Producer:
Little Mesters Brewing
Complaint:
The idea of Stan is a homage to one of the last ‘little Mesters’ in Sheffield. As much as I appreciate the respect to the history of the city of Sheffield in feel using a knife handle as a tap handle is perhaps a step too far and could encourage alcohol related violence.
Complainant:
Member of the public.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.3
A drink’s name, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not cause serious or widespread offence.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company explained that the Stan IPA tap was a single tap handle in situ at a bar in Sheffield and there were no plans to roll it out further. The tap was a specially made ornamental knife handle to commemorate the craftsmanship of Stan Shaw, a master craftsman who made various knives ranging from ceremonial swords to pocket knives which included intricate designs known for their high quality. The company explained that Stan Shaw was widely regarded as the last Little Mester in Sheffield and he had made knives for numerous notable people including Queen Elizabeth II.
The company explained that the beer was over four years old and it had received no
other complaints about it during this time. The company stated that it had recently taken over a new outlet where the tap was included as part of a wall with various branded taps. The company explained that the handle had no blade, nor any suggestion of a blade and without background understanding of Stan Shaw, the tap would be interpreted as unrelated to a knife. The company did not believe therefore, that the Stan beer tap created any association with adverse behaviour as the blade was in no way harmful.
Furthermore, the company explained that it was a talking point between staff and customers and without context a person may not even recognise the tap as being a knife handle.
Finally, the company stated that it would remove the tap handle if it was required to but that this would be disappointing for the friends, family and supporters of Stan Shaw together with the charitable trust it worked in conjunction with to keep the memory of the Little Mesters alive.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(b)
Before assessing the case, the Panel noted that the tap handle was accompanied by a pump clip which was positioned above the handle and provided further context to the promotional piece. The Panel stated that both elements should be considered as they combined to create an overall impression of the marketing and therefore raised the pump clip for consideration as part of the case.
The Panel noted the company’s response that the tap handle was an honorific design to commemorate Stan Shaw who was a Little Mester, a title which referred to a master craftsmen usually associated with Sheffield. The Panel was aware that images of blades and knives were used more widely on UK alcohol packaging. While the Panel had previously concluded that the use of gun-shaped products was highly likely to be in breach of 3.2(b), it acknowledged that knives were not necessarily used as weapons, and may not automatically create a sufficiently strong link with violence and aggression, such that marketing material breaches 3.2(b).
With this in mind, the Panel went on to assess the specifics of this case. The Panel considered the image on the pump clip which included a stylised cartoon depiction of Stan Shaw posing with a knife. The knife was held in an upright position with Mr Shaw’s body turned towards it. The Panel considered that this image drew attention to the knife and made it the central focus of the design. This image of Stan Shaw was surrounded by numerous other blades in a circular fashion alongside the word ‘Stan’.
The Panel discussed the wider societal context that knife crime within Sheffield1 and the wider UK was prevalent and noted that careful consideration needed to be given to alcohol marketing which included the depiction and any potential glamourisation of knives. The Panel expressed concern about the number of blades included in the imagery, particularly as they formed a prominent part of the design and appeared to be more akin to sharp weapons than utensils. The Panel noted that there were no handles attached to any of the blades which also made them appear more like dangerous weaponry than ceremonial or cutlery knives.
The Panel then discussed the image of ‘Stan’ and noted that the knife was being held in an upright vertical fashion. The blade was curved into a tip at the end which gave the appearance that the blade was akin to a sharp dagger, rather than a blunted ceremonial knife. The Panel considered the combination of these elements meant that the imagery could potentially glamourise the depiction of sharp knives which were often used as weapons in violent crime.
The Panel then considered the tap handle in the context of the pump clip imagery. The Panel noted the company’s response that the handle did not include a blade and that without context the tap handle would not be recognised as a knife handle. However, the Panel noted that as the tap handle appeared alongside the pump clip, it contributed to the overall impression conveyed by the marketing as a whole and increased the likelihood that a consumer would recognise it as a knife handle. The Panel considered the design was intended to mimic a knife handle and this was reinforced by the action required of pulling the tap, where a person’s hand would be required to grip it in a similar fashion as one might brandish a knife.
While the Panel acknowledged that the producer had simply sought to celebrate an important local craftsman, it was of the view that any depiction of knives on alcoholic packaging had to be approached with great caution. Rates of knife crime in Sheffield and the rest of the UK had risen over recent years and generate a high level of public concern. In this instance, the Panel concluded that, when considering the overall impression conveyed by the tap handle and the pump clip, the combination of the image of a male presenting a sharp dagger-like knife, the multiple sharp knife blades and the tap handle which was designed to mimic a knife handle all resulted in a cumulative effect which glamourised knives that were not ceremonial or cutlery-like but instead sharp blades which could potentially be associated with knife-related violence. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the pump clip and tap handle under Code rule 3.2(b) for creating an indirect association with violent behaviour.
3.3
In the context of its decision under Code rule 3.2(b) and the association with UK knife crime, the Panel decided there was merit in considering whether the marketing could cause serious or widespread offence. The Panel discussed that knife crime was prevalent in the UK and that for communities affected by it, glorifying violent behaviour could be seriously offensive. However, the Panel considered that while the pump clip and tap handle created an indirect association with knife-related violence, through the emphasis placed on the blades on the pump clip alongside the tap handle, it did not directly depict the knives being used as weapons. Furthermore, no complaint had been raised by a consumer which suggested that the pump clip or tap handle had caused serious or widespread offence. The Panel acknowledged the producer’s explanation that this was one tap handle with one pump clip in one sports bar in Sheffield and there were no plans to roll the design out more widely. The Panel considered that it would be difficult to conclude that widespread offence might be caused given the marketing material’s very limited placement. The Panel carefully considered the overall impression conveyed by the marketing and stated that while some may find any inclusion of a knife in alcohol marketing distasteful, there was no evidence in this particular case that the marketing caused serious or widespread offence.
Therefore, the Panel did not consider that an indirect association with knife related crime was sufficient to result in a breach of 3.3. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.3.
Action by Company:
The company discontinued the product.