Product:
BEAK AND THE RED LEVIATHAN 6.8% SOUR ALE
Producer:
Beak Brewery
Complaint:
The cartoon branding on many Beak Brewery alcoholic drinks is in a style that can far too easily appeal to young children (against Rule 3.2(h) appealing to Under 18s). The visual styling with bright, bold nursery colours wouldn’t look out of place in a kindergarten, and is very close to several popular children’s author/illustrator/franchises. Dick Bruna (most famous for ‘Miffy’), Jan Pienkowski (most famous for ‘Meg & Mog’), and Roger Hargreaves (Mr Men), immediately spring to mind, but I’m sure there are others.
The characters on Beak’s packaging include fun, cute people, animals and anthropomorphic weather symbols, just like you might encounter in a children’s book. On cans, the thick, geometric typographic styling of the word ‘BEAK’ combined with these cartoons resembles the cover of Mr Men books.
There is little adult sophistication in the illustration style as a whole. A not yet literate child could easily be attracted to these drinks and not be able to even read or understand that it was alcohol.
Additionally, Beak AND THE RED LEVIATHAN 6.8% SOUR ALE features a cartoon of a man effortlessly carrying a barrel above his head, suggesting the product enhances the drinker’s physical strength (Rule 3.2(j)). The name ‘Leviathan’ itself suggests this drink is excessively strong (Rule 3.2(a)), with Leviathan in modern usage meaning something that is overwhelmingly monstrous and powerful. I am sure this is all unintentional on Beak’s part, but responsible alcohol manufacturers should surely be striving to create the very opposite of toddler-friendly alcohol packaging. Attached is a PDF of some examples of said children’s illustrators’ work next to Beaks products.
Complainant:
Member of the public.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1 – The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
NOT UPHELD
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.
NOT UPHELD
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.
NOT 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 stated it was surprised to learn of the complaint from one member of the public, as it was the first it had received in nearly a decade. The company explained that it took social responsibility seriously and that it was willing to work within the parameters set out by the Code of Practice which it respected and supported.
The company stated that it was founded in 2015 at a time where the craft beer market was dominated by stereotypically male-centric imagery such as dark, detailed fantastical illustrations which appealed to a specific segment of the market. To ensure Beak appealed to a wider more inclusive demographic, the company worked with a graphic designer and an internationally known artist, to create branding which would capture the imagination of consumers beyond the beer market, who enjoyed art, fashion, literature and culture. The company explained that the branding was inspired by a number of sophisticated adult-centric brand styles which invoked adult interests of eating out, epicureanism and enjoyment of premium products. The company included a statement by the artist which explained that the branding of the drink was inspired by simple and direct forms of art which appealed to an adult audience.
The company stated it was an independently owned ‘Living Wage’ accredited small business and took social responsibility extremely seriously by considering the positioning and impact of its products within the community at all stages of conception.
The company explained it had strict internal standards to ensure that its drinks did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and complied with the Code of Practice, for instance, by not featuring depictions of children, toys or things commonly associated with children. The company explained that its colour palette was restricted to three main colours: yellow, red and blue, inspired by artists such as Mirò and Mondrian. The company highlighted that these were not combined with secondary colours like purple, pink or orange which young children could have an affinity with according to research quoted in the Portman Group/Kids Industries Report.
In addition to this, the company stated that its labels all featured a plain white background with black writing to clearly communicate the beers’ alcoholic nature. The company stated that its labels were simple, not overly busy and included numerous positive alcohol cues on the back of each can.
The company stated that because it adhered to strict internal marketing guidelines, it had not received any prior complaints that any of its drinks had a particular appeal to under-18s and that it also exported to markets with strict labelling guidelines without complaint. The company explained that the drinks had been promoted by several adult focused publications and that the company had been approached by adult targeted businesses to enter sponsorship agreements which was indicative of the brand’s appeal to adults. This was also demonstrated through the company’s own social media data which reflected that the two largest demographics of its followers were consumers aged 35-44 and 25-34 respectively.
In regard to the specific concerns raised by the complainant, the company stated that it strongly refuted that minimalistic primary colour artwork on beers was unsophisticated and could appeal to under-18s. The company noted that the artist’s work, in broadly the same style as its own packaging, had been used across a number of adult brands including pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, architectural firms as well as on other alcohol brands.
The company explained that a simple, colourful design did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s and cited several bestselling children’s books which included complex and detailed imagery. In addition to this, the company highlighted that simple illustrated characters appeared in a wealth of adult centric content such as graphic novels, pop art, anime and record sleeve designs. The company explained that its labels were not in any way informed by children’s books and any unintentional similarity to the titles mentioned by the complainant could be seen as nostalgic or retro, as those books were more than half a century old. The company explained that whether or not an image would have appeal to under-18s would be dependent on the context in which it was presented citing similar cases previously considered by the Panel which included Gamma Ray and Keller Pils. The company stated that a simple design which appeared in children’s media might appeal to under-18s but that the same design on alcohol marketing would have less appeal to children because of the adult context. The company emphasised that its designs appeared only in a context aimed at adults and that it did not distribute its products to supermarkets, instead it sold to 800+ independent specialist wine and beer bottle shops aimed at adults.
The company explained that none of the designs used on its packaging featured any child centric motifs and were presented in a clear adult context. The company stated that all of its labels featured the word ‘Beak’ on the front in Brandon Grotesque font which was influenced by the geometric-style sans serif fonts that were popular during the 1920s and 30s. The font was considered a modernist classic and had been used to promote universities and political campaigns and was not particularly attractive to young people.
Additionally, the company noted that Portman Group Guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) stated that inclusion of characters or anthropomorphic animals were not inherently problematic. The company explained that its artwork was deeply conceptual and represented adult-focused themes such as climate change, the importance of friendship and socially responsible drinking.
The company refuted the complainant’s claim that the packaging suggested it could enhance a consumer’s strength. The company explained that Beak and the Red Leviathan was one of two beers in a series, the first called ‘The Mariner, The Barrel’ and the second being ‘and the Red Leviathan’. The company explained that both drinks had the same base beer, with one that was fruit flavoured and were marketed as a duo set of drinks. The full name of the series ‘The Mariner, the Barrel and the Red Leviathan’ was employed to invoke old seafaring tales and inspire the imagination of the customer. The company explained that the barrel being carried in the image was a reference to the fact the beer was a blend of barrel-aged beers and that this information was clearly stated on the label. The company considered it was tenuous to interpret the image as a suggestion that consumption of the drink would enhance a consumer’s strength.
Finally, the company stated it was incorrect to consider that the word ‘Leviathan’ related to the strength of the drink. The company explained that ‘Leviathan’ was a term used to describe a sea monster or whale and the inclusion of ‘Leviathan’ was to tie into the nautical theme of the packaging. The company explained that the beer’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) was 6.5% which was slightly above the average of the other beers it sold, but lower than a number of beers in its range. The company stated that for consumers familiar with beer, it did not believe that 6.5% ABV would be considered a strong beer.
The company stated that if the outcome of the complaint was to find that the inclusion of primary colours and simple line drawn characters were inherently problematic, even when used in an adult context, it would set a devastating precedent for both the company and the craft alcohol sector as a whole.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel considered the front label which included an illustration of a person lifting a barrel above their head on a beach by the sea. The Panel noted that it was clear from the producer response that a considerable amount of thought had been given to the design, with inspiration deriving from simple and direct forms of art.
The Panel noted that the style of the design was a simple line drawing and included a black keyline. Colour had been used sparingly, with small elements being coloured while the majority of the design was black and white. The Panel discussed these elements and noted that thick black keylines and contrasting primary colours could contribute to a level of appeal to under-18s but that these were factors, alongside the simplistic design, to be considered in context of the overall impression conveyed by the product artwork. The Panel then considered the character in more detail, noting that it was an adult carrying a barrel and such an activity, which would usually be performed as part of a job, would not resonate particularly with children. The Panel also noted that there were no other elements, such as anthropomorphic depictions or broader themes which would particularly resonate with under-18s.
After careful consideration of the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel considered that the inclusion of an adult character, minimal use of colour and lack of any imagery that would particularly resonate with under-18s meant that the product did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
While considering whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel observed that the front label included the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the descriptor ‘Sour Ale’. When assessing the back label, the Panel considered that there were multiple positive alcohol cues on the label including a reference to beer, ale, brewing, signposting to Drinkaware, unit content information and the drink’s ABV. When considering the overall impression conveyed by the packaging, the Panel stated that there were sufficient positive alcohol cues and concluded that the label clearly communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the packaging under Code rule 3.1.
3.2(a)
The Panel considered whether the packaging gave the higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis as raised by the complainant. The Panel considered the front label and discussed whether the image of the person carrying a barrel could emphasise the strength or intoxicating effect of the alcoholic drink. The Panel considered that while the image represented a strong person, it did not create a link to the drink’s strength or its intoxicating effect. The Panel then assessed the rest of the label and noted that there was nothing else on the packaging which marketed the drink on its higher alcoholic strength or its intoxicating effect. Noting the company’s response, the Panel also acknowledged that the ABV of the drink was not a particularly strong beer comparatively to the rest of the BEAK range.
In light of the above, the Panel concluded that there were no elements on the product packaging or product artwork which gave the higher alcoholic strength, or the intoxicating effect of the drink, undue emphasis. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(a).
3.2(j)
Finally, the Panel considered whether the drink’s packaging suggested that the drink had therapeutic qualities or could enhance physical capabilities as raised by the complainant. The Panel noted that the character on the front of the label was lifting a barrel and that a person would need to be particularly strong in order to do so but that it was not reflective of an inhuman feat of strength. The Panel then considered the meaning of the word ‘leviathan’ and noted the company’s response that it was intended to reference a mythical sea creature or large whale. The Panel discussed the company’s explanation that the drink was part of a duo, with the accompanying beer named ‘The Mariner, The Barrel’ which would give more context to the interpretation of ‘leviathan’ referring to a sea creature. However, the Panel noted that the two drinks could be purchased individually and that it was therefore reasonable to consider ‘Beak and The Red Leviathan’ in isolation. With that in mind, the Panel discussed the word ‘leviathan’ and noted that it could mean something that was ‘overwhelmingly powerful’ but that the word was not a commonly used one and had multiple meanings. The Panel then assessed the rest of the label and noted there was nothing else on the packaging which suggested that consumption of the drink could make a person physically strong. In that context, the Panel considered that the name ‘leviathan’ did not categorically infer that drinking the beer would provide a therapeutic quality or enhance physical capabilities.
Therefore, the Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the packaging did not suggest that the drink had therapeutic properties or could enhance physical capabilities. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under 3.2(j).
Action by Company:
None required.