Producer:
Global Brands
Complainant:
Self-referral
Complaint:
“Global Brands addressed compliance concerns raised by The Portman Group regarding a planned Hooch 90th Anniversary limited-edition packaging featuring the original “Lemon Man” design. Global Brands acknowledged the historical context of the 1996 ruling against the design and voluntarily self-referred the matter to the Independent Complaints Panel for reassessment under modern standards.
Global Brands highlighted that it was amongst a very few select cases in the Portman Group’s history where the original ruling was made before the establishment of the Independent Complaints Panel in 1997. Global Brands stated that the design had been updated to reduce youth appeal and that this design was aligned with recent Panel precedents, as opposed to those which were made nearly 30 years ago. Global Brands also highlighted that the RTD (ready-to-drink) category had evolved since 1996, with reduced appeal to minors and lower average alcohol by volume (ABV).
On the basis of these changed circumstances, Global Brands reiterated its commitment to responsible marketing and requested a fair review by the Independent Complaints Panel”.
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. 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.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
As a long-standing signatory to the Code of Practice, the company stated it valued its relationship with the Portman Group and the guidance it provided in fostering a responsible and trusted alcohol industry. The company emphasised its serious commitment to adhering to the Code’s principles and highlighted its proactive efforts to reduce the alcoholic strength of products across its Ready to Drink (RTD) portfolio. This included Hooch, which had a 3.4% alcoholic strength by volume (ABV), demonstrating its dedication to moderation, responsibility and product stewardship.
The company stated that the Hooch Lemon 1995 Limited Edition can was explicitly positioned for an adult audience, supported by independent consumer insight and behavioural data, with over 87% of its consumer base aged 35 and over. The company explained that this was achieved through a strategy to re-engage consumers with a nostalgic connection to the brand’s original launch in 1995. The campaign referenced cultural touchstones and irreverent humour that were understood by those who were adults or teenagers in the 1990s. The design choices and brand voice were deliberately calibrated to resonate with a mature demographic rather than under-18s. The company explained that there were clear parallels with other complaint precedents, where the Panel had acknowledged that retro characters were acceptable when they clearly resonated with older consumers.
The company explained that the can was designed with a mature, nostalgic aesthetic, featuring black as the primary colour, which was not typically associated with children’s products. The company added that yellow had been used sparingly to denote flavour rather than for decoration or playfulness. Serif and refined fonts were employed instead of bubble or playful styles that were often linked to children’s media. Furthermore, the Hooch logo was bold, sharp and structured, avoiding cartoonish forms. The company stated this design aligned with the Portman Group’s guidance and was consistent with previous Panel decisions on products such as Cwtch, AU Vodka Bubblegum, and Wingman.
The company explained that as the word ‘lemonade’ featured on the product, a considered effort was made to ensure the drink’s alcoholic nature was clearly communicated. The company highlighted that the packaging prominently displayed the term “Alcoholic Lemonade”, included multiple ABV indicators, responsible drinking messages and an 18+ icon. The company explained that this was aligned with the market standard for similar drinks.
The company stated that the lemon character on the can was based on a grimacing icon from the original 1995 campaign which was part of the “refreshment with a bite” platform. Its visual design was aligned with subversive, adult-oriented cartoons from the 1990s, such as Ren & Stimpy and Beavis & Butt-Head. The company explained that this aesthetic contrasted sharply with modern children’s media, which typically featured soft shapes, bright colours and friendly expressions. The lemon lacked limbs, a smile or eyes — traits commonly associated with child-oriented characters — and was instead used as a visual metaphor for strong flavour rather than as a mascot. The company stated that the cultural and generational gap between the can artwork and contemporary children’s entertainment was crucial to demonstrating compliance with Code rule 3.2(h). Furthermore, the company considered that recent similar precedents supported the position that the combination of retro styling and absence of childlike traits were acceptable and this included packaging that featured characters.
The company explained that in the broader context, RTDs were consumed by only 10% of underage drinkers, significantly less than beer, cider, and spirits. The company highlighted NHS data which reflected a category breakdown beyond traditional “Alcopops”, such as canned cocktails and spirit-and-mixers, many of which were not colourful or fruit-led. The company stated that the assumption that RTDs inherently appealed to under-18s was not supported by data and therefore the assessment of the packaging should be based purely on its actual design and presentation, which would not attract underage interest.
The company submitted commissioned research which demonstrated that the Hooch Lemon 1995 Limited Edition can resonated predominately with consumers aged 31-60. The company also highlighted data within this which reflected that younger consumers were more engaged with other SKUs in its portfolio. Furthermore, its commissioned research showed that the majority of consumers recognised the drink as alcoholic when compared with two other similar drinks that had previously been considered by the Panel with no breach of the Code being found in either case.
The company concluded that the above points demonstrated that the drink was nostalgic and appealed to a mature audience and therefore was not in breach of the Code.
The Panel’s assessment
The Chair explained that the company had chosen to self-refer a complaint regarding the Hooch Lemon 1995 Limited Edition can after it had been contacted by the Portman Group regarding a potential compliance issue. The company had self-referred the complaint to the Panel on the basis that similar packaging had been upheld in 1996 by the Portman Group under the First Edition of the Code as it was found to appeal to under-18s. The Chair stated that this was one of a select few of cases that had been subject to a decision by the Portman Group, rather than the Panel which had been created in 1997 and had been made at a time where there was significant concern regarding alcopops. In addition to this, the Chair noted that in compliance discussions with the Portman Group, the company had highlighted that regulatory standards had evolved over time and that the packaging had been amended to ensure that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s today. In agreement with the Portman Group, the company had therefore self-referred the case to the Panel to determine if it was acceptable under the Code. The Panel noted this information and thanked the company for its proactive action given the unique set of circumstances that pertained to the case.
The Panel discussed the 1996 decision regarding Hooch which had concluded that the personified lemon was similar to motifs of the time and therefore appealed to under-18s. The Panel considered the company’s response and acknowledged that in the 30 years that had passed since the original decision was made, children’s media and marketing had evolved significantly. The Panel also noted that its own understanding of marketing techniques that were used to appeal to under-18s had developed and that this was informed and supported by research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1]. The Panel acknowledged that the original decision was based on the personified lemon being similar in appearance to ‘existing motifs appealing to under-18s’ in 1996 and considered that as 30 years had passed it was important to assess the current packaging against updated precedents and guidance, new research, contemporary marketing styles and current societal standards.
The Panel assessed the front label and noted that it included a large personified yellow lemon on a predominantly black background. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(h), which had been informed by the Kids Industries report, and noted that the lemon did have some elements which could appeal to under-18s such as a thick black key line and relatively simple design. However, the Panel noted that the lemon had a grimaced facial expression with its teeth exposed and lips pulled apart which gave a menacing impression. Furthermore, the Panel noted that the lemon had small eyes which were furrowed into a frowned expression. The Panel considered that the lemon did not appear to be playful or friendly and was unlikely to be engaging to a younger audience as it differed vastly from children’s cartoon characters who usually adopted a welcoming stance, large eyes and a smiling face. The Panel considered that while the imagery included the use of yellow, the colour palette overall was saturated and there were few contrasts with minimal use of primary colours. The Panel discussed the company’s response and the decision to use the colour yellow sparingly to denote flavour and the choice to update the design of the lemon so that it was more aligned in design with adult-orientated cartoons from the 90s. With this in mind, the Panel noted that the lemon did not have a friendly demeanour or welcoming features and appeared in an overall design with a limited colour palette. Furthermore, the Panel noted that the design of the lemon was very similar to that which had appeared on the original 1995 packaging and would be recognised by adult consumers. As the lemon did not bear similarity to characters that were popular with contemporary children, the Panel considered that the lemon would instead have a particular nostalgic appeal to those who would remember it from the 90s and would now be over 30 years old. On this basis, the Panel considered that the lemon character did not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel then considered the overall impression conveyed by the rest of the packaging. The Panel noted that the majority of the label was black, with yellow highlights used for font, the lemon, the rim and base of the can, alongside small uses of green and red. The Panel considered that the predominantly black label conveyed a mature impression and the use of the straight-lined serif font also contributed to an adult-orientated style. The Panel discussed the lemonade flavour and considered that this would have a broad appeal across all age groups. The Panel noted that at the bottom of the can was a box which read ‘since 1995’ and was presented as a motif to popular Brit Pop band Oasis, who had recently reformed and launched a UK tour. In addition to this, at the top of the can, was a green banner which read ‘30 years of’, further conveying that the product was targeted at a very specific adult demographic. The Panel considered that both these cues emphasised the nostalgic appeal the drink would have to those who were young adults in the 90s and would not hold a particular appeal to under-18s today.
While the Panel was mindful that an upheld decision had been made against Hooch by the Portman Group in 1996, this had been based on its similarity to motifs which had been popular in the 90s and therefore resonated with under-18s at the time. In this particular case, the Panel noted that in the 30 years that had passed since the original decision, contemporary marketing styles and societal standards had evolved which had fundamentally changed what would particularly appeal to children today. This shift in cultural landscape had also been accompanied by more detailed and developed regulatory guidance which had informed updated understanding as to what marketing elements could have a particular appeal to under-18s. In this context, the Panel concluded that while the packaging did incorporate a personified lemon, it did not have welcoming, friendly features, was presented with a menacing grimace and did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel also considered that the packaging used mature straight-lined fonts, limited use of colour and incorporated elements which had clear nostalgic appeal to adults such as references to a 30-year anniversary and the year 1995. Taking these points into account, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the packaging was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.
[1] Marketing That Appeals to Under 18s, Prepared for the Portman Group and the Independent Complaints Panel by Kids Industries, 2023