Producer:
Beavertown Brewery
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:
“An illustrated bright green monster character is featured on the can surrounded by flying rockets, one of which the monster has caught. There is a quirky font used and an amusing name; it is a design that would have a strong appeal to children as the colours are bright and the design is fun and interesting”.
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 confirmed its continued adherence to the Portman Group’s Code and emphasised its commitment to responsible alcohol marketing. The company highlighted its compliance across multiple Codes which covered packaging, online presence and out-of-home advertising, with clear warnings, alcoholic product clarity and use of Drinkaware logos.
While supporting the intent behind an independent audit, the company raised concerns about the self-generated complaint and stated that the audit’s subjective approach failed to consider its brand holistically. The company pointed out that its premium pricing strategy targeted a mature, beer-appreciating demographic and avoided cheap marketing tactics. The company reiterated its alignment with Heineken’s best practice guidelines which included alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) labelling, depiction of alcohol units and alcohol health-related information.
The company expressed surprise that the audit focused on a beer, Lupuloid, which had been on the market for nearly 10 years without a public complaint or evidence of appeal to underage drinkers. The company clarified that its marketing targeted adults, which was supported by demographic data and accolades for its designs. The company refuted the auditors’ claims about its artwork and messaging, arguing that the criticisms were based on narrow subjective judgements.
The company addressed specific design elements in detail:
- The “bright green monster character” was described as a mature, complex illustration inspired by hops, appealing to sci-fi and graphic novel enthusiasts.
- The “quirky font” was explained as a hand-drawn sans-serif font integrated with the company’s brand artwork and was not peculiar or unexpected.
- The name “Lupuloid” was derived from the Latin name for hops, with no evidence of it being amusing or problematic.
- The beer’s design, featuring detailed space imagery, was inspired by age-appropriate references such as Starship Troopers and The Alien Trilogy, which were all rated 18+.
The company emphasised its 15-year tenure as industry leaders in design, reflected by its growth and subsequent sale to Heineken. The company argued that its hand-drawn illustrations and intellectually stimulating concepts differentiated it from competitors without appealing to underage drinkers. The company highlighted that its Brand Power Score demonstrated its success in the “difference” category.
The company reiterated its proven adherence to the Portman Group’s Code and its serious approach to the issue. The company stated that it had found no evidence to support the auditors’ claims that its design was problematic and argued that the absence of evidence indicated there was no issue. The company committed to continuing its due diligence to maintain high standards while refuting the auditors’ view as a misconception.
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 packaging which included an illustration of a large green monster which had multiple rockets flying behind it in a pink sky. The Panel noted that the design was clearly inspired by science fiction (sci-fi) and discussed whether it would have a particular appeal to under-18s as a genre. The Panel discussed the producer’s response and acknowledged that there were multiple sci-fi stories that were aimed at adults, such as Starship Troopers or the Alien franchise and noted that the genre was well-established with a strong appeal to adults. The Panel also discussed previous precedent relating to Beavertown’s sci-fi artwork style and considered that in the case of Gamma Ray it had not been found to have a particular appeal to under-18s but noted that the discussion had carefully considered whether it could have inadvertent appeal. On balance, the Panel considered that while sci-fi had a broad appeal to all ages, it nonetheless had the capacity to particularly appeal to under-18s in some circumstances depending on the elements that featured in a product’s design. Therefore, while a sci-fi themed beer was not inherently problematic under the Code, compliance would be determined by the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging in its entirety.
The Panel considered the imagery in more detail and discussed the large monster-like creature which featured in a prominent position on the front label. The Panel noted that the monster was indistinguishable as a character, with no features that readily identified it as a personified being. The Panel discussed its appearance and noted that the presentation appeared as though it had an ‘oozing’ consistency which did bear a level of resemblance to ‘slime’ or ‘putty’ toys which remained popular with primary-aged school children. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the monster was a reference to the hops of the beer but considered that the intended connection to hops was not necessarily obvious. On balance, the Panel considered that while the monster did have some ‘slime’ resemblance, it had been designed so that it was an indistinguishable character, with no recognisable features that would potentially appeal to children. The Panel noted that children tended to be drawn to characters which were friendly, welcoming and had simple designs. In this case, the Panel considered that the monster did not have any facial features, nor did it appear welcoming or friendly which meant that it presented as an abstract concept that was less enticing to under-18s.
The Panel noted that there were multiple rockets flying in the sky, drawn in a classic three-winged oval shape. The Panel noted that the rockets bore some similarity to how rockets were depicted in children’s cartoons and considered that it was a design element that could resonate with under-18s. The Panel discussed space rockets more broadly and acknowledged that they were a feature that also appeared in nostalgic sci-fi themes which meant that they did not inherently have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel noted that the rockets were quite small in size and were not particularly prominent comparatively to the abstract monster, nor were they outlined in thick bold lines which could catch the attention of children.
The Panel then considered the colour scheme, noting that the packaging employed bright colours of green, orange and pink. The Panel noted that colours with high levels of luminesce tended to have more appeal to under-18s as opposed to colour schemes which had less contrast between the individual colours. The Panel discussed this point and noted that while the colours used were bright, they did not have an elevated level of contrast. Given that was the case, the Panel considered that while the use of colours in this instance was bright and vibrant, the reduced contrast and avoidance of primary colours meant the artwork presented as more adult-like in nature. The Panel discussed the hand drawn illustrative style and noted that while black lines were used, the art style itself was busy and complex which ensured that it presented as a multifaceted artistic illustration instead of a simplistic childlike cartoon. Taking the above into account, the Panel stated that the overall impression conveyed was more akin to an adult graphic novel than a children’s cartoon which tended to use simpler designs, contrasting primary colours and friendly characters.
The Panel discussed the company’s response that the name ‘Lupuloid’ was intended as a reference to the Latin name for hops. The Panel noted that it was unlikely that the average consumer would recognise the Latin basis of the word but considered that the name was unlikely to have a particular appeal to under-18s on the basis that it was not a recognisable word or overly childish as a made-up word. The Panel considered that the name was presented in a font style which was hand-drawn with mostly straight-lined edges and was in keeping with the wider Beavertown font style, which fans of the brand would recognise. The Panel therefore did not consider that either the font or the name would have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel discussed at length whether the design elements could have a particular appeal to under-18s when considered in combination, with careful consideration given to the inclusion of the sci-fi theme, the illustrated imagery and use of bright colours, all of which in some circumstances could have a strong appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel considered that while the overall impression conveyed by the packaging was close to the line of acceptability, the complex art style was detailed and sophisticated in nature, with a colour palette that did not employ strong contrasting colours or high luminance levels. In addition to this, there were no distinguishable or cute characters which ensured the product conveyed an abstract style of design targeted at adults. On this basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.