The alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel has upheld complaints against three ciders produced by Bearded Brewery.
A complaint was received against their Tank Slapper, Moustache Mango, Swallows Rest and Shaky Todd ciders. The complaint was upheld against Tank Slapper, Moustache Mango and Swallows Rest, but not upheld against Shaky Todd cider.
The company is now working with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to bring the three upheld products in line with the Code.
Tank Slapper
The Panel discussed the meaning of ‘Tank Slapper’ which refers to a rapid side-to-side shaking of a vehicle’s wheels which usually occurs at high speeds, and is a dangerous manoeuvre with a high risk of injury. It also considered the phrase ‘get yer wobble on’ in this context as a direct imperative for a person to perform a ‘tank slapper’, further compounding the link between the drink and the dangerous manoeuvre, as well as an indirect association with drinking before driving.
It therefore concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety created an association with dangerous behaviour. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b). In the context of the decision under Code rule 3.2(b), the Panel also considered whether the phrase ‘get yer wobble on’ encouraged illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption and concluded that it could be read as an instruction for a person to consume alcohol immoderately and upheld the complaint under 3.2(j).
Moustache Mango
The Panel considered the phrase ‘man go hard or man go home’ which it noted read as a play on words for the well-known idiom ‘go hard or go home’. The Panel that the word ‘mango’ had been separated to ‘man go’ which further compounded the link to the well-known phrase, which is generally understood to mean that if undertaking a challenge, a person should make a bold, superior effort or forgo it all together.
In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that the line presented drinking as a challenge and on that basis, found that the line created an association with bravado and therefore found the packaging in breach of Code rule 3.2(b). The Panel also considered that the phrase ‘man go hard or man go home’ on an alcoholic drink could encourage immoderate consumption and was also unacceptable in this context. Accordingly, the Panel also upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(f).
Swallows Rest cider
The Panel took into consideration the company’s response which explained that Swallows Rest was the name of its brewhouse and the design of the logo was a traditional tattoo theme which was based on a similar real-life design used by one of the company’s directors. However, with regards to the image of the bird being stabbed – it noted that the design employed a fine line style which created a realistic depiction, with the knife tip dripping with blood compounding the life-like portrayal of the bird being stabbed. The Panel expressed concerned about the representation of a knife being used as a weapon and considered the imagery depicted a fairly aggressive and violent act of killing a bird.
The Panel stated that while it was clear that the imagery had a close personal link to the company, the realistic and violent depiction of killing a bird created an association with aggressive and violent behaviour and therefore upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b).
Shaky Todd cider
The complainant raised concern that the name of the product, combined with the illustration of a fox with liquid splashing from a tankard, encouraged immoderate consumption. The Panel acknowledged that ‘shaky’ could have a number of meanings, therefore it was important to consider how the word was presented in the wider context of the packaging. It noted the fox did not appear drunk and there was nothing else on the label which encouraged an immoderate style of consumption. It therefore did not uphold the complaint.
Commenting on the decision, Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “Three Bearded Brewery ciders in this case were found to create an association with violent, aggressive, or dangerous behaviour under Code rule 3.2(b). While the Panel acknowledged that the company had not set out to breach the Code, they encouraged all producers to think carefully before transferring these connotations to alcohol packaging.”