Producer:
Northern Monk
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:
“The artwork includes cartoonish and colourful designs, such as animals and playful symbols, which could potentially appeal to individuals under 18. While the intent seems to be artistic expression, this design might raise concerns under this rule due to its visual style”.
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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company expressed appreciation for the Portman Group’s efforts in maintaining responsible industry standards and welcomed the opportunity to address the concern raised by the complainant. The company stated that its mission was to create world-class beer that united communities, celebrated creativity and championed inclusivity, while adhering to the Code of Practice. The company explained that the design of the Amy Hastings DDH Hazy IPA was part of an initiative to amplify underrepresented voices in the craft beer industry. The use of pink tones and expressive illustrations were intended to present a feminine aesthetic in a male-dominated category, rather than appeal to under-18s. The artwork was curated in collaboration with an independent artist whose designs were rooted in adult contemporary culture and the company did not perceive the design as childish or appealing to underage audiences. However, the company acknowledged the concern raised and emphasised the importance of clarity in visual communications. The company noted that the Amy Hastings DDH Hazy IPA was already scheduled to go out of circulation, with new artwork being developed for future releases. The company committed to considering the feedback in future designs to ensure alignment with the Code and industry expectations.
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 discussed the company’s response that label was a collaborative design with artist Amy Hasting aimed at adults. The Panel acknowledged the intention to create a feminine beer label in a sector that often predominately used masculine artwork. The Panel considered that it was clear that a lot of thought had been put into the design and that there was nothing inherently problematic with creating a label that was feminine or that incorporated designs that would amplify the contribution of women in the industry.
The Panel carefully considered the overall impression conveyed by the packaging. The Panel noted that the majority of the can was pink with some contrasting colours such as white, yellow, and green. There were two images of white dogs positioned prominently on the front label surrounded by abstract imagery including lightning bolts, hearts and personified celestial bodies. The Panel discussed the dogs and noted that they were reminiscent of porcelain decorative dogs which usually came in pairs and were popular with an older demographic. The Panel considered that while older consumers might make this connection, younger people would be less likely to recognise the animals in this context given that porcelain dogs were no longer popular. The Panel noted that the dogs did have rosy cheeks which made them appear slightly ‘cute’, however, the dogs were not smiling and did not appear to be particularly friendly, which lessened their inherent appeal to younger children. The Panel noted that both dogs were covered in doodle-like tattoos, which appeared to be hand-drawn using bold black lines which gave the appearance of pen ink. The Panel discussed that the imagery, including bubble-like writing, hearts, leaves, stars and matches were similar to the style of art that teenagers commonly drew on their own skin or notebooks to express individuality. This was reinforced by the positioning of the markings on the dogs, which were presented in a similar haphazard style akin to teenage doodles, rather than carefully considered placement of permanent adult tattoos which tended to be more intentional. The Panel also noted that the wider label included a number of similar doodle-like designs presented in an abstract fashion, including a sun and moon which were personified, alongside hearts, stars and dice. The Panel considered that these elements presented as playful and edgy which, given the similarities with doodles by teenagers, would have a strong appeal to that age group. The Panel noted that ‘Amy Hasting’ was signed at the bottom of the label in a font that was designed to replicate handwriting. The Panel considered that in the context of the above, this meant that the front label had a diary-like quality which, when combined with the doodle elements, would strongly resonate with teenagers who often kept journals of a similar style.
The Panel carefully considered all the above elements together and stated that it was clear that the company and artist had intended to create a design that celebrated femininity in the craft beer industry. However, the Panel considered in this case that the combination of tattooed dogs, doodle imagery, personified sun and moon, use of a pale pastel pink colour, alongside the handwritten signed name meant that the overall impression conveyed was very similar to a diary or notebook of a teenager. The Panel considered that on that basis, while unintended, the cumulative impact of the design would have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
Drink no longer in circulation.