For nearly thirty years the Portman Group’s Code of Practice has set the minimum standards for alcohol producers to market their products responsibly, and resulted in nearly 200 inappropriate and irresponsible products being removed from shelves.
The Code of Practice covers the naming, packaging, and promotion of any alcoholic products which are marketed in the UK and now has 12 code rules which all producers must abide by if they are selling or marketing a product in the UK. It ensures that alcohol is marketed in a socially responsible way, only to those aged 18 and over, and in a way that does not appeal particularly to those who are vulnerable.
Since 1996 when it was first introduced, the Code has resulted in nearly 200 irresponsible and inappropriate alcohol products being removed from shelves, in turn protecting consumers and increasing standards across the drinks industry.
A look back over the years provides an eye-opening insight into how alcohol marketing has evolved in line with an increase in moderate drinking and social changes in society, resulting in a more responsible industry than ever.
Now in its sixth edition (amended), we’ve gone through the archives of upheld complaints to see just how far alcohol marketing has come as a result of our Code of Practice.
1996 – TNT Liquid Dynamite
A complaint suggested the product had an association with violent, aggressive, dangerous and anti-social imagery and behaviour given the perception of dynamite and its use in bringing about destruction.
The Panel upheld the complaint under two aspects of the Code, citing that the imagery was of concern and that a reasonable person looking at its packaging could reasonably conclude that there was an association with dangerous behaviour.
1997 – Bullshit Lager
A complaint was upheld against this Newcastle brewed beer on the basis its less than polite name was more likely to appeal to under-18s than adults. The Panel also noted the cartoon picture of the bull snorting on the front of the bottle, and defecating on the back of it, were features that would appeal predominantly to under-18s.
2002 – Cannabis vodka
Code rule 3.2(c) states that alcoholic products shouldn’t suggest any association with illegal or illicit drugs, so it’s no surprise that the Panel upheld a complaint against this prominently themed cannabis vodka.
2003 – Shag lager
Despite the producer arguing that the name of this lime flavoured lager denoted a type of seabird which was featured on the label, the Panel noted that it was also a commonly used slang term for sexual intercourse and that consumers were more likely to interpret the brand name in this way. They therefore upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(d) which at the time stated that alcohol products should not have any link with sexual success.
2005 – Kalashnikov Vodka
A complaint against this product suggested the name was “entirely inappropriate for an alcoholic drink, as the general public would immediately associate the name with the world famous weapon, the AK-47, which has become a global symbol for terror and violence.”. The Panel agreed and upheld it under Code rule 3.2(b).
2007 – Rubel sexy lager
This bottled Belgian beer was removed from shelves in the UK in 2007 after the Panel ruled that the name of the product, and the image featuring a woman in a scantily clad swimsuit, contravened Code rule 3.2(d) stating alcohol products shouldn’t have any link with sexual success. The product also had an interactive feature where consumers could scratch off the swimsuit to reveal a naked woman.
2011 – Suck and blow
A complaint against these alcoholic jelly shot tubes, which were designed for one person to blow into another’s mouth, was upheld under three different aspects of the Code. The Panel found the product appealed to under-18s (Code rule 3.2h), created an association with sexual success (3.2d) and encouraged the consumer to drink rapidly (Code rule 3.2g).
2018 – Pink IPA
This limited edition BrewDog IPA was released for International Women’s Day to generate discussion around the gender pay gap. While the Panel acknowledged the product was intended to be ironic, they noted the dictionary definition of ‘girl’ was ‘female child’ and found the phrase ‘beer for girls’ created a link between beer and children. They therefore upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
2018 – Three Pugs Bubblegum gin liqueur
While the Panel stated the alcoholic nature of this product was communicated with clarity in terms of its name and ABV, they upheld a complaint against this product on the grounds that it could have particular appeal to under-18s. While they noted that pugs aren’t inherently appealing to young children, they found the pugs’ features had been exaggerated and had been depicted in a hot air balloon scenario more akin to a child’s adventure story.
2021 – Quickie wine
A complaint against this wine stated its “objectifying, sexual branding” was “outdated and offensive”. The Panel found it created a direct link to sexual activity (3.2d) and also upheld it against our newest Code rule (3.3) which was introduced in 2019 to protect against products causing serious or widespread offence. It noted the image placed unnecessary focus on the woman’s body in a sexualised manner, and depicted a power imbalance between men and women which could cause serious offence based on gender and sex.
Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group, commented: “These examples are a real testament to the alcohol industry’s effective and robust self-regulatory model, and the impact the Portman Group has had over the years in shifting marketing culture and raising standards to protect consumers. With nearly two hundred products removed from shelves, the industry has come a long way over the years and we will continue to work closely with producers to enforce responsible marketing.”