Producer:
Glenmorangie
Complaint:
‘I saw this new whisky on the internet and thought the Portman Group might object to the product on the grounds of its potential appeal to youngsters. Please look into this as a matter of urgency as, in my opinion, this is definitely entering “alcopop” territory. I thought even the strength of the words ICE CREAM might be emotionally attractive enough to lead young people into experimenting with it. In fact I liked it a lot, despite my age, but I felt its “dreamt up in an ice cream parlour” could make the product even more attractive to those younger than 18, even if older people also eat ice cream. I have seen vapes with the same sweet terminology , though with more vibrant colours. It certainly seems strange to me that ICE CREAM is printed bigger than the whisky’s brand name’.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.1
The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
NOT UPHELD
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s.
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company explained that it was committed to promoting responsible alcohol consumption and took its legal and social obligations under the Portman Group Code of Practice seriously. The company stated that it respectfully did not agree that the packaging of the drink had particular appeal to under-18s and referenced the Portman Group’s Guidance under Code rule 3.2(h). The company stated that to breach this rule, packaging must resonate with under-18s in a way that it did not with over-18s and the company did not believe that ‘Glenmorangie A Tale of Ice Cream’ met that threshold.
The company stated that the packaging had been created to appeal to discerning adults. The design was inspired by a traditional luxury ice cream parlour and used muted pastels and gold accents to evoke an adult aesthetic rather than a childlike one. The company stated that as the complainant had themselves liked the design, this demonstrated that the packaging resonated with adults. The packaging avoided elements typically associated with children, such as bright colours, childish fonts, or cartoonish illustrations. Instead, the design featured abstract representations of ice cream and patterns that suggested a sophisticated dessert, more aligned with an upscale ice-cream parlour or restaurant than with products targeted at children. The form of the packaging itself was also designed to resemble a whisky bottle rather than a child-friendly ice cream cone or bar. The product was called “A Tale of Ice Cream” because of the way it was aged and the impact this had on the flavour. The company emphasised that the reference to ice cream was not intended to appeal to children, but instead, was used as a taste cue, necessary for food law purposes.
The company noted that a previous precedent set by the Panel had accepted that ice cream in general appealed to all age groups and that a reference to ice cream alone did not automatically breach Code rule 3.2(h). The company explained that the product packaging did not include any imagery that could particularly appeal to children, unlike products such as Double 99, which also featured teddy bear imagery. The company therefore reiterated that the name “Ice Cream” alone could not be considered a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) because the concept of ice cream did not appeal more to under-18s than to over-18s.The company disagreed that the phrase “dreamt up in an ice cream parlour” would appeal to under-18s. The company stated that the mention of the ice cream parlour experience was simply to provide context for the “Ice Cream” reference and to explain the inspiration behind the product’s flavour. Furthermore, the product was only sold through channels where access for under-18s was restricted. These included specialist wine sellers, online retailers with age-gated access to alcohol purchases and in-retail stores where age verification was expected to take place for every purchase. Therefore, the company stated that the risk of an under-18 purchasing the product was very low.
Finally, the company stated that the price point of the product was relatively high, which further reduced the likelihood of under-18s purchasing it. The price was not only a barrier from an affordability perspective but also served as a clear indication that the product was not intended for under-18s.
The Panel’s assessment
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed relevant precedent cases, including Double 99, which had established that ice cream was deemed to have broad appeal across age groups. The Panel noted that whilst ice cream may contribute to the appeal that marketing had to children, it was often the combination of several factors that caused packaging to have a particular appeal to under-18s, rather than one element in isolation. On that basis, the Panel considered that the inclusion of ice cream, while not inherently problematic, required careful consideration of the overall impression conveyed by the packaging which would ultimately determine compliance with the Code.
In that context, the Panel initially considered the primary packaging in more detail. The Panel noted that the word ‘ice cream’ was the most prominent text on the front label of the bottle and that this was presented on a background of swirling pastel colours. However, the Panel considered that apart from a small cone pattern on the base of the bottle’s neck, there was no additional imagery which linked to ice cream. The Panel noted that the muted pastel colours were presented alongside a mature font style and that the back label text on the bottle was minimal and only related to alcohol health-related information.
The Panel then considered the secondary box packaging and noted that the word ice cream and ice cream imagery were prominently presented with the design incorporating multiple scoops of ice cream on one side and an image of a bottle that partially replicated an ice cream cone on another side. The Panel discussed the appearance of both elements and acknowledged that the imagery created a stronger association with ice cream than the primary packaging. However, the Panel noted that the design employed muted colours, abstract design and a sophisticated font style with straight lined edges, all of which were not associated with designs aimed at children. The Panel discussed the accompanying text on the back of the secondary packaging which referenced the flavours of the drink such as peach melba, honeycomb, brioche and marzipan. The Panel noted that the text focused on ice cream as a flavour concept by referencing complex tasting notes as highlighted by the company. The Panel considered that this was presented alongside elegant shapes, textures and gold highlights which conveyed a level of sophistication. The Panel also noted that the design did not include bright contrasting primary colours, cartoon imagery or thick keylines which may have particular appeal to under-18s.
Therefore, after careful consideration, the Panel stated that neither the primary or secondary packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s and accordingly did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
During discussion of its decision under Code rule 3.2(h), the Panel raised consideration of Code rule 3.1 and considered whether the primary and secondary packaging communicated the alcoholic nature of the product with absolute clarity.
The Panel discussed the primary packaging and noted that it included several positive alcohol cues such as ‘whisky’, the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV), unit content information and the pregnancy warning logo. Alongside this, the Panel also discussed the shape and colour of the bottle which were elements that consumers would likely associate with whisky and therefore helped to communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature.
The Panel considered that while the secondary packaging was more vibrant and did have ‘ice cream’ prominently displayed in several places, it also included positive alcohol cues like ‘highland single malt scotch whisky’, the ABV and the outline of a typical whisky bottle shape. The Panel considered that on balance, whilst there were prominent references to ice cream which was not a flavour typically associated with alcohol, the number of positive alcohol cues were sufficient to communicate the product’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the Panel did not find the packaging in breach of Code rule 3.1.
Action by Company:
None required.