Producer:
Lervig
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 can design features a colourful graphical illustration style representation of a house party, which is funny and quirky, and is likely to have strong appeal to older children and teens. The name “House Party” is also provocatively appealing to under 18’s and is likely a popular activity with many teens to socialise and consume alcohol before they can legally drink in pubs and bars. This is culturally entrenched in youth culture in the UK and would instantly create an appeal and association with this age group”.
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 explained it was a craft beer producer based in Stavanger, Norway and therefore operated under some of the most restrictive alcohol laws globally. Since establishing its visual branding in 2016, it had not received any complaints regarding its artwork, product names, or related matters. The company stated that its beers, including “House Party”, were considered long-standing classics, sold domestically and exported to approximately 30 countries, all without any reported issues.
The company stated that over 90% of the product was sold in pubs in the UK, where under-18s were not permitted. The company explained that the beer had been on the market for years without receiving any complaints. Additionally, it noted that the higher price point of its craft beer typically attracted an adult audience as the flavour was bitter, unlike sweeter drinks that could appeal to under-18s.
The company explained that it operated in Norway, exported its beer to numerous countries and had not encountered any concerns regarding the artwork or name. In Norway, the legal age for purchasing alcohol was 18 for beverages up to 22% alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and 20 for those exceeding an ABV of 22% to ensure there was no risk of under-18s purchasing alcoholic products. However, the company noted that UK law was less restrictive in that regard and questioned whether changing the beer’s name would address the purported issue or if the focus of regulation should be on the alcohol purchasing laws themselves as it doubted that the beer’s name was the root of underage drinking.
The company’s response to the provisional decision
The company respectfully disagreed with the Panel’s provisional decision and stated that it did not believe the application of Code rule 3.2(h) had been applied consistently by the Panel as it had been in previous decisions.
The company acknowledged that House Party may resonate with teenagers but agreed with the Panel’s finding that the name did not inherently appeal to under-18s in isolation. The company agreed that this aligned with how ‘house party’ was used in popular culture and the phrase did not create an automatic association with underage activity. The company explained that the name did not include slang, abbreviations, emoji or youth coded language, nor did it romanticise illegal drinking or underage rebellion. The company stated that it was an overgeneralisation to relate ‘house party’ with only under-18s as the phrase appeared in countless adult contexts including in films and podcasts. The product did not include memes, irony or rebellion which the company stated were touchstones of youth marketing. Furthermore, the company noted that many alcoholic drinks on the market referenced party culture, but the packaging of House Party was not paired with any literal illustrations of a party in any case.
The company explained that the visual stye of the packaging was intentionally abstract and artistic; it did not incorporate a narrative or cartoonish or child-like imagery. The design did not include characters or faces, animals, mascots, toys or pop culture references. It also did not include simplified shapes, bold outlines, relatable human figures or humorous juvenile content. The company explained that the limb shapes and distorted structure were symbolic of energy and chaos intended to be an artistic expression typical of the surreal and postmodern visual tradition. The company stated that this genre of art was commonly associated with adult oriented design rather than children’s media. The company explained that ‘visual noise’ was not a trait that was indicative of youth appeal and colourful packaging was common within the craft beer sector. The company stated that the artistic techniques employed intended to reflect a deliberate detachment from realism unlike other character driven packaging designs which had previously been upheld by the Panel. The company compared House Party’s abstract design to other alcohol products that featured clear youth-style imagery, such as cartoon characters, anthropomorphic animals and whimsical scenes. The company stated that House Party’s surrealist artwork was far removed from juvenile cues and was more likely to appeal to adults interested in alternative art. Furthermore, the company stated that ‘House Party’ contrasted sharply with other drinks on the market and expressed concern that an abstract design could be penalised while cartoon imagery had been found to be compliant with the Code. The company stated that the shift toward viewing abstract, artistic designs as appealing to youth risked setting an uncertain precedent which could potentially create disproportionate challenges for producers who use creative designs with no intention to target under-18s.
The company stated that there was no evidence that the packaging would have particular appeal to under-18s as the complaint had been raised as part of the 2025 independent proactive audit of the market, commissioned by the Portman Group. The company explained that in nearly a decade of international distribution it had never received a complaint about House Party regarding underage appeal. The company stated that the drink was stocked by licensed retailers and on-trade venues with age-gating policies and was at the mandatory regulatory standard in other markets with highly restrictive requirements. The company stated that it was therefore disproportionate to remove the product based on speculative appeal with no evidence of real-world appeal to under-18s or misuse. The company stated that in practice, House Party would not appeal to under-18s given its premium price point, its bitter and hoppy taste, its 4% ABV and that it was mainly sold through licensed on-trade venues which did not sell alcohol to under-18s.
The company requested that the Panel reconsider the provisionally upheld decision and dismiss the complaint based on the above points. The company maintained that House Party was clearly intended for adult consumers and did not pose a practical risk of appealing to under-18s.
The Panel’s assessment
During the Panel’s first consideration of the case, it discussed the name ‘House Party’ at length to determine what age demographic the reference would appeal to. The Panel noted that ‘house parties’ were an enduring tradition amongst young people which included those that were under the age of 18. The Panel considered that house parties would strongly resonate with under-18s because there were a limited number of nighttime establishments that would allow them entry which meant that house parties were invariably a popular alternative for those under the legal drinking age. However, as part of this discussion, and its consideration of the provisional decision, the Panel also noted that house parties would strongly resonate with those in an 18-25 age bracket and would have a level of appeal with an older age demographic who would still use the term to describe social gatherings. The Panel discussed the cultural shift that had occurred in recent years whereby house parties were not exclusively drinking occasions for under-18s and considered that it was not possible to state that a house party would particularly resonate with under-18s given their broad appeal to all age groups. Whilst broad appeal was acknowledged, the Panel expressed concern that the term would strongly resonate with those in the 15-25 age bracket which included some under-18s. However, when considering the name alone and the wording of Code rule 3.2(h), it did not consider that the name in isolation would have a particular appeal to under-18s. Therefore, the Panel noted that it was important to consider the name in the wider context of the rest of the packaging.
The Panel considered the imagery used on the packaging which included an abstract depiction of a character that had a large building placed on its head, with a body protruding underneath and wavy arms flailed at its side. The Panel also noted that on one side of the can a pair of wavy hairy legs were also included at an angle which reinforced the perception that the artwork was intentionally fantastical and abstract. The Panel discussed the splashes of coloured patches around the central artwork and considered that the design represented visual noise and gave the impression that the party was uncontrolled which was compounded by the streaks of colour emanating from the property, suggestive of loud music. The Panel discussed that an unrestrained house party would resonate with under-18s as youth culture often glamourised wild and loud house parties. As part of its consideration of the provisional decision, the Panel debated the depiction of a chaotic and visually loud party at length in terms of its appeal to a younger age group. The Panel also discussed the company’s response to the provisional decision and acknowledged that while chaotic and wild house parties would resonate with a younger age group, this appeal spanned an age demographic which included adults as well. The Panel discussed Code rule 3.2(h) and its accompanying guidance alongside the company’s response to the provisional decision. The Panel acknowledged the difficulty in applying the test of particular appeal to a chaotic house party concept that would appeal to a younger demographic but not to the extent where it would resonate with under-18s more than it would with young adults. The Panel considered research that it had commissioned from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1] and discussed how early adolescence was often a period where appeal for under-18s became more adult-like in nature. As part of this change, the Panel noted that teenage appeal was often based on seeking to emulate the interests of older age groups which made it difficult to apply the test of particular appeal. On this basis, the Panel determined that in such cases assessing the product packaging in its entirety was key to determine whether it could resonate with under-18s in a particular way.
The Panel considered the overall impression conveyed by the product packaging and noted that it employed a muted colour palette overlaid on a silver metallic background. The Panel considered that the font for the company and product name only appeared in black and was simplistic in its design. When considering the artwork, colour palette and font in combination, the Panel noted that the design was intentionally abstract and stylised in a manner which conveyed a loud and chaotic house party. However, typical design features that would normally be associated with a younger age group, such as identifiable characters, contrasting colours, thick black key lines and youth culture references were notably absent.
The Panel noted the producer’s response that the product was primarily sold in age-restricted pubs in the UK but noted that this still did not represent all sales which meant the product could still be taken into the home environment and that this remained outside of the producer’s control. In addition to this, the Panel noted that the remit of the Code and its application applied solely to the product packaging as opposed to an assessment of how the product was retailed, how it tasted and how it was priced.
After careful consideration, the Panel acknowledged that the name ‘House Party’, alongside an abstract depiction of a chaotic and wild house party, would have a level of appeal to a teenage age group. However, the Panel considered that the concept would also strongly resonate with a younger adult demographic. Whilst the Panel noted that this appeal was likely to be particularly strong in the 15-25 age bracket and would therefore capture a level of appeal to some under-18s, the Panel did not consider that this appeal would particularly resonate above and beyond the likely adult appeal. Furthermore, in the context of an abstract, stylised design which used a limited colour palette on a metallic background with black simplistic font, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.
[1] Marketing that appeals to under-18s, Kids Industries, 2023
A complaint against Lervig’s House Party IPA has not been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], raised concerns under Code Rule 3.2(h), whereby 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.
After a provisional decision by the Panel to uphold the complaint, the producer appealed on the grounds that the name House Party did not create an automatic association with under-18s, that the packaging did not include the normal touchstones of youth marketing, and that the phrase ‘house party’ appeared in countless adult contexts. The design was intentionally abstract and did not include any of the fonts or imagery that would normally appeal to under-18s.
The Panel acknowledged that the name ‘House Party’, alongside an abstract depiction of a chaotic and wild house party, would have a certain amount of appeal to a teenage age group but agreed that the concept would also strongly resonate with a younger adult demographic. This, alongside an abstract, stylised design with a limited colour palette with a simplistic font, meant the Panel concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “It is very unusual that the Panel overturn a provisional decision, however, this case shows the benefits of producers engaging with the complaints process and with the Panel. This also shows the importance of our two-step process in ensuring we have considered and fully discussed all factors before making a full and final decision.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
Retailers have been asked by The Portman Group to stop placing orders for Liquor Zaar’s O.J Premium Strong Beer after the 15 December 2025, after the Independent Complaints Panel (Panel) found that the product placed undue emphasis on its higher alcoholic strength, and that that the packaging, which contained more than 4 units of alcohol, indirectly encouraged immoderate consumption.
The complaint, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], raised concerns about potential Code breaches of Code Rule 3.2 (a), which states that a drink should not give higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis, and Code Rule 3.2 (f), whereby a drink should not encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption.
In addition the Panel considered whether the cartoon image of an athletically built man with large muscular biceps could suggest that the drink could enhance physical capabilities, which would have been a breach of Code Rule 3.2 (j) but concluded there was nothing on the packaging to sufficiently link the image to consumption of the drink and this part of the complaint was not upheld.
A copy of the full decision is available here.
The Panel noted that whilst it was important to ensure a drink’s strength was communicated factually, the higher strength should not be unduly emphasised. The Panel considered that the combination of multiple strength cues, including disproportionately large fonts and repeated overt presentation of the drink’s ABV, alongside imagery representing physical strength, placed undue emphasis on the drink’s higher alcoholic strength. In this case, the Panel noted that some consumers would be particularly vulnerable to marketing where the higher alcoholic strength of a drink was presented as a virtue and expressed significant concern regarding its presentation. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code Rule 3.2(a).
Looking at whether the drink encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption, the Panel noted that as the product contained 4.4 units of alcohol in a single serve, non-resealable container, mitigating factors such as a ‘share’ message or per serve information should have been included on the packaging. In the absence of this information, the Panel considered that the packaging indirectly encouraged immoderate consumption, as such, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “Despite being given several opportunities to submit a response to the Panel about this complaint, the company did not respond to any correspondence relating to this matter. It is unacceptable for an alcoholic product to market its higher alcoholic strength as the primary reason for purchase, particularly when it was also found to encourage immoderate consumption. The Code is explicitly clear that alcohol marketing should not particularly appeal to those who are vulnerable. During consideration, the Panel expressed significant concern about the packaging of O.J Premium Strong Beer and concluded that it had not been marketed in a socially responsible manner.”
Matt Lambert, Chief Executive of the Portman Group, said: “This is the first Retailer Alert Bulletin (RAB) the Portman Group has issued since 2023. It is particularly disappointing that the producer refused to engage with the process or take advice from our free advisory service. The Portman Group will not hesitate to enforce the Panel’s decision and request that all responsible retailers across the UK stop placing orders for O.J Premium Strong Beer after the 15 December 2025. If any retailer is unsure about the RAB’s application, please contact the Complaints Team for further information.”
A Retailer Alert Bulletin is only issued by the Portman Group following an upheld complaint by the Panel where the producer chooses not to comply with the decision. A RAB requests that retailers cease placing orders for the product three months after the publication date, in this case after the 15 December 2025. For further information please contact complaints@portmangroup.org.uk.
You can see the Retailer Alert Bulletin here: OJ RAB pdf.
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
Producer:
Liquor Zaar
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:
“Overt emphasis given to the higher alcoholic strength (4.4 units). “”Strong”” appears on the can multiple times, as does “”Imported”” and “”8.5%””, alongside the cartoon image of a man flexing his ‘strong’ muscles”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(a) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way give the higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(f) 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.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(j) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that the product has therapeutic qualities, can enhance mental or physical capabilities, or change mood or behaviour.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company did not submit a response to the complaint.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel expressed its disappointment that the producer had not responded to any contact made by the Code Secretariat to discuss the complaint.
3.2(a)
The Panel discussed whether the packaging of O.J Premium Strong Beer placed undue emphasis on the drink’s higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect. The Panel noted that the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) of the drink was 8.5% which was higher than average for the category. Therefore, the Panel considered that it was important that the drink’s strength was communicated on its packaging in a factual and neutral way so that consumers could make an informed decision about consumption given the higher alcoholic strength of the beer. The Panel discussed the balance that needed to be achieved between factually communicating a drink’s higher alcoholic strength while not placing undue emphasis on its higher strength or intoxicating effect.
With that in mind, the Panel assessed the packaging to consider how the strength of the drink was presented. The Panel noted several strength cues on the label, including the word ‘strong’ which appeared in large, bold, white text several times on the can. The Panel considered that the text stood out prominently against the rest of the minimalistic, predominantly black and grey label. Alongside this, the drink’s ABV was presented as ‘8.5% alc vol’ several times on the front, back and side of the can in a bold white font. In several places on the label, the presentation of ‘8’ was in a notably larger font than the surrounding text and ‘strong’ had been positioned next to it. While the Panel acknowledged that ‘O.J’ was the largest font on the can, the size used for the ‘8’ made it a dominant feature on the label and its positioning next to ‘strong’ heavily emphasised the beer’s strength. This was reinforced by the number of times these elements were repeated around the label which the Panel considered went beyond factual communication of the drink’s strength. Instead, the Panel considered that the size, repetition and prominence of the product’s strength, and repeated pairing with the word ‘strong’, directly used the drink’s higher alcoholic strength as a marketing feature designed to appeal to consumers on this basis.
The Panel then considered the wider packaging to determine how these elements contributed to the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety. The Panel noted that the label included a cartoon-style image of a man, who had an athletic build and large muscular arms. The Panel noted that the arms of the man were disproportionately large compared to the rest of his body and were noticeably wider than the man’s waist for contrast. The Panel noted that the character was presented as flexing one of his arms in order to draw attention to his bulged bicep. The Panel considered that the depiction of the man was clearly intended to represent a person
who was strong and powerful. The Panel considered that in the context of the wider packaging, the image of the man was a further cue that the drink was being marketed on its strength and reinforced the perception that the beer was particularly strong.
Taking the above points into account, the Panel considered that the combination of these elements meant that undue emphasis had been placed on the higher alcoholic strength of the beer to the point where it had been used as a marketing technique to appeal to consumers based on strength and went beyond factual communication. Therefore, the Panel considered that the combination of multiple strength cues, including disproportionately large fonts and repeated overt presentation of the drink’s ABV, alongside imagery representing physical strength, placed undue emphasis on the drink’s higher alcoholic strength. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(a).
The Panel considered that some consumers would be particularly vulnerable to such marketing where the higher alcoholic strength of a drink was presented as a virtue and marketed as the primary reason to purchase the drink. The Panel was mindful that clause 1.1 of the Code of Practice explicitly stipulated that marketing should not particularly appeal to those who are vulnerable and expressed significant concern that the product had not been marketed in a socially responsible manner.
During research of the case, the Chair also noted that the company’s accompanying marketing on social media platforms marketed on the basis that the product’s higher alcoholic strength was a virtue, a challenge and a primary reason to purchase the product. Therefore, the Chair also requested that the Code Secretariat refer the product’s online marketing to the Advertising Standards Authority for investigation.
3.2(f)
The Panel considered whether the drink encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(f) which stated that a single serve non-resealable container should not contain more than four units of alcohol unless the packaging incorporated mitigating factors so as not to indirectly encourage immoderate consumption. The Panel discussed YouGov polling commissioned in 20141 which showed that the large majority of adults polled believed that a 500ml can of beer was designed for the contents to be consumed by one person in one sitting. The Panel noted that this did not inherently mean that a 500ml can which contained more than four units of alcohol would automatically breach Code rule 3.2(f) and that consideration would be given to mitigating factors included on pack. The Panel noted that such mitigating factors should be commensurate with the number of units above four in the single-serve container and could feature responsible drinking messaging, a ‘share’ message or a per-serve recommendation.
The Panel noted that O.J Premium Strong Beer contained 4.4 units of alcohol in a non-resealable single serve 500ml can. The Panel assessed the packaging and noted that it included some best practice elements to communicate alcohol health-related information such as a pregnancy warning logo and the product’s unit content information. However, for a higher than average strength product, the Panel noted that there was no inclusion of the Chief Medical Officer’s Low Risk Drinking guidelines, nor was there was any information to communicate that the drink should be shared between multiple people or consumed over more than one sitting. Therefore, the Panel considered that as the product contained 4.4 units of alcohol in a single serve, non-resealable container, mitigating factors such as a ‘share’ message or per serve information should have been included on the packaging. In the absence of this information, the Panel considered that the packaging indirectly encouraged immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).
3.2(j)
During discussion, the Panel raised Code rule 3.2(j) to determine whether the drink’s packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could enhance physical capabilities. The Panel considered the inclusion of an image of a muscular and athletic person on the packaging and whether this suggested that by consuming the beer, a person may experience enhanced physical capabilities. The Panel discussed the assessment of the imagery in the context of Code rule 3.2(a) and noted it had been a contributing factor in conveying the impression that the drink was particularly strong. The Panel noted that the man was athletically built with large muscular biceps which suggested that he was a strong person in good physical condition. However, the Panel considered that this alone did not suggest that consumption of the drink could help a consumer achieve a similar physique. With that in mind, the Panel considered the rest of the label and noted that there was nothing else which implied that consumption of the drink could impart strength to a consumer or help them achieve a greater level of fitness. The Panel considered that while the person depicted was athletic and strong, there was nothing on the packaging that sufficiently linked the image with consumption of the drink. On this basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not suggest the drink could enhance physical capabilities. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(j).
Action by Company:
The producer did not engage with the complaints process and a Retailer Alert Bulletin was issued.
1 YouGov Polling Results for Drink Sizes 2014; commissioned by the Portman Group
Producer:
Aldi Stores
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 Reprobates’ seems to glamourise illegal behaviour with its name, accompanied by a mugshot image. The bottle neck also carries an image of a cross-bar gate – an image clearly associated with counting days in prison.
The adult male depicted does not clearly appear to be over the age of 25 and is more likely around 18-20 years of age”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(i)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way incorporate images of people who are, or look as if they are, under 25 years of age, where there is any suggestion that they are drinking alcohol, or they are featured in a significant role. Images may be shown where people appear only in an incidental context.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company welcomed the opportunity to respond to the complaint and stated that it did not believe that The Reprobates Sparkling Wine was in breach of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice.
The company explained that the term ‘reprobates’ was used in a light-hearted context and referred to mischievous individuals rather than illegal behaviour. The company stated that the term ‘reprobates’ was similar to ‘rascal,’ a word which had been deemed acceptable by the Panel in a previous decision, Wolfie’s Whisky. Therefore, the company did not consider that ‘reprobates’ created a direct link to illegal behaviour or violence and stated that similar names were commonly used in the alcohol industry.
The company explained that the imagery used on the packaging was an adult male with a neutral expression standing still and did not create any association with bravado or dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The image was representative of a caricature, depicting an everyday working-class man in 1920s dress which at most could be seen to be a ‘rascal’. The company explained that the historical context of the image depicted what would have been considered a reprobate in the 1920s which was important as that was not necessarily what would be considered a reprobate today, much less a criminal. The company refuted that the image was a ‘mugshot’ as there were no visual cues suggesting that was the case and it was simply a representation of an everyday working-class adult male from the 1920s holding a sign with the product name superimposed over it. The company explained that the image was created using artificial intelligence (AI) and was not a real photo nor a mugshot and there was no suggestion that the character was intoxicated.
The company explained that the written and visual communication on the packaging was adult in nature and that it understood that Code rule 3.2(i) was intended to protect under-18s from being exposed to images in alcohol marketing of people with whom they might identify or aspire to be like. The company stated that it did not believe that the character looked under-25. The character was clearly adult with a strong bone structure, broad shoulders and while clean shaven, there were no visual clues that suggested he was younger. Furthermore, the image did not represent an individual that under-18s would find aspirational, particularly given the dated and monotone nature of the image.
The company stated that the historical nature of the image was important to consider, as someone in old fashion dress was more likely to be associated with the style of an older generation. This was in contrast to how young adults were typically depicted today with an emphasis on being casual, trendy and youthful; a standard the character did not meet. The company stated that age recognition relied on visual cues such as clothing, hairstyle and overall demeanour and the cues on the packaging were vastly different to those of today. As such, consumers would not consider the image to be a young man under 25 and instead would associate the image with a representation of an adult male from a bygone era.
The company stated it was committed to the responsible retail of alcohol and complied with alcohol marketing guidelines. The products were exclusively sold in Aldi stores, ensuring they were not marketed to under-18s and the company employed a challenge 25 policy for the sale of alcoholic beverages to prevent underage sales.
The company’s response to the provisional decision
The company stated that it was disappointed with the Panel’s provisional decision as there were similar products on the market which could be interpreted as celebrating criminal activity.
The company disagreed with the Panel’s assertion that the tally marks on the neck of the bottle represented years of a custodial sentence and the implication that this conveyed a serious crime had been committed. Instead, the company highlighted that the tally marks, which were placed on the cap of the bottle’s neck, were far enough removed from the main image on the bottle which meant that it was unlikely consumers would infer an association between the tally marks and what the Panel had inferred was a ‘mugshot’. Furthermore, the company stated that even if the tally marks did represent a custodial sentence, such marks would more commonly represent days, rather than years, which the Panel had not considered. As such, the company disagreed with the Panel’s findings that the tally marks indicated a serious crime had been committed and subsequently warranted a long prison sentence. The company highlighted that in this context, the tally marks were more likely to represent a number of days which was indicative of a minor misdemeanour. The company stated that this interpretation aligned with the meaning of the name ‘Reprobate,’ which the Panel had deemed acceptable in its provisional decision. The company argued that even if the tally marks on the packaging had represented months or years, this still did not necessarily indicate a serious crime had been committed in modern society as crimes such as vagrancy and poaching had historically carried custodial sentences.
The company reiterated that other features of the packaging were consistent with similar brands. The company stated that if the Panel chose to uphold the complaint it presumed that the removal of the tally lines would be enough to ensure compliance with the Code. Nonetheless, the company requested the Panel to reconsider its decision.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(b)
The Panel discussed whether the drink’s packaging created any association with illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed the name, ‘The Reprobates’, to determine how the term reprobate was likely to be understood by UK consumers. The Panel noted the producer’s response that ‘reprobate’ was intended to be akin to ‘rascal’, a word that had previously been found to be acceptable by the Panel under the Code. The Panel considered that in contemporary meaning, ‘reprobate’ was often used in a light-hearted fashion to refer to a person who was mischievous or cheeky rather than as a reference to a criminal. The Panel acknowledged that ‘reprobate’ could be used to reference someone lacking in principles but stated that this did not inherently create an association with criminal or illegal behaviour. As the brand name was acceptable in isolation, the Panel considered that compliance under the Code would be dependent on the overall impression conveyed by the product.
The Panel discussed the front label, which included a photo of a man dressed in 1930s attire holding up a board which read ‘The Reprobates’. The Panel considered the positioning of the man in the photo, staring straight ahead while holding a board, which did appear to be very similar to the classic ‘mug shot’ position. This interpretation was compounded by the serious expression and rigid stance the character maintained as opposed to how one might usually pose for a photograph with a smile and relaxed posture. Furthermore, directly above the image on the neck of the bottle was the inclusion of numerous lines presented as a tally which was designed to mimic the appearance of carvings. The Panel considered that tallies were often used in the context of a prisoner counting the number of years they had served in prison, typically crudely etched onto a wall or other surface. The Panel noted that such tallies were synonymous with prisoners who were serving lengthy sentences for serious crimes as a way to keep track of passing time.
The Panel considered the name ‘The Reprobates’ within the context of a mugshot and prison tally count and considered that a brand name which insinuated that a person lacked principles reinforced the impression that the character had engaged in illegal behaviour.
The Panel considered the presentation of the product and noted from the producer’s response that the imagery had no contemporary relevance. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(b) and noted that it advised against glamourising crime which linked to contemporary illegal behaviour. The Panel further noted that guidance stated that the severity of crime depicted or referenced could also impact how ‘illegal behaviour’ may be applied under the Code by the Panel.
The Panel carefully considered the cumulative impact of how criminal behaviour was portrayed on the product packaging and noted that it did not glamourise contemporary illegal behaviour. However, the Panel acknowledged that while contemporary crime was not necessarily glamourised by the packaging, a clear and dominant association with illegal behaviour had been created through the name and imagery which had resulted in what appeared to be a fairly lengthy prison sentence, therefore inferring that a serious crime had been committed.
The Panel’s consideration of the company’s response to the provisional decision
The Panel considered the company’s response carefully and noted that it primarily focused on other producer marketing in the category and the assertion that the tally marks did not represent a custodial sentence, and that even if they were construed as such, did not necessarily suggest that a serious crime had been committed.
The Panel discussed the company’s concerns regarding similar products which were available in the UK market and the assumption that these were approved by the Portman Group. The Panel stated that it could only consider the merits of the case subject to complaint and highlighted that it had not made a formal decision regarding other products that the company had raised in its response. As the final arbiter of the Code, the Panel would only consider the case against The Reprobates Sparkling Wine and could not provide advice on any changes that may be required to comply with its decision as this was the responsibility of the Portman Group’s Advisory Service.
The Panel discussed the company’s response regarding the product packaging and noted that the company had concluded that ‘the name and image on the bottle had been deemed acceptable by the Portman Group’ which had led it to focus its response on the tally marks which it perceived had tipped the balance of compliance and resulted in an upheld complaint. However, the Panel considered that this fundamentally did not address the concerns it had raised in terms of the overall impression conveyed by the product and noted that the provisional decision did not explicitly state that the tally marks were the only problematic element on the packaging. The Panel highlighted that the provisional decision had stated that the name ‘The Reprobates’ within the context of a mugshot and prison tally count, and a brand name which insinuated that a person lacked principles, reinforced the impression that the character had engaged in illegal behaviour.
In addition to this, the Panel noted that the company had denied that the tally marks were intended to refer to a custodial sentence but equally noted that it had not offered any explanation as to what they were intended to represent nor why they had been included on the packaging.
The Panel then considered the latter half of the company’s response which stated that even if the tally lines were representative of a custodial sentence, a consumer would not interpret them in such a way as they were detached from the main imagery on the label. The Panel discussed this point and considered that as the tally marks and mugshot style image were in the same field of vision, an average consumer would make the brand narrative link between an image of a person being incarcerated and a symbol of passing time in prison; both directly linking to criminal behaviour. The Panel considered that this was the dominant impression conveyed in the absence of any other story-telling cues on pack.
Finally, the Panel then considered the company’s response that if the tally lines were representative of a prison sentence the lines did not necessarily infer a serious crime had been committed as they could represent days or weeks in line with a sentence for a minor misdemeanour which was in keeping with the name ‘The Reprobates’. Taking into account the points made above, the Panel reiterated that the tally lines compounded the impression that the character, who was presented in a mug shot style image, had been convicted of a crime and was counting down the time until release or a period of time served in prison. Therefore, regardless of the specific period conveyed, the impression was still one that the character had been convicted of a crime that was serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence.
Taking the above points into account, the Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s name, a mugshot style image and number tally which inferred that a sufficiently serious, if unspecified, crime had been committed to warrant a custodial sentence, created a direct and dominant association with illegal behaviour. The Panel considered that as there was no other brand narrative to contradict these points, or any alternative explanation offered by the company, it was reasonable to conclude that a consumer would interpret the labelling in this manner. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(b).
3.2(i)
The Panel considered whether the packaging featured in a significant role an image of a person who was, or looked as if they were, under 25 years of age, as raised by the complainant. The Panel first assessed the image of the man and noted that while his age appeared to be somewhat indeterminate, the historical clothing did mean that he was presented in a mature manner. The Panel considered that the spirit of Code rule 3.2(i) was intended to protect under-18s from being exposed to images in alcohol marketing of people with whom they might identify or aspire to be like and that this had been applied by the Panel in previous cases considered under the Code. With that in mind, the Panel considered that the character’s clothing was distinctly different from contemporary fashionable attire and that the character’s style was largely obscured by the presentation of the label. The Panel considered that there was nothing else on the packaging that referenced modern youth culture and further determined that the man was not presented in a way that would be particularly aspirational to under-18s. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not incorporate an image of a person who was, or looked as if they were, under 25 years of age and accordingly the complaint was not upheld under 3.2(i).
Action by Company:
Product discontinued
A complaint against Aldi’s The Reprobates Sparkling Wine has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP). A complaint against The Reprobates California Red has not been upheld, the full decisions can be read here. Both complaints were made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1].
The complaints against both products raised concerns under Code Rule 3.2 (b) that the name and imagery on the labels glamourised illegal or anti-social behaviour. The complaint against The Reprobates Sparkling Wine also concerned Code Rule 3.2 (i), questioning if the adult male on the label on was over the age of 25.
First, the Panel considered the name of the product range, The Reprobates, after hearing from the producer and considering the name in isolation, they concluded that on its own the name, ‘The Reprobates’, did not pose a problem.
The Panel then considered the name in relation to the imagery on both products. The Sparkling Wine included an image of a man holding a blackboard that included the name of the product and on the neck of the bottle was a label with tally marks on. Looking at all these elements in conjunction, the Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s name, the mugshot style image on the label and the prison-style number tally on the bottle neck, all inferred that a serious enough crime had been committed to warrant a custodial sentence, creating the impression of an association with illegal behaviour. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(b). Aldi no longer sells this product.
When considering the name ‘The Reprobates’ alongside the imagery of the California Red, which included the image of a dog wearing a hoodie set against a dark background, the Panel concluded that whilst the image was dark and edgy there was nothing that inherently suggested an association with aggressive or anti-social behaviour. The tally marks were also not present on the California Red. As such the complaint was not upheld for this product.
The Panel also considered whether the label on the Sparkling Wine featured the image of a person who was, or looked as if they were, under 25 years of age. Noting that while his age was indeterminate, the historical clothing did mean he was presented in a mature manner. The Panel considered that there was nothing else on the packaging that referenced modern youth culture and further determined that the man was not presented in a way that would be particularly aspirational to under-18s. The Panel therefore did not uphold the complaint under 3.2(i).
The producer is working with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to ensure the range is now compliant with the Code.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “We considered both of these products in the round to decide if the overall impression was one that was in breach of the Code. The decisions in both cases demonstrate how some features are acceptable in isolation but can become problematic when combined with other design elements.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended
Producer:
Aldi Stores
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:
“Product is called “The Reprobates” (noun – an unprincipled person), the label shows a mono image of a Doberman dog in a hoodie, potentially implying danger and anti-social behaviour if you believe in social stereo-typing”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company welcomed the opportunity to respond to the complaint and stated that it did not believe that the drink’s packaging was in breach of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice.
The company explained that term ‘reprobates’ was used in a light-hearted context and referred to mischievous individuals rather than illegal behaviour. The term ‘reprobates’ was similar to ‘rascal,’ a word which had been deemed acceptable by the Panel in a previous decision, Wolfie’s Whisky. Therefore, the company did not consider that ‘reprobates’ created a direct link to illegal behaviour or violence and stated that similar names were commonly used in the industry.
The company explained that alcohol artwork often employed unconventional and surprising elements to capture attention and the juxtaposition of a dog dressed in a hoodie was intended to create a visually intriguing image. The image was whimsical and a stylised representation that was unusual and eye-catching in order to differentiate from other products in the market. The company stated it was incorrect to suggest that a hoodie, or a dog wearing a hoodie, referenced or glamourised violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal activity. The company explained that ‘hoodies’ had become ubiquitous contemporary fashion attire, worn by all ages and backgrounds and therefore reflected modern aesthetic rather than negative connotations. The company noted the Panel’s decision against Cwtch, which stated that the dishevelled bear, slumped back with empty bottles depicted on the floor, contributed to a breach of Code rule 3.2(b). In contrast, The Reprobates California Red included a realistic image of a dog, with a straight expression that was not intoxicated and with no other elements which could associate the image with alcohol. The company highlighted that the dog itself was not depicted in an aggressive stance such as having raised eyebrows or bared teeth.
The company stated it was committed to the responsible retail of alcohol and complied with alcohol marketing guidelines. The products were exclusively sold in Aldi stores, ensuring they were not marketed to under-18s and the company employed a challenge 25 policy for the sale of alcoholic beverages to prevent underage sales.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging created an association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed the name, ‘The Reprobates’, to determine how reprobate was likely to be understood by UK consumers. The Panel noted the producer’s response that ‘reprobate’ was intended to be akin to ‘rascal’, a word that had previously been found to be acceptable by the Panel under the Code. The Panel considered that in contemporary meaning, ‘reprobate’ was often used in a light-hearted fashion to refer to a person who was mischievous or cheeky rather than as a reference to a criminal. The Panel acknowledged that ‘reprobate’ could be used to reference someone lacking in principles but stated that this did not inherently create an association with criminal or illegal behaviour. As the brand name was acceptable in isolation, the Panel considered that compliance under the Code would be dependent on the overall impression conveyed by the product.
The Panel then discussed the front label which included an image of a dog wearing a hoodie set against a dark background. The Panel considered that the shadowing technique employed meant that the animal appeared edgy and implied a dark tone but noted that this did not go as far to create an association with aggressive or anti-social behaviour. The Panel discussed the depiction of the dog, a Doberman, and noted that it was not an illegal breed within the UK, nor was it a breed associated with dog fighting or unprovoked attacks. Whilst the dog appeared stern, it was not adopting an aggressive stance; it did not have pinned back ears, bared teeth or snarling lips. The Panel noted that the dog was wearing a ‘hoodie’ but considered that, while the dog’s hood was raised, it was not being used in an intimidating manner or obscuring his face in a way that could be suggestive of anti-social behaviour. Furthermore, the Panel considered that a hoodie was a common and popular item of clothing worn by all ages and therefore did not inherently create an association with anti-social behaviour.
In light of the above, the Panel considered the rest of the label which did not include any other reference to violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour and therefore concluded that the packaging did not breach the Code. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(b).
Action by Company:
None required.
A complaint against Hooch Lemon’s 1995 Limited Edition Can has not been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, which was self-referred by the producer, Global Brands, asked the Panel to review the limited-edition version of Hooch Lemon under Code rule 3.2(h) which ensures a product cannot have a particular appeal to under-18s. In a first for the regulator, Global Brands self-referred the complaint to the Panel, in agreement with the Portman Group, when concerns were raised on the basis of a 1996 upheld decision by the Portman Group under the First Edition of the Code.
The producer planned to release the limited-edition can that emulated the original 1995 design which featured a cartoon lemon. The company explained that the design was a special 30th Anniversary edition and that slight changes had been made, especially to the prominent character on the product, the Lemon Man, to comply with the Code. The company also argued that consumer attitudes and regulatory standards had evolved over the years to the point where the packaging would not have a particular appeal to under-18s today.
Whilst the Panel would not normally revisit previous decisions, it was agreed that an exception could be made as the 1996 ruling was made by the Portman Group executive in the few months before the Independent Complaints Panel was set up in January 1997.
While the Panel was mindful that an upheld decision had been made in 1996, this had been based on the lemon’s similarity to motifs popular in the ‘90s and therefore resonated with under-18s at the time. The Panel noted that in the 30 years that had passed since, contemporary marketing styles, societal standards and more developed regulatory guidance had evolved, changing what particularly appealed to children today.
After consideration, the Panel considered that while the packaging did incorporate a personified lemon, it did not feature characteristics that would have a particular appeal to under-18s. In addition to this, the Panel concluded that the mature straight-lined fonts, limited use of colour and clear nostalgic appeal to adults meant that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs said: “This was a unique case and there was a good argument for the Panel revisiting this issue, given the exceptional circumstances of the previous ruling. After nearly 30 years of Panel decisions, developed regulatory guidance and inevitable changes in consumer attitudes, as well as the changes that were made to the design of the product in question, it was determined that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s today. It is important to note that this unique set of circumstances does not apply to other decisions made by the Panel but I was pleased to see that, when an anomaly was discovered, the producer voluntarily pursued a responsible resolution in agreement with the Portman Group.”
Matt Bulcroft, Marketing Director Global Brands Ltd said: “We are grateful to have had the opportunity to work alongside the Portman Group throughout this process. As a responsible drinks producer, we value the important role they play in upholding high standards across the industry, and ensuring consumers can have confidence in the brands they buy from, which is why we made the decision to self-refer to the Panel.
“We welcome their careful review of Hooch’s fun and nostalgic lemon character, and are pleased with the outcome of the ruling, which has allowed our original Hooch fans to relive their memories from when it first landed on shelves 30 years ago.
“Our commitment to producing and promoting our drinks responsibly remains central to Global Brands, and we appreciate the Portman Group’s continued partnership in supporting best practice across the sector.”
Producer:
Global Brands
Complainant:
Self-referral
Complaint:
“Global Brands addressed compliance concerns raised by The Portman Group regarding a planned Hooch 90th Anniversary limited-edition packaging featuring the original “Lemon Man” design. Global Brands acknowledged the historical context of the 1996 ruling against the design and voluntarily self-referred the matter to the Independent Complaints Panel for reassessment under modern standards.
Global Brands highlighted that it was amongst a very few select cases in the Portman Group’s history where the original ruling was made before the establishment of the Independent Complaints Panel in 1997. Global Brands stated that the design had been updated to reduce youth appeal and that this design was aligned with recent Panel precedents, as opposed to those which were made nearly 30 years ago. Global Brands also highlighted that the RTD (ready-to-drink) category had evolved since 1996, with reduced appeal to minors and lower average alcohol by volume (ABV).
On the basis of these changed circumstances, Global Brands reiterated its commitment to responsible marketing and requested a fair review by the Independent Complaints Panel”.
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
As a long-standing signatory to the Code of Practice, the company stated it valued its relationship with the Portman Group and the guidance it provided in fostering a responsible and trusted alcohol industry. The company emphasised its serious commitment to adhering to the Code’s principles and highlighted its proactive efforts to reduce the alcoholic strength of products across its Ready to Drink (RTD) portfolio. This included Hooch, which had a 3.4% alcoholic strength by volume (ABV), demonstrating its dedication to moderation, responsibility and product stewardship.
The company stated that the Hooch Lemon 1995 Limited Edition can was explicitly positioned for an adult audience, supported by independent consumer insight and behavioural data, with over 87% of its consumer base aged 35 and over. The company explained that this was achieved through a strategy to re-engage consumers with a nostalgic connection to the brand’s original launch in 1995. The campaign referenced cultural touchstones and irreverent humour that were understood by those who were adults or teenagers in the 1990s. The design choices and brand voice were deliberately calibrated to resonate with a mature demographic rather than under-18s. The company explained that there were clear parallels with other complaint precedents, where the Panel had acknowledged that retro characters were acceptable when they clearly resonated with older consumers.
The company explained that the can was designed with a mature, nostalgic aesthetic, featuring black as the primary colour, which was not typically associated with children’s products. The company added that yellow had been used sparingly to denote flavour rather than for decoration or playfulness. Serif and refined fonts were employed instead of bubble or playful styles that were often linked to children’s media. Furthermore, the Hooch logo was bold, sharp and structured, avoiding cartoonish forms. The company stated this design aligned with the Portman Group’s guidance and was consistent with previous Panel decisions on products such as Cwtch, AU Vodka Bubblegum, and Wingman.
The company explained that as the word ‘lemonade’ featured on the product, a considered effort was made to ensure the drink’s alcoholic nature was clearly communicated. The company highlighted that the packaging prominently displayed the term “Alcoholic Lemonade”, included multiple ABV indicators, responsible drinking messages and an 18+ icon. The company explained that this was aligned with the market standard for similar drinks.
The company stated that the lemon character on the can was based on a grimacing icon from the original 1995 campaign which was part of the “refreshment with a bite” platform. Its visual design was aligned with subversive, adult-oriented cartoons from the 1990s, such as Ren & Stimpy and Beavis & Butt-Head. The company explained that this aesthetic contrasted sharply with modern children’s media, which typically featured soft shapes, bright colours and friendly expressions. The lemon lacked limbs, a smile or eyes — traits commonly associated with child-oriented characters — and was instead used as a visual metaphor for strong flavour rather than as a mascot. The company stated that the cultural and generational gap between the can artwork and contemporary children’s entertainment was crucial to demonstrating compliance with Code rule 3.2(h). Furthermore, the company considered that recent similar precedents supported the position that the combination of retro styling and absence of childlike traits were acceptable and this included packaging that featured characters.
The company explained that in the broader context, RTDs were consumed by only 10% of underage drinkers, significantly less than beer, cider, and spirits. The company highlighted NHS data which reflected a category breakdown beyond traditional “Alcopops”, such as canned cocktails and spirit-and-mixers, many of which were not colourful or fruit-led. The company stated that the assumption that RTDs inherently appealed to under-18s was not supported by data and therefore the assessment of the packaging should be based purely on its actual design and presentation, which would not attract underage interest.
The company submitted commissioned research which demonstrated that the Hooch Lemon 1995 Limited Edition can resonated predominately with consumers aged 31-60. The company also highlighted data within this which reflected that younger consumers were more engaged with other SKUs in its portfolio. Furthermore, its commissioned research showed that the majority of consumers recognised the drink as alcoholic when compared with two other similar drinks that had previously been considered by the Panel with no breach of the Code being found in either case.
The company concluded that the above points demonstrated that the drink was nostalgic and appealed to a mature audience and therefore was not in breach of the Code.
The Panel’s assessment
The Chair explained that the company had chosen to self-refer a complaint regarding the Hooch Lemon 1995 Limited Edition can after it had been contacted by the Portman Group regarding a potential compliance issue. The company had self-referred the complaint to the Panel on the basis that similar packaging had been upheld in 1996 by the Portman Group under the First Edition of the Code as it was found to appeal to under-18s. The Chair stated that this was one of a select few of cases that had been subject to a decision by the Portman Group, rather than the Panel which had been created in 1997 and had been made at a time where there was significant concern regarding alcopops. In addition to this, the Chair noted that in compliance discussions with the Portman Group, the company had highlighted that regulatory standards had evolved over time and that the packaging had been amended to ensure that it did not have a particular appeal to under-18s today. In agreement with the Portman Group, the company had therefore self-referred the case to the Panel to determine if it was acceptable under the Code. The Panel noted this information and thanked the company for its proactive action given the unique set of circumstances that pertained to the case.
The Panel discussed the 1996 decision regarding Hooch which had concluded that the personified lemon was similar to motifs of the time and therefore appealed to under-18s. The Panel considered the company’s response and acknowledged that in the 30 years that had passed since the original decision was made, children’s media and marketing had evolved significantly. The Panel also noted that its own understanding of marketing techniques that were used to appeal to under-18s had developed and that this was informed and supported by research from the children’s marketing agency Kids Industries[1]. The Panel acknowledged that the original decision was based on the personified lemon being similar in appearance to ‘existing motifs appealing to under-18s’ in 1996 and considered that as 30 years had passed it was important to assess the current packaging against updated precedents and guidance, new research, contemporary marketing styles and current societal standards.
The Panel assessed the front label and noted that it included a large personified yellow lemon on a predominantly black background. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(h), which had been informed by the Kids Industries report, and noted that the lemon did have some elements which could appeal to under-18s such as a thick black key line and relatively simple design. However, the Panel noted that the lemon had a grimaced facial expression with its teeth exposed and lips pulled apart which gave a menacing impression. Furthermore, the Panel noted that the lemon had small eyes which were furrowed into a frowned expression. The Panel considered that the lemon did not appear to be playful or friendly and was unlikely to be engaging to a younger audience as it differed vastly from children’s cartoon characters who usually adopted a welcoming stance, large eyes and a smiling face. The Panel considered that while the imagery included the use of yellow, the colour palette overall was saturated and there were few contrasts with minimal use of primary colours. The Panel discussed the company’s response and the decision to use the colour yellow sparingly to denote flavour and the choice to update the design of the lemon so that it was more aligned in design with adult-orientated cartoons from the 90s. With this in mind, the Panel noted that the lemon did not have a friendly demeanour or welcoming features and appeared in an overall design with a limited colour palette. Furthermore, the Panel noted that the design of the lemon was very similar to that which had appeared on the original 1995 packaging and would be recognised by adult consumers. As the lemon did not bear similarity to characters that were popular with contemporary children, the Panel considered that the lemon would instead have a particular nostalgic appeal to those who would remember it from the 90s and would now be over 30 years old. On this basis, the Panel considered that the lemon character did not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel then considered the overall impression conveyed by the rest of the packaging. The Panel noted that the majority of the label was black, with yellow highlights used for font, the lemon, the rim and base of the can, alongside small uses of green and red. The Panel considered that the predominantly black label conveyed a mature impression and the use of the straight-lined serif font also contributed to an adult-orientated style. The Panel discussed the lemonade flavour and considered that this would have a broad appeal across all age groups. The Panel noted that at the bottom of the can was a box which read ‘since 1995’ and was presented as a motif to popular Brit Pop band Oasis, who had recently reformed and launched a UK tour. In addition to this, at the top of the can, was a green banner which read ‘30 years of’, further conveying that the product was targeted at a very specific adult demographic. The Panel considered that both these cues emphasised the nostalgic appeal the drink would have to those who were young adults in the 90s and would not hold a particular appeal to under-18s today.
While the Panel was mindful that an upheld decision had been made against Hooch by the Portman Group in 1996, this had been based on its similarity to motifs which had been popular in the 90s and therefore resonated with under-18s at the time. In this particular case, the Panel noted that in the 30 years that had passed since the original decision, contemporary marketing styles and societal standards had evolved which had fundamentally changed what would particularly appeal to children today. This shift in cultural landscape had also been accompanied by more detailed and developed regulatory guidance which had informed updated understanding as to what marketing elements could have a particular appeal to under-18s. In this context, the Panel concluded that while the packaging did incorporate a personified lemon, it did not have welcoming, friendly features, was presented with a menacing grimace and did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel also considered that the packaging used mature straight-lined fonts, limited use of colour and incorporated elements which had clear nostalgic appeal to adults such as references to a 30-year anniversary and the year 1995. Taking these points into account, the Panel concluded that the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the packaging was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.
[1] Marketing That Appeals to Under 18s, Prepared for the Portman Group and the Independent Complaints Panel by Kids Industries, 2023
A complaint against Lervig’s Passion Tang Sour Ale has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market[1], raised concerns under Code Rule 3.1, that the product did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity.
The Panel heard from the producer that the can was designed ‘in the round’ with no specific front or back and that the term ‘Sour Ale’ and the ABV (alcohol by volume) were present on the can. On examining the can the Panel noted that the design was fairly busy with an overt emphasis on passionfruit and that the positive alcohol cues were presented in relatively small font size on one side of the can.
The Panel also discussed the can size and the name and noted that the 330ml can and the name ‘Passion Tang’ are both associated with non-alcoholic soft drinks. They noted the inclusion of the descriptor and ABV as well as the pregnancy warning label but that these were in a small font size and were hard to read amongst the design of the can as a whole.
On considering all these elements, the Panel found that they detracted from the product’s alcoholic nature and could cause consumer confusion and so the Panel found that the packaging did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and accordingly upheld the complaint under Code Rule 3.1.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “It is not always enough simply to include positive alcohol cues. Producers must ensure that they are clear and sufficiently obvious to counter a significant emphasis on fruit imagery flavours, as was seen in this case.”
[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended