Producer:
Accolade Wines Ltd
Complaint:
‘This advertising stand was prominently placed near the checkout at a supermarket. The slogan and spirit of the advert is plainly obvious: don’t think about alcohol consumption, just consume thoughtlessly. There is no way this promotion can be reconciled with the notion of responsible drinking where adults carefully consider the benefits and harms of alcohol. The message is quite the opposite. The message to children and young people especially is potentially very harmful as it creates an association between alcohol and consumption under any and all circumstances. I believe the material breaches 3.2(g) by indirectly encouraging rapid drinking. I believe the message of ‘ don’t think – drink’ as I believe it can be summarised could be seen to encourage rapid and repeated drinking.’
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(f)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(g)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way urge the consumer to drink rapidly or to ‘down’ a product in one.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company explained that it took its obligations regarding the responsible marketing of alcohol seriously. The company had not intended to promote irresponsible consumption and had actively taken steps to ensure compliance, as demonstrated by the implementation of an internal policy ‘Code of Responsible Practices for Alcohol Advertising, Marketing and Digital Media’ which applied globally. The company stated that it believed the Jam Shed point-of-sale material display was compliant with the Portman Group’s Code of Practice but had withdrawn the material in good faith to demonstrate its commitment to responsible advertising.
The company explained that Jam Shed had launched in the UK in 2017 and had grown to become the tenth biggest wine brand.
The company stated that Jam Shed was positioned as a wine without the confusing rules and perceptions that were associated with the wine category. The company explained that the marketing did not use traditional wine terminology and instead had a reputation for simple, light-hearted and nontraditional marketing that consumers would be familiar with. The company therefore emphasised that the Jam Shed point-of-sale material display should be viewed in that wider context.
The company explained that in its opinion, the marketing line ‘wine for drinking, not overthinking’ was compliant with the Code. The company stated that the Cambridge Dictionary defined ‘overthinking’ as the action of thinking about something too much and in a way that was not useful. In contrast, the company added that the definition of ‘thinking’ referred to the activity of using one’s mind to consider something. The company highlighted that there was a key distinction between the two terms, where ‘not thinking’ would mean not using a mind at all but ‘not overthinking’ would involve ‘use of the mind’ but not to the point it wouldn’t be helpful. The company explained that consumers may find the wine category overly serious, complex and potentially arrogant. The company stated that ‘overthinking’ therefore referred to the common practice of overcomplicating wine, the antithesis of the Jam Shed ethos which sought to demystify and simplify wine.
The company stated that in the context of the Jam Shed brand the average consumer would interpret the phrase ‘wine for drinking, not overthinking’ to mean a simple wine without the complexity that is often attributed to the category. The company also stated that it believed the average consumer would interpret the line from this perspective even without the context of the wider brand positioning due to the meaning of the word ‘overthinking’. In addition to this, the company explained that the Jam Shed point-of-sale material display included the relevant Drinkaware logos and the phrase ‘please drink responsibly’ which further reduced the risk that a consumer would interpret the marketing as encouraging alcohol consumption without due consideration.
The company reiterated that while it did not believe the point of sale material was in breach of the Code, it had voluntarily removed it and would not use the phrase in future campaigns to demonstrate its commitment to responsible alcohol marketing.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(f)
The Panel considered whether the point of sale material could encourage illegal irresponsible or immoderate consumption as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed the definition of ‘overthinking’ and noted the company’s response that it could be understood to give something consideration to the point of detriment. In contrast, the Panel considered that ‘thinking’ was understood as giving something due
consideration. The Panel discussed that ‘overthinking’ was generally perceived to have negative connotations but considered that in relation to alcohol consumption it was important that consumers make informed decisions. The Panel discussed this point at length and expressed concern that the line ‘wine for drinking, not overthinking’ in isolation could be misconstrued as encouragement to drink without due care and attention. However, the Panel noted that it was important to consider the overall impression conveyed by the point of sale marketing material in its entirety.
The Panel considered Jam Shed more broadly and acknowledged the company’s response that it was a well-known brand marketed on being a simple and easy choice for consumers who may find the wine category intimidating. The Panel also noted that there was nothing else on the marketing material that suggested that a consumer should drink irresponsibly or immoderately. The Panel considered that the brand identity provided a certain level of context to the intended meaning of the line, however, the Panel also considered that there was an element of ambiguity which could have been made clearer as to the intended meaning of ‘overthinking’. The Panel warned producers that where marketing was ambiguous it could lead to an unintentional breach of the Code. However, in this specific case, the Panel considered that the wider context of the Jam Shed brand meant that the line was more likely to be understood as encouragement not to overthink the wine category and enjoy a simple product. The Panel considered that even if a consumer was not aware of the wider brand context, the word ‘overthinking’, while ambiguous, did not quite meet the threshold of encouraging consumers to drink irresponsibly or immoderately as it did not suggest that consumers should not think at all.
After much deliberation, the Panel concluded that while the wording was very close to the line of acceptability, the marketing material did not encourage immoderate or irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the Panel did not find the point of sale material in breach of Code rule 3.2(f).
3.2(g)
The Panel then considered whether the point of sale material urged a rapid or ‘down in one’ style of consumption. The Panel discussed the wording ‘wine for drinking, not overthinking’ in light of its decision under Code rule 3.2(f). The Panel considered that ‘not overthinking’ was understood in the context of the Jamshed brand to mean not overthinking the ‘rules’ of the wine category and did not suggest more broadly that consumers should not think at all about their alcohol consumption. The Panel then assessed the rest of the marketing material and considered that it did not contain any cues which suggested a consumer should drink rapidly or encouraged a ‘down in one’ style of consumption. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the material did not breach Code rule 3.2(g) and accordingly did not uphold the complaint.
Action by Company:
None required.