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.