Producer:
Skinny Brands
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:
“Skinny lager by name, plus the illustrations that show lots of sporting activities including football, marathon running and cycling linked by a continuous thread to the beer bottles, suggests that the product supports a healthy lifestyle and leads to weight loss”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(j) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect suggest that the product has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company stated that the term “Skinny” in “Skinny Lager” was used as a permitted nutrition claim under applicable legislation and did not imply therapeutic or enhancement properties. The company highlighted that the term was widely recognised in consumer language, such as a “Skinny Latte”, to denote a reduced-calorie option. Under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, products were allowed to make a “reduced energy” claim if they contained at least 30% fewer calories than comparable reference products, which Skinny Lager met with 35% fewer calories than standard UK lagers. The company stated that it had independent nutritional analysis which substantiated this claim. The company explained that the term referred exclusively to the product, not the consumer and did not suggest health outcomes, weight loss or physical improvement. Therefore, the company believed that the product’s naming fell within the definition of a nutrition claim and did not constitute a health or enhancement claim under the Code.
The company stated that the imagery did not breach Code rule 3.2(j) as the illustrations were abstract and stylised, reflecting social and recreational associations rather than health outcomes or personal transformation. The company stated that no visual elements like weighing scales, before and after comparisons or fitness slogans were present to suggest weight loss, therapeutic qualities or improved physical function. Additionally, the company highlighted that associating alcohol brands with sports was commonplace in the industry and the imagery on the packaging aligned with such norms, focusing on social associations rather than health messaging. Furthermore, there was no health-related language, direct or implied used in the branding, packaging or promotional content and there were no calls to action or health-oriented taglines suggesting the drink enhanced physical or mental capabilities.
The company shared commissioned market research which demonstrated that consumer perception aligned with the company’s position. None of the participants reported consuming Skinny Lager “to lose weight” or “during sport”. Instead, the research reflected that 48% consumed it while “watching sport,” and 13% drank it “after playing sport” 1. The company explained that the research results confirmed that the product was not perceived as promoting physical enhancement or weight loss but was consumed in typical social settings associated with alcohol use.
The company stated that in a previous complaint reviewed by the Panel, the same illustrative style and brand imagery were assessed, and the complaint was not upheld, demonstrating prior acceptance of the branding approach under the Code. Furthermore, the company explained that similar advertisements had been approved by the appropriate body within broadcast regulation and while this was a different regulatory framework, the company considered such approval was further evidence of the responsible and compliant nature of the promotional strategy of the brand.
The company concluded that the term “Skinny” was used as a legitimate nutrition claim based on reduced calorie content. No suggestion of physical, mental, or behavioural enhancement was conveyed through the name, imagery, or promotional materials. Independent consumer research confirmed that the product was not perceived as promoting weight loss or physical enhancement and similar marketing had previously been reviewed and accepted by the Panel. On that basis, the company stated it did not believe that the packaging was in breach of the Code.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel considered whether the packaging of Skinny Lager 4 Pack 330ml bottles suggested that the product had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Chair explained that a previous case regarding SkinnyBrands Premium Lager had been subject to a complaint in 2019 under the same Code rule raised by Zenith in this complaint as part of the previous audit. Whilst the complaint was not upheld, the Chair explained that the current packaging of Skinny Lager 4 Pack 330ml bottles was significantly different to the 2019 case and therefore warranted reconsideration by the Panel. The Chair noted the producer’s response which claimed that the Panel had previously considered the same illustrative style and brand imagery and had not upheld the complaint in 2019. The Chair explained that while the producer had submitted product artwork to the Portman Group’s Advisory Service in 2019 which featured the same illustrative style, this had only been considered by the Advisory Service. As part of the formal complaint process, the Panel had only adjudicated on the packaging subject to complaint in 2019 which had not featured the same illustrations and brand imagery. Finally, the Chair discussed the Code’s interaction with the law and noted that as stipulated in the Code, it was a producer’s responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws and the Code sat alongside these requirements. The Chair reminded the Panel that its role was to determine product compliance under Code rule 3.2(j), specifically in this case, whether the product was making any direct or indirect health claims. If the Panel had significant concerns regarding product compliance with nutritional standards set in law, and was therefore outside of its regulatory remit, then it could refer the matter to the appropriate regulatory body.
With that in mind, the Panel discussed its previous consideration of the name ‘Skinny’. The Panel noted that in the 2019 decision, the term ‘skinny’ was found to be acceptable where it specifically related to a drink’s reduced calorie content. The Panel considered how ‘skinny’ would be understood by consumers and stated that ‘skinny’ continued to be common vernacular to communicate that a drink or food had reduced energy compared to other higher calorie counterparts. The Panel noted that the packaging included the comparative claim ‘35% fewer calories than other premium lagers’ which supported the interpretation that ‘skinny’ in this context was being used to refer to the drink’s reduced energy content. The Panel discussed the company’s point that the term was a nutritional claim which it could substantiate and noted that this was also reflected in messaging on the product website. The Panel reiterated that when used as a reduced energy claim, consumers would be familiar with the term ‘skinny’ denoting a lower calorie comparison that, in the Panel’s view, did not in and of itself make an implied health claim. On this basis, the Panel considered that its ruling on the name ‘Skinny’ in 2019 was still applicable and did not breach Code rule 3.2(j) as a name. However, to determine compliance with Code rule 3.2(j), the name would still need to be assessed as part of the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging.
The Panel then considered the rest of the label which included secondary cardboard packaging encasing four beers. The secondary packaging was predominantly black and included stylised line drawings of different activities and drinks interconnected with lines. The depicted activities included a person completing a race, riding a bike and playing various sports such as cricket, football and rowing. The Panel acknowledged the company’s response that the packaging contained social activities as well as sporting activities but nonetheless noted that the vast majority of the images depicted were sports or exercise. The Panel stated that creating an association between sport and alcohol was not inherently problematic provided there was no suggestion that alcohol could enhance a consumer’s physical capabilities. The Panel discussed that the sports depicted required a certain level of fitness and capability for a person to participate. Additionally, the Panel noted that throughout the connected imagery, there were images closely associated with consumption of alcohol, including a bottle opener, hops, a bottle cap, bottles being chilled and pint glasses being clinked in the common way people often toast before consuming a drink. The Panel discussed the combination of these elements and expressed concern that the cohesive lines emphasised the direct connection between consumption of alcohol and physical fitness. Furthermore, as the overwhelming majority of the images depicted physical activity, this reinforced the impression that the beer and physical activity were inherently connected. The Panel considered the name ‘Skinny’ in that context and stated that the name, combined with the imagery, went beyond factually communicating a reduced energy claim. Instead, the Panel considered that the name ‘Skinny’, when presented alongside multiple depictions of fitness activities, reinforced the perception that the drink could support and aid a healthier lifestyle. The Panel considered that this interpretation was compounded by the clear and direct link to consumption of the drink, which created a clear relationship between physical exercise, weight maintenance and consumption of the beer. Taking the above points into account, the Panel considered that the combination of the name ‘Skinny’, the dominant theme of sports activities and the link between enhancement of physical capabilities and alcohol consumption, suggested that the drink had a therapeutic quality and could enhance physical capabilities. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).
Action by Company:
Working with Advisory Service.
1 Skinny Brands Independent market research, Mustard Research