Company: Coors Brewers Limited
Breach: No
Final Decision: 17 January 2003
Considered under the 2nd Edition of the Code.
Complaint summary
“I am appalled at the way the names of the drinks [Screamers] mimic sweet flavours. They convey a harmless sugary sweet image ie rhubarb and custard, chocolate honeycomb and raspberry and pineapple. I am surprised that a strong alcoholic drink should be marketed obviously to a young audience in such a misleading way.”
Complainant
Member of the public, Cheltenham.
Decision
Under Code paragraph 3.1(a)
The brand name, product descriptor, packaging (including any containers and any external wrapping), labelling and point of sale materials of any alcoholic drink should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any confusion as to the alcoholic nature and strength of the product, but should clearly communicate the alcoholic nature of the product and its strength to the purchaser or consumer.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.1(f)
The brand name, product descriptor, packaging (including any containers and any external wrapping), labelling and point of sale materials of any alcoholic drink should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption such as binge drinking, drunkenness or drink-driving.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.1(g)
The brand name, product descriptor, packaging (including any containers and any external wrapping), labelling and point of sale materials of any alcoholic drink should not in any direct or indirect way encourage purchase by or sale to under 18s.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.1(h)
The brand name, product descriptor, packaging (including any containers and any external wrapping), labelling and point of sale materials of any alcoholic drink should not in any direct or indirect way be more likely to appeal to under 18s than adults.
NOT UPHELD
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel noted that the outer packaging featured the product descriptor “flavour vodka shots” as well as a statement of the product’s alcohol strength which was displayed as “alc. 20% vol”. In the Panel’s view, both were sufficiently prominent to meet the Code’s requirement that the alcoholic nature and strength of the product be conveyed with clarity on the outer packaging of the product. The Panel noted that there were some variations across the product range and that while some of the individual container lids carried the word “vodka” above the brand name, others did not do so but instead carried the phrase “flavour vodka shot” above the statement of alcoholic strength. The Panel considered that both variants communicated the alcoholic nature of the product with sufficient clarity. The Panel considered further that the statement of alcoholic strength which appeared on the lid of the individual containers was sufficiently prominent to communicate with clarity the alcoholic strength of the product. Finally, the Panel considered that the shape of the individual containers, which in the Panel’s view resembled a traditional shot glass, helped further to communicate the alcoholic nature of the product. Hence the Panel did not find the product in breach of Code paragraph 3.1(a).
The Panel considered that there were no features of the product’s naming, labelling or packaging which encouraged immoderate consumption. Hence, the Panel did not find the product in breach of Code paragraph 3.1(f).
The Panel noted that the point of sale material which featured the headline “Serious head fun” had been discontinued and did not therefore make a decision in respect of this material. The Panel considered, however, in respect of the point of sale material which featured the headline “Ready when you are” that this headline, above a picture of five variants of the product lined up on a bar, was likely to be interpreted as a challenge to drink, especially when taken in conjunction with the facial expression of the woman. Furthermore the cartoon-style spiral shapes emanating from the young woman’s ears were likely, in the Panel’s view, to be interpreted as a reference to the intoxicating effect of consuming excessive quantities of the product. Hence, the Panel found this point-of-sale material in breach of Code paragraph 3.1(f).
The Panel considered that there were no features of the product’s naming, labelling or packaging, nor any features of the point of sale material considered, which might encourage purchase by or sale to under 18s. Hence, the Panel did not find the product or point of sale material in breach of Code paragraph 3.1 (g).
The Panel considered that there were no features of the product’s naming, labelling or packaging, nor any features of the point of sale material considered, which might be more likely to appeal to under 18s than adults. Hence, the Panel did not find the product or point of sale material in breach of Code paragraph 3.1(h).
Action by company
Production of point of sale material ceased.