Producer:
Zonte’s Footstep
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:
“Image of a young woman in a significant position on the bottle. The wine is called Violet Beauregarde, after the fictional character who was one of five children who enters Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory, similar to the bottle design she blew bubblegum, and became a blueberry, which is referenced in the label description in the context of the dominant flavours in the wine”.
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
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 concerns raised in the complaint. The company explained that the image on the bottle was an artistic representation created by an artist, Bianca Smith, based on the story behind the wine’s name. The company clarified that the artwork featured an adult model over the age of 25 to comply with Australian advertising codes. Although inspired by the fictional character Violet Beauregarde from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the design deliberately avoided depicting the actual character, with the only connection being the bubble of gum. The company explained that the character was widely recognised as fictional and not a real person. The design aimed to evoke the whimsical nature of the story while highlighting the wine’s unique blueberry characteristics, ensuring it was marketed as a product for adults aged 18 and over.
The company explained that the reference to Roald Dahl’s work was intended to add a playful and memorable element to the branding, aimed at adults rather than under-18s. The wine was marketed to an adult audience, with packaging and promotional materials designed to highlight the sophisticated flavour profile rather than appeal to children. The company highlighted that Violet Beauregard Malbec 2020 had been well-received by adult consumers, particularly for its distinctive blueberry notes and creative branding. The name and design were carefully chosen to reflect the wine’s unique characteristics and to stand out in a competitive market.
The company stated that similar precedent cases including Little Pomona Table Cider and Zymurgorium Forced Darkside Rhubarb Gin Liqueur, demonstrated that the context and intent behind branding were considered by the Panel. The company explained that the wine similarly targeted an adult audience and did not feature imagery or references that would primarily appeal to under-18s.
The company respectfully submitted that Violet Beauregard Malbec 2020 did not breach Code rules 3.2(i) or 3.2(h). The company stated that the branding and marketing were intended for an adult audience, with references to fictional characters enhancing the product’s identity without appealing to under-18s. The company expressed appreciation for the Panel’s consideration and affirmed its commitment to responsible marketing standards.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(i)
The Panel considered whether the packaging incorporated an image of a person who was, or looked as if they were, under 25 years of age featured in a significant role as raised by the complainant. The Panel considered the imagery on the front of the bottle, noting that it was a sketched minimalist drawing of a woman with a large pink bubble covering the majority of her face. The Panel discussed the drink’s name, Violet Beauregard, who was one of the children featured in Roald Dahl’s novel Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Violet was depicted in the book and in the subsequent 1971 and 2005 films as a child around age 11. The Panel noted the company’s response that the depiction of Violet Beauregard in this case was based on artwork of an adult over the age of 25.
The Panel then considered the overall presentation of the illustration and noted that the use of detail and shadowing techniques, particularly around the eyes and eyebrows, depicted the woman in a mature adult manner. The Panel discussed the facial expression and body position of the woman which gave a suggestive quality to the illustration, further reflecting that the character was an adult. The Panel considered that the character was clearly presented as a depiction of Violet Beauregard, and this was compounded by the inclusion of her name and the bubble gum imagery, an item synonymous with the fictional character. However, the Panel noted that the presentation of the character as an adult was clearly a reimagined version of the character and was unlikely to be recognised by children.
Taking the above points into consideration, the Panel considered that the sophisticated artwork, combined with the adult features of the woman, meant she did not appear to be under-25. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(i).
3.2(h)
At the preliminary investigation stage of the complaint, the Panel Chair raised Code rule 3.2(h) for consideration to determine whether the name or packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel first discussed the drink’s name, Violet Beauregard, and noted that she was a prominent character in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a story by Roald Dahl which was first published in 1964. The Panel noted that Roald Dahl was a renowned children’s author who published work through most of the latter half of the 20th century. The Panel considered that many adults would be familiar with his books from their own childhoods and therefore, he would have a level of nostalgic appeal to adults. The Panel also noted that children today would equally recognise his novels, particularly as some were still very popular with primary school aged children.
The Panel then discussed the drink’s name and noted that Violet Beauregard featured fairly prominently in the original story as one of the five children that had won a golden ticket and toured Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, although the Panel acknowledged that she was not one of the main protagonists. The Panel expressed concern that any inclusion or reference to a character that featured in a story targeted predominantly at children would be at risk of having a particular appeal to under-18s but that, as always, the overall impression conveyed by the packaging would ultimately determine compliance with the Code.
With that in mind, the Panel considered that the front label was fairly simple in design, with a detailed charcoal-style illustration as the predominant focal point, which was set against a white background. In the context of its decision under Code rule 3.2(i), the Panel considered that the character was over the age of 25 and therefore the adult nature of the woman created a degree of separation from the book character. The Panel considered that children would be unlikely to recognise the illustration as Violet Beauregard from the story on that basis, as they would expect her to be depicted as a child rather than a mature woman and therefore the imagery was unlikely to resonate with young children. The Panel noted that the label did not include elements such as cartoon imagery, bright contrasting colours or thick bold keylines, which were all elements that could contribute to a product having a particular appeal to under-18s. In this case, the Panel considered the sketched nature of the imagery, with its limited use of colour and detailed complex design achieved through shading and shadow effects and concluded that the illustration was sophisticated in design and would appeal more to an adult audience.
The Panel then considered the back label and noted that while the majority of the copy referred to the fruit flavours of the wine, there were references to Veruca Salt and Augustus Gloop, two other characters from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The back label also included a quote attributed to Roald Dahl which read as ‘It’s amazing! Blueberry pie and ice cream! I can feel it running down my throat’. The Panel discussed that while Roald Dahl stories remained popular with under-18s, the movie adaptations of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were both 50 and 20 years old respectively. The Panel noted that in recent years, Wonka, a movie which focused on the enigmatic Willy Wonka’s backstory, was popular with under-18s; however, the film did not feature any of the children mentioned in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Furthermore, the Panel considered the positioning of the references on the back label and noted that they were not overt and therefore Violet Beauregard, Veruca Salt and Augustus Gloop might be less recognisable to under-18s on that basis.
After much debate, the Panel considered that the inclusion of any character that featured in a children’s story was at risk of having a particular appeal to under-18s. However, in this specific instance, because the character was presented as a reimagined adult version of Violet Beauregard, the Panel considered it would be unlikely that the character would be recognised by under-18s as the girl in the children’s story. Taking into account that the other references to Roald Dahl and the child characters were on the back of the label, and that there were no other cues on the packaging which would contribute to it having a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel considered that the product was sufficiently far enough removed from the aspects of the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory story that it did not have particular appeal to under 18s. Therefore, the Panel concluded that while the name and packaging was close to the line of acceptability, the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.