Earlier this year, UK alcohol regulator, the Portman Group, commissioned a proactive independent audit, carried out by Zenith Global, to measure responsible marketing across the alcoholic drinks market.
Accordingly Zenith Global, brought complaints against a small number of products from a selection of 500 alcoholic drinks in the UK market, which were assessed against the Portman Group’s Code of Practice on Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks.
The first complaints to have been considered by the Portman Group’s Independent Complaints Panel (the Panel) were made against Chin Chin Vinho Verde, Violet Beauregard Malbec and Oloroso Encontrado. Following the Panel’s careful consideration these three complaints were not upheld, the full decisions can be read here.
The complaint against Chin Chin Vinho Verde concerned whether the name of the product and the imagery on the label could be in breach of Code Rule 3.2 (f) whereby 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.
The Panel discussed all the elements of the packaging and heard from the producers that the packaging reflected their playful and exuberant brand identity and that the name, Chin Chin, was intended to reflect celebration and not immoderate consumption. Taking these points into account, the Panel concluded that while the imagery, name and font style were distinctive, the overall impression conveyed did not encourage immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.
The complaint against Violet Beauregard Malbec questioned whether the name of the product could have particular appeal to under-18’s under Code Rule 3.2 (h) and if the wine’s label included the image of someone who is, or looks as if they are, under 25 years of age under Code Rule 3.2(i). The Panel heard that the image on the bottle was an artistic representation based on the story behind the wine’s name. Although inspired by the fictional character from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl, the design deliberately avoided depicting the actual character on the label and that the design aimed to evoke the whimsical nature of the story while highlighting the wine’s unique blueberry characteristics.
The Panel reviewed the imagery, discussed the drink’s name and noted the company’s response that their depiction of Violet Beauregard was based on an adult over the age of 25. The Panel considered that the sophisticated artwork, combined with the adult features of the woman illustrated, meant she did not appear to be under-25. The complaint was therefore not upheld under Code rule 3.2(i). The Panel also concluded that the character was presented as a reimagined adult version of Violet Beauregard and was unlikely to be recognised by children, and so the complaint was not upheld under Code Rule 3.2 (h).
The complaint against Oloroso Encontrado was that the image of a woman on the label could be under the age of 25, potentially breaching Code Rule 3.2(i).
The Panel heard from the producer and UK importer that the label was inspired by vintage designs from the early 20th century and emphasised the wine’s historical and artisanal character.
The Panel assessed the label and noted that the character had a full-figured body and was wearing lipstick and high heels suggesting that she was an adult. In addition, the imagery was stylised, with a sepia tone, invoking a nostalgic feeling which contributed to the impression that the woman was older in age. The Panel also considered the attire of the character and noted that it was not typical of contemporary fashion that would particularly resonate with children and therefore was not likely to inspire aspiration in those under the age of 18.
After careful consideration of the above points, the Panel concluded that the nostalgic, retro stylisation of the image and the woman’s presentation meant that the character did not appear to be under 25 years of age. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under 3.2(i).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs said: “The Panel welcomed the opportunity to review and discuss the first cases that have come from the proactive audit process. I am pleased to say that these products did not meet the threshold for being in breach of the Code. It’s important to be open and transparent about all the products that come before the Panel and the decisions we reach as this allows the industry to see where the boundaries of compliance lie.”