Company: Matthew Clark plc
Breach:
Final Decision: 25 April 2003
Considered under the 2nd Edition of the Code.
Complaint summary
The complainant alleged that the name ‘fcuk’ was a brand of fashion clothing sold mainly to teenagers. Therefore, in the complainant’s view, the brand offended against Code paragraph 3.1(g) which states that products should not encourage purchase by or sale to under 18s.
The complainant alleged that the alcohol type, which the complainant believed to be “Spirit”, was in small insignificant print. This, in the complainant’s view, offended against paragraph 3.1(a) of The Portman Group’s Code which states that the naming and packaging of a drink should clearly communicate the alcoholic nature of the product and its strength to the purchaser or consumer.
The complainant alleged further that the label offended against Code Paragraph 3.2(i)(b) which states that the common name of the alcoholic ingredient shall be prominent in terms of colour, style of lettering and field of vision.
Complainant
Member of the public, Devon.
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.
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.
UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(i)
Unless the overall appearance of the product is clearly one of adult appeal, the name or descriptor of a pre-packaged alcoholic drink/mixer combination:
(a) should, wherever appropriate, specify by its common name the type of alcohol used as an ingredient (for example, “rum and cola”, “vodka and lemonade”); and
(b) the common name of the alcoholic ingredient shall be prominent in terms of colour, style of lettering and field of vision.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The Panel heard further arguments from the company during an oral hearing and considered market research information which was provided by the company. In response to the provisional decision, the company submitted written comments and requested a further oral hearing. The Panel granted this and heard oral representations from the company. These arguments, however, did not convince the Panel to reverse its original decision.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel considered whether the product’s labelling communicated with sufficient clarity the alcoholic nature and strength of the product. The Panel noted that the product’s neck label featured the prominent product descriptor ‘Vodka Mix’ and the statement ‘Alc 5.4% Vol’. In the Panel’s view, the alcoholic nature and strength of the product were clearly communicated. The Panel therefore did not find the product in breach of Code paragraph 3.1(a).
The Panel then considered whether the product’s labelling breached Code paragraph 3.2(i) (a,b). It concluded that the common name of the alcoholic ingredient, vodka, was sufficiently prominent on both the product’s front and back labels in terms of colour, style of lettering and field of vision. Hence, the Panel did not find the product in breach of Code paragraph 3.2 (i) (a,b).
The Panel next considered whether the brand name suggested sexual success or prowess. Although the Panel noted that the letters of part of the brand name ‘fcuk’ could be re-arranged to read ‘fuck’, it concluded that the brand name did not in any direct or indirect way suggest sexual success or prowess. Hence, the Panel did not find the product in breach of Code paragraph 3.1(e).
The Panel then considered whether the brand name or labelling of the product in any direct or indirect way was more likely to appeal to under 18s than adults.
The Panel was initially concerned that the ‘fcuk’ brand was likely to be popular amongst under 18s and accordingly asked the company to provide it with specific information as to the ‘fcuk’ brand’s popularity with under 18s. The Panel considered carefully the information provided by the company as a result of that request alongside all of the other evidence that had been submitted.
The Panel noted that although 14-17 year olds had not, over a five year period, spent as much money on average as older age groups on ‘fcuk’ products, they represented a significant percentage of ‘fcuk’ customers (for example during 2002, they comprised approximately a quarter of all customers). The expenditure levels amongst 14-17 year olds were also rising fast.
In the Panel’s view, the research showed that awareness of the ‘fcuk’ brand was very high among 14-17 year olds and that it was popular amongst that age group. The Panel also noted that a high number of 14-17 year olds considered ‘fcuk’ to be a stylish brand and that a higher proportion of 14-17 year olds than any other age group seemed to hold that view. Further, the Panel noted that a high percentage of 14-17 year olds believed the ‘fcuk’ brand to be for people like them and that a higher percentage of 14-17 year olds than any other age group seemed to believe that the ‘fcuk’ brand was for people like them.
The Panel therefore concluded in the light of all the evidence that had been placed before it and taking into account the information that the company had provided as a whole, that the brand name of the product was more likely to appeal to under 18s than adults in breach of Code paragraph 3.1(h).
The Panel then considered whether the brand name or labelling of the product in any direct or indirect way encouraged purchase by or sale to under 18s.
For the same reasons as it had found the brand name to be in breach of Code paragraph 3.1(h), the Panel concluded that the brand name would also encourage purchase by or sale to under 18s in breach of Code paragraph 3.1(g).
The Panel wished to convey its appreciation to the company for producing the information the Panel had requested and for the effort the company had gone to in order to do so.
Action by company
The product will be withdrawn from sale and retailers will be told by the Portman Group that they should no longer stock it.