Company: Halewood International
Breach: Yes
Final Decision: 21 June 2000
Considered under the 2nd Edition of the Code.
Complaint summary
“Under 3.1(c), the word ‘sorted’ suggests and association with violent, aggressive, dangerous behaviour. Under 3.1(d), the naming of this drink glamorises the use of illicit drugs and associates use of alcohol with drugs. Under 3.1(h), the name of the drink has been chosen in an attempt to appeal and be seen to be in touch with young people.”
Complainant
Member of the public from Derbyshire
Decision
Under Code paragraph 3.1(c)
The brand name, product descriptor, packaging (including any containers and any external wrapping), labelling and point of sale materials of any alcoholic drink should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with violent, aggressive, dangerous or anti-social behaviour.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.1(d)
The brand name, product descriptor, packaging (including any containers and any external wrapping), labelling and point of sale materials of any alcoholic drink should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with, acceptance of, or allusion to illicit drugs.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.1 (h)
The brand name, product descriptor, packaging (including any containers and any external wrapping), labelling and point of sale materials of any alcoholic drink should not in any direct or indirect way be more likely to appeal to under 18s than adults.
NOT UPHELD
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel considered that the word “sorted” could convey a number of different meanings. The Panel noted that the phrase “to sort someone out” had the meaning of dealing with someone by aggressive or violent means. In this instance, the Panel decided that the word “sorted”, taken together with the image of a target viewed through a gun site as featured on the front label, conveyed an association with violent, aggressive, dangerous or anti-social behaviour. Thus, the Panel upheld the complaint under paragraph 3.1(c) of the Code.
The Panel did not consider, in this case, that the word “sorted” had been used in such as way as to suggest any association with, acceptance of, or allusion to illicit drugs. Thus, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under paragraph 3.1(d) of the Code.
The Panel thought that it was possible that the product might appeal to under 18s. However, the Panel did not think that the product would be more likely to appeal to under 18s that to adults. Thus, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under paragraph 3.1(h) of the Code.
Action by company
The Panel is pleased to note that the company was in communication with the separate Portman Group Advisory Service and intended to comply with the Code.