Company: Howe Shedden Associates
Breach: No
Final Decision: 17 January 2003
Considered under the 2nd Edition of the Code.
Complaint summary
“The name ‘zippers’ is American for your ‘flies’. The logo is a pair of half undone flies which is very sexual. The abv is printed in very small type. The product does not look like a premium shot but more like a kids’ pudding pot. They have launched directly to the off-trade rather than going through the securer on trade.”
Complainant
Haggards Brewery
Decision
Under Code paragraph 3.1(a)
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 confusion as to the alcoholic nature and strength of the product, but should clearly communicate the alcoholic nature of the product and its strength to the purchaser or consumer.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.1(e)
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 sexual success or prowess.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.1(g)
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 encourage purchase by or sale to under 18s.
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 noted that the outer packaging featured the product descriptor ‘Vodka Jelly Shot’ as well as a statement of the product’s alcoholic strength which was displayed as ‘12% vol’ (although it noted that the words ‘alcohol by volume’ had been omitted). The Panel concluded that both were sufficiently prominent to convey the product’s alcoholic nature and strength. The Panel noted that the individual containers featured the product descriptors ‘Vodka Jelly’ and ‘Orange flavoured Jelly with Vodka’. The Panel considered these to be sufficiently prominent to meet the requirements of the Code but noted that the statement about the product’s alcoholic strength was so small as to be almost illegible. In view of the fact, however, that the containers were always sold as a multi-pack in packaging which, in the Panel’s view, clearly communicated both the alcoholic nature and strength of the product, the Panel did not find that the small size of the abv on the individual containers caused the product to breach the Code. Hence, the Panel did not find the product in breach of Code paragraph 3.1(a).
The Panel noted that the word ‘zippers’ was a US term denoting ‘flies’ but did not consider that, in a UK context, it had any meaning beyond that of a zip. The Panel concluded that neither the name “Zippers” nor the zip logo on the lids of the containers suggested sexual success or prowess. Hence, the Panel did not find the product in breach of 3.1(e)
The Panel considered that there were no features of the product’s naming or packaging that were likely to encourage purchase by or sale to under 18s. Hence, the Panel did not find the product in breach of Code paragraph 3.1(g).
The Panel agreed that, although the shape of individual containers bore some resemblance to those containing childrens’ desserts, there was no visual imagery anywhere on either the individual containers or the outer packaging that might appeal to under 18s. The Panel considered it unlikely that anyone would confuse the product with a children’s dessert given that the product was sold in clearly labelled multi-packs, the packaging of which obscured the individual containers. Furthermore, the Panel noted that the individual containers were opaque and that the jelly was not clearly visible through the containers. Hence, the Panel did not find the product in breach of Code paragraph 3.1(h).
Action by company
No action required.