Producer:
Torti Wine
UK Distributor:
Locosoco Limited/Personalised Your Gifts
Complaint:
The Portman Group acting in lieu of a referral from the Advertising Standards Authority
Complainant:
‘Astonished to see alcohol sold under a children’s toy brand. How can that possibly be
legal?’
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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company disagreed that Hello Kitty was a children’s toy brand and explained that it was not considered as such by Sanrio, the owner of Hello Kitty. The company stated that Hello Kitty was regarded as the second largest media franchise of all time and that it respected consumer values and made correct, scrupulous and respectful choices in regard to its drinks with consumer protection in mind. The company explained that the Hello Kitty brand was 50 years old and had been
popular with all age groups since the 1990s; particularly mothers, grandmothers and older celebrities. The company stated that there were Hello Kitty branded products and theme parks which were enjoyed by Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Mariah Carey and Kim Kardashian who were all adult, loyal supporters of the brand.
The company explained that the wine was created to celebrate and pay homage to ladies who had handed down the ‘Hello Kitty’ brand through generations, respecting the unique beautiful moments of youth. The wine was a limited-edition drink, which was a tribute and toast to the loyal adult fans of the brand who had enjoyed it for many years. This was in keeping with the way other brands had also licenced the use of Hello Kitty for various products. The company explained that it complied with the strict rules in any market it exported its wine to and had been making wine since 1910. The company explained that in its 114 years of operation it had gained a tremendous reputation because of the quality of its drinks and the manner in which it conducted its business.
The company stated that the wines it produced were only sold to adults, never to children and in places where alcohol consumption was legal. The company explained
that it created wines which respected tradition, history and the culture of its region. Finally, the company reiterated that it did not intend for the wine to have appeal to
under-18s.
The Panel’s assessment:
3.2(h)
The Panel considered whether the packaging of Hello Kitty Pinot Noir could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the producer’s response which stated that the Hello Kitty brand had broad appeal across all ages and that the intention of the wine was to appeal to an older age group who had enjoyed Hello Kitty generationally. The Panel noted that the producer response had highlighted that Hello Kitty was passed down through generations suggesting that the brand was suitable and age appropriate for a younger age group. The Panel considered the appeal of the Hello Kitty brand more broadly and noted that there was a level of nostalgia attached to the brand which remained popular with some adult consumers who had enjoyed it in their childhood. The Panel acknowledged that globally the age demographic of fans for the brand included adults and children alike but that it was important to consider how Hello Kitty was perceived and marketed in the UK. The Panel noted that the Hello Kitty franchise included a children’s TV show and video game which were suitable for children aged three and above. Alongside this, the Panel noted that the Hello Kitty website included a children’s privacy policy which reinforced the perception that the website and its content not only targeted those under the age of 18 but that the younger age group was of significant relevance to warrant a separate policy. While the Panel acknowledged that the intention of the producer was to create a Hello Kitty wine which appealed to adults, the Panel considered that wider Hello Kitty marketing in the UK reflected that Hello Kitty was a brand which was predominantly marketed towards children. After careful consideration of the above points, the Panel concluded that while the Hello Kitty brand may have nostalgic appeal to some adults in the UK, it would have a particular appeal to children at whom the brand was aimed.
In light of the brand’s particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel considered that any inclusion of the ‘Hello Kitty’ name or branding on an alcoholic drink would have a
particular appeal to under-18s on that basis. The Panel then also assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety. The Panel noted that the packaging included a large image of ‘Hello Kitty’ which was prominently displayed on the front label. The Panel discussed that the character was presented as an anthropomorphised cat wearing a bow, peering over a larger bow. The Panel noted that the design had exaggerated features, such as the oversized bow, and the cat had a large head which gave it the appearance of being kitten-like and cute. The Panel noted that the design was a simplistic cartoon with a limited contrasting colour palette of red, white and black which used a thick bold keyline. The Panel considered that these were all elements which could have an appeal to under-18s and that in this case the combination gave an overall impression that would resonate with younger children who would find the simple cartoon art style, contrasting colours and anthropomorphic cute kitten particularly appealing. Taking all these points together, the Panel considered that the overall impression of the packaging also had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
3.1
The Panel considered that the drink had been imported into the UK and that the majority of text on the product was presented in Italian. Therefore, the Panel raised
consideration of Code rule 3.1 and discussed whether the product packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel noted that it was important to consider the overall impression conveyed by the packaging and that regard would be given to a drink’s compliance with Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers and the UK Food Information Regulations 2014 when determining whether the alcoholic nature of the drink had been communicated with absolute clarity. In line with Portman Group guidance, the Panel noted that a product could still be found in breach of Code rule 3.1 even if it met legal labelling requirements if it had the potential to cause consumer confusion. In this case, the Panel noted that the product had been found to have a particular appeal to under-18s and that the prominent inclusion of the Hello Kitty brand and imagery could detract from the alcoholic nature of the product.
The Panel discussed the front label of the drink and noted that it did not include the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) or the word ‘wine’. However, the Panel
noted that the front label incorporated the descriptor ‘Pinot Noir’ which was presented in white font on a dark background which ensured it was clearly legible. The Panel discussed the term ‘Pinot Noir’ and considered that most UK consumers would associate the descriptor with wine. The Panel then considered the back label and noted that it included very limited English which meant that the alcoholic nature of the drink could be less clear for UK consumers. However, the Panel noted that there were a number of positive alcohol cues on the back label which included the drink’s ABV, a pregnancy warning logo and the producer’s website which included ‘torti wine’. The Panel noted that the word ‘vino’ was also included and considered that some consumers in the UK would recognise this to mean wine.
Alongside this, the Panel also discussed the shape and colour of the bottle as well as the cork stopper top which were all elements that consumers would likely associate with wine and therefore helped to communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature. After careful consideration, the Panel concluded that the packaging was close to the line of acceptability and that more could have been done to communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature, particularly in the context of a product that incorporated branding which was not typically associated with alcohol and had a particular appeal to under18s. However, on balance, the Panel concluded that the number of positive alcohol cues were just about 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 but encouraged the producer to work with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service in the future.
Action by Company:
Product no longer produced for sale in the UK.