer’s decision to purchase it. The importer questioned whether the rubber duck image on the product packaging, typically associated with young children, would appeal to older under-18s who were more at risk of underage drinking and sought the Panel’s view on this point.
The importer stated that it would take the Panel’s view into account regarding all future products it would stock.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(f)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the drink’s name, ‘Fuzzy Duck’, and noted that the phrase was used in multiple ways, including as a name for restaurants, pubs and a toiletries brand. However, specifically in the context of an alcohol product, the Panel noted that ‘Fuzzy Duck’ referred to a tongue twister drinking game whereby participants were required to correctly say set phrases depending on the order of play. If a participant made a mistake and spoke the incorrect tongue twister, then they would be required to pay a forfeit in the form of consuming a drink. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(f) which stated that encouraging participation in drinking games was unacceptable under the Code as it removed an individual’s capacity to choose and moderate their own alcohol consumption which then became based on the rules of a game instead. The Panel considered that such games directly encouraged intoxication because a person would abdicate personal responsibility when deciding when and how much alcohol to consume and instead allowed the rules of the game to determine their drinking behaviour. The Panel noted the company’s response that the name was intended to stand out on the shelf as part of a recent trend to name drinks after birds. The Panel acknowledged that there was nothing else on the label that related to the drinking game however, equally, there was also no information which explained the intended meaning of ‘Fuzzy Duck’. The Panel discussed that while all consumers may not be familiar with the drinking game, it was reasonably well-known and when considered in the context of an alcoholic drink, the name and the game were inextricably linked. The Panel expressed concern that any reference to a drinking game in alcohol marketing was unacceptable because of the strong association with intoxication and drunkenness.
The Panel then considered the rest of the label and noted that the back label included the sentence “Fuzzy Duck doesn’t just quack; it waddles too”. The Panel acknowledged the company’s response that ‘waddle’ referred to the common way that ducks walked but considered that ‘waddle’ could also refer to a person being unsteady on their feet due to drunkenness. In the context of a drinking game that encouraged drunkenness, the Panel stated that in this instance ‘waddle’ emphasised the link between the packaging and immoderate consumption.
After much discussion regarding the above points, the Panel considered, that in the context of an alcoholic drink, ‘Fuzzy Duck’ the drinking game was sufficiently well-known and that most consumers would recognise the link between the drink’s name and the game. The Panel acknowledged that the link was not intentional but warned producers that any inclusion or reference to drinking games in alcohol marketing would not be acceptable under the Code due to their inherent link with drunkenness and intoxication. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging encouraged irresponsible consumption and the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
3.2(h)
At the Preliminary Investigation stage, the Panel Chair raised Code rule 3.2(h) for discussion by the Panel to determine whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel assessed the packaging and noted that while the front label was fairly minimal in design, it included a large and prominent image of a rubber duck. The Panel discussed rubber ducks and noted that they were primarily bath toys targeted at young children and toddlers. The Panel considered that while rubber ducks could be collector pieces or novelty items sometimes handed to adults in a branded capacity, they remained a popular child’s bathtime toy easily recognised by children. Furthermore, the Panel noted that novelty rubber ducks aimed at adults tended to be painted or decorated in ornate and unusual ways to differentiate them from the standard yellow toy. The Panel considered the image of the duck in more detail and noted that it had large eyes, raised eyebrows and a bill that was upturned, which gave the impression that it was smiling. The Panel noted that the facial expression made it appear welcoming and friendly, and considered that its large eyes would be engaging to younger children who were drawn to such features. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the duck was presented as a recognisable classic yellow toy which further enhanced the appeal the packaging would have to under-18s. Taking the above elements into account, the Panel considered that the inclusion of a large-eyed, smiling, rubber duck, which would be recognised by younger children as a bathtime toy, meant that the packaging would have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel sought to remind producers that the inclusion of any children’s toy on packaging would be unacceptable under the Code regardless of the overall impression conveyed by the packaging. Accordingly, the Panel found the product in breach of Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
The product would no longer be imported to the UK.