Producer:
Catalyst Spirits Limited
Complaint:
Brand name associations with violence and aggression
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)
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.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company stated that ‘Blackeye’ did not suggest any association with violence, aggression, or illegal behaviour, nor did it breach the Portman Group’s Code of Practice. The company explained that despite the product’s broad distribution and growing online presence, this was the first complaint the company had received about the product and no other complaints had been lodged concerning compliance with the Code.
The company explained that it was run by a team with over 100 years of combined experience in the alcoholic drinks industry and was fully committed to the responsible marketing and sale of its products. The company explained that the drink in question was created by Mike Tindall, James Haskell and Alex Payne, three prominent figures and advocates for the game of rugby. The company stated that the drink was a purpose-led brand with a mission to address the financial and medical challenges faced by rugby players and to protect the future of the sport. Its mission was to champion recovery, care, and safety in rugby, supporting seriously injured players and their families. The company had developed a Blackeye Responsible Marketing Code called ‘Do the Right Thing’ and this Code was strictly based on the guidance of the Portman Group’s Code of Practice. The ‘Do the Right Thing’ Code required anyone involved in the sale, marketing, or promotion of Blackeye to avoid creating any associations with bravado, violence, aggression, dangerous, anti-social, or illegal behaviour. The company stated that it had also established the Blackeye Rugby Fund with the goal of becoming one of the largest donors to rugby-related causes within five years. The company explained that £1.50 from each sold bottle of Blackeye was invested in the fund which focused on three key areas: research, risk, and recovery.
In addressing the specific concern raised by the complainant, the company explained that the brand name ‘Blackeye’ was differentiated from “black eye’’ and at most could be interpreted as a reference to the common sports injury. The company stated that in high-tempo sports like rugby, players did suffer black eyes which would be a result of participating in a contact sport, not due to bravado, violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behavior. The company explained that the stylisation of Blackeye was not intended to be a literal description of a sports injury but was a symbolic caricature of rugby to highlight the under-funded issue of player welfare, such as the medical and financial support for former players. The company explained that the drink was the ‘unofficial spirit of rugby’ and this was made clear on the packaging to give context to the name. The company stated that the label contained a clear description of how the brand contributed to the future safety of the game and included a neck tag that showed the founders who were famous in the world of rugby holding a rugby ball and a framed rugby ball design with the words “FOR THE GAME”.
The company stated that it did not believe that the drink suggested any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behavior and was not in breach of paragraph 3.2(b) of the Code. The company explained that the complaint was based on a narrowed reading of the labelling that was incorrect and failed to take account of the specific information and broader context provided by the packaging of the product.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(b)
The Panel considered whether the drink’s name created any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed the name ‘Blackeye’ and stated that while the name could have a number of potential interpretations, it was commonly understood as bruising and swelling to the eye region of the face. The Panel discussed that while a ‘black eye’ injury could be the result of a violent attack, it was also a common injury sustained through contact sport or other incidents unrelated to physical assault. The Panel discussed the company’s response that the name ‘Blackeye’ was differentiated from the descriptor ‘black eye’ but considered that a consumer was still likely to read the name in the same manner. Despite this, the Panel considered that as a ‘black eye’ could be the result of sporting behaviour or other incidents unrelated to assault, the name alone in this case did not create an association with violent or aggressive behaviour and needed to be considered in the wider context of the rest of the packaging.
The Panel assessed the rest of the packaging in more detail and noted that the front label employed a fairly simple design. The name ‘Blackeye’ was included on imagery that did somewhat resemble an eye but noted that this was designed to be abstract and stylised. The Panel noted that there was no violent or aggressive imagery included on the front label nor was there any depiction of an injury. The Panel considered the back label and noted that there were several references to rugby including to the rugby advocates Mike Tindall, James Haskell and Alex Payne, rugby ball imagery and the Blackeye Rugby Fund. The Panel considered that this provided further context to the name ‘Blackeye’ and the product’s clear aim to use proceeds to address the financial and medical challenges faced by rugby players. The Panel noted that the overall impression of the product explicitly linked to rugby, a rules-based contact sport and whilst it could result in injury, injuries did not directly link to intentional violence. Taking the above into account, the Panel considered that the name and packaging did not create an association with violent or aggressive behaviour. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b).
Action by Company:
None required.