Producer:
BrewDog
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:
“This product has a particular appeal to under-18s due to its bright, playful design and the inclusion of a maneki-neko (Japanese lucky cat), which is often associated with toys, cartoons, and pop culture rather than alcohol. The colour scheme – featuring bold blues, yellows, and purples – combined with the cute and animated-style cat, makes the product look more like a soft drink or an energy drink rather than an alcoholic beverage”.
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
The company stated that it had taken its compliance obligations seriously during the product’s development and expressed confidence that the product adhered to relevant standards. The company highlighted its strong brand awareness in the UK, citing a 2023 YouGov survey which reflected 87% consumer recognition. The company explained that Lucky Break was a new offering launched in August 2024, developed with significant resources and financial investment. The product had been well received since it had launched and there had been no complaints suggesting it appealed to children. The company explained that after receiving the current complaint that it had conducted a survey through Vypr which revealed that 87.38% of participants believed the product was aimed at over-18s.
The company clarified that the design of Lucky Break, including the use of the maneki-neko (Japanese lucky cat) and the chosen colour scheme, was carefully crafted t reflect cultural elements associated with luck and good fortune, rather than to attract the interest of under-18s. The company highlighted that the maneki-neko was a widely recognised symbol of good fortune, commonly used in various adult-oriented contexts.
The company referred to the Portman Group’s guidance, which specified that the test for “particular appeal” was not about the quantity of appeal (i.e., appealing to more under-18s than over-18s) but rather the nature of the appeal and whether the packaging or promotion resonated with under-18s in a way it did not with over-18s. The company highlighted that while marketing elements may appeal to individuals in a target market, the rule was designed to capture features that were likely to have a specific appeal to under-18s.
The company argued that its product, a New England India Pale Ale (NEIPA) beer, was clearly identified as an alcoholic beverage on its packaging, which featured a 440ml can, a format not typically associated with drinks aimed at under-18s. The packaging prominently displayed “NE IPA” alongside BrewDog branding, a well-recognised beer brand in the UK, further reinforcing its association with beer. The company stated that the product contained no flavourings which would appeal to children and asserted that the maneki-neko character on the packaging was designed to target adults, symbolising luck and good fortune.
The company emphasised that the character was deliberately styled to avoid appealing to under-18s. The cat had been designed with a silver and white colour palette with blank, non-cartoonish eyes, occupied a small area of the can and differed significantly from characters previously deemed to breach the Portman Group’s Code. The company explained that the muted colours of the character and background, along with BrewDog’s standard font, were chosen to ensure the product did not stand out as particularly bright or appealing to children, especially when placed alongside other craft beers with similar illustrative designs.
The company stated that the product’s name, “Lucky Break,” held no particular relevance for children and highlighted that illustrative designs were common in the craft beer category. It referenced a previous Panel ruling on Beavertown’s Neck Oil product, which was found not to breach the same provision, to support its position that the packaging was consistent with industry norms.
The company highlighted that it had marketed and sold the product in the UK for eight months without receiving complaints about any potential appeal to under-18s. Market data showed that the primary consumer base consisted of adults aged 25-45, with minimal engagement from under-18s, which the company explained supported its position that the product did not particularly appeal to this age group.
The company explained that the product was sold across the United Kingdom through the company’s website, bars, and licenced retailers. The website was age-gated, and bars and retail partners strictly adhered to age verification laws. Additionally, the company explained that the product was stocked exclusively in alcohol aisles, reducing visibility to under-18s.
The company concluded that, in its view, the product complied with the Code and did not breach rule 3.2(h). It requested the Panel to consider the cultural significance of the design elements, market data and recent research findings in its decision. The company expressed its commitment to responsible marketing and willingness to engage in further discussions to resolve the matter amicably.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel considered whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the front label which included the prominent depiction of a cat which had one arm raised while the other held a coin. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the cat was intended to depict maneki-neko, a common Japanese cat figurine believed to bring good luck to the owner. The Panel noted that maneki-neko had historical roots in Japanese folklore and was typically owned by those seeking good fortune. The Panel considered that the figures were commonly found in Japanese establishments within the UK but also appeared in popular culture to the extent that they would be recognisable to most adults. The Panel noted that the maneki-neko’s typical use therefore suggested that their target demographic was adults and that the desire for good luck would have a strong appeal across all age groups. The Panel discussed that while the maneki-neko had roots in eastern Asia, it was fairly common in the UK to the point that the average consumer would likely recognise the cat on the packaging as being a maneki-neko. This was further reinforced by the product name ‘Lucky Break’ and the use of the colour purple on the cat’s collar, a colour associated with good luck. With that in mind, the Panel considered that the inclusion of the maneki-neko did not particularly resonate with under-18s in and of itself.
The Panel considered the depiction of the cat in more detail, noting the cartoon-like style and use of thick bold key lines. The Panel discussed these elements and discussed the Portman Group’s accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) which stated that such design features could contribute to a certain level of appeal for children. However, the Panel noted that while the character was cartoon-like, it did not have particularly friendly or welcoming features that children would find engaging. The Panel considered that while the cat had large prominent eyes, it did not have pupils which subsequently gave a blank statuesque appearance to the cat in contrast to characters that might be used in children’s media. The Panel further noted that the lack of pupils gave the cat a foreboding look which young children in particular may find off-putting or even frightening. The Panel discussed the product colour palette which was predominately yellow, blue, purple and white and noted that while there was a level of contrast, the colours were all desaturated which reduced their vibrancy on the packaging and overall level of luminesce.
After considering the packaging in its entirety, the Panel concluded that while the illustrated cat was the dominant theme on the front of the label, it was recognisable as an adult-orientated maneki-neko cat and had been depicted in a mature, adult-style. The Panel therefore concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and the complaint was not upheld.
Action by Company:
None required.