London, 21 September 2023: Complaints against four Tiny Rebel products – Hywl, Monstar, TinyFast and Primed – were upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP). Copies of the full decisions are available here, here, here and here.
The products were launched as part of a January series, a month that in recent years has become linked to health goals and giving up certain types of food and drink, with text on the company’s website including the line ‘Cos Jan’s Bad Enough Beers are all made with love and fun to help chase away the January blues’. All products were upheld as having breached Code rule 3.2(f) for encouraging irresponsible consumption, and Code rule 3.2(j) in varying degrees for suggesting that the products had therapeutic qualities, could enhance mental or physical capabilities, and change mood or behaviour.
Monstar, TinyFast and Primed were also upheld under Code rule 3.2(h) for having a particular appeal to under-18s. As part of its consideration under the rule, the Panel considered that the appearance of Tiny Rebel’s logo could sometimes be a compounding factor when determining a product’s overall appeal to children depending on its size, presentation and contextual appearance. The Primed, TinyFast and Monstar decisions clarify this application in context, while the more mature adult design such of Hywl reflects how the logo may be appropriately used.
TinyFast also fell foul of Code rule 3.2(g) which states that a product should not urge a consumer to drink rapidly.
Hywl
A complaint was made about Hywl under three Code rules which raised concerns that the product encouraged irresponsible consumption, had a particular appeal to under-18s, and suggested the drink had therapeutic qualities (Code rules 3.2(f), 3.2(h), 3.2(j)).
The Panel considered that the product’s packaging indirectly suggested it had nutritional properties and mimicked a meal replacement drink and, as such could encourage a consumer to drink it to excess to gain the inferred health benefits of the product. The Panel considered that a consumer may then base their alcohol consumption on the purported health benefits of the product, as opposed to making an informed consumption choice based on the amount of alcohol in the product and this, the Panel concluded, could reasonably lead to irresponsible consumption as a consumer might consume more than they otherwise would have done.
The Panel also noted that Hwyl was a facsimile of Huel, a popular meal replacement drink, and indirectly suggested that it could fulfil the same purpose, thus inferring the therapeutic effect that it would make a consumer healthier.
Regarding particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel concluded that the product was clearly targeted at an adult audience, and did not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
For these reasons, and as laid out in the full decision, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rules 3.2(f) and 3.2(j) but did not uphold under 3.2(h).
Monstar
Two complaints were made about Monstar under four Code rules which raised concerns that the product had an association with bravado and aggression, encouraged irresponsible consumption, had a particular appeal to under-18s, and suggested the drink had therapeutic qualities (Code rules 3.2(b), 3.2(f), 3.2(h), 3.2(j)).
The Panel noted the branding of Monstar closely resembled Monster Energy, a well-known, non-alcoholic energy drink brand marketed on the premise of enhancing physical and mental capabilities. The Panel concluded this indirectly suggested Monstar could enhance performance and could encourage a consumer to base their alcohol consumption on the purported health benefits which could lead to irresponsible consumption.
In terms of particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel considered that in the context of an energy drink brand which was popular with under-18s, the contrasting bright colours, the ‘doodle’ design images of decorated skulls, guitars, stars and hearts, the playful font and the prominence of the corporate bear logo all contributed to a particular appeal to under-18s,
The Panel found no evidence the product had an association with bravado, aggressive or dangerous behaviour.
For these reasons, and as laid out in the full decision, the Panel upheld the complaints under Code rules 3.2(f), 3.2(h)and 3.2(j) but did not uphold under 3.2(b).
TinyFast
Two complaints were made about TinyFast which was considered under six Code rules, these included whether the product clearly communicated its alcoholic nature, suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success, encouraged irresponsible consumption, urged the consumer to drink rapidly, had a particular appeal to under-18s, and suggested the drink had therapeutic qualities (Code rules 3.1, 3.2(e), 3.2(f), 3.2(g), 3.2(h), 3.2(j)).
In conjunction with the January marketing campaign the Panel noted that TinyFast had a significant resemblance to SlimFast Strawberry Meal Shake, a meal replacement and weight loss product. The Panel assessed the packaging in its entirety and considered that it was socially irresponsible for an alcoholic drink to create an association with a health product known for being a meal replacement. The Panel considered a consumer may then base their alcohol consumption on the purported health benefits of the product which could lead to irresponsible consumption and concluded that the product also suggested it had a therapeutic effect.
The Panel also noted the word ‘fast’ in the product name which linked to a style of consumption and could encourage a consumer to drink the product rapidly.
The Panel noted numerous aspects about the product that would have a particular appeal to under-18s including the choice of strawberry milkshake, a non-alcoholic sweet beverage, the image of a milkshake with dripping sides and strawberry fruit depicted in an illustrated style, alongside the corporate bear logo.
However, the Panel found the product clearly communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and there was no evidence it linked consumption with social success.
For these reasons, and as laid out in the full decision, the Panel upheld the complaints under 3.2(f), 3.2(g), 3.2(h) and 3.2(j) but not did not uphold under 3.1 and 3.2(e).
Primed
A complaint was made about Primed under three Code rules which raised concerns that the product had an association with social success, had a particular appeal to under-18s, and suggested the drink had therapeutic qualities (Code rules 3.2(e), 3.2(h) 3.2(j)). The Panel also raised whether the product could encourage irresponsible consumption (Code rule 3.2(f)).
The Panel noted that the branding of ‘Primed’ was a facsimile of ‘Prime’, a well-known hydration drink. The Panel noted the popular cultural phenomenon surrounding the drink which was primarily driven by those under-18 and was particularly popular with teenagers and school aged children. The Panel concluded that this similarity, alongside with the corporate bear logo meant the product did have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The Panel also noted the product intentionally mirrored a non-alcoholic drink known for its hydrating and performance enhancing effect and this indirectly suggested it could fulfil the same purpose of the original brand, and thus inferred the same therapeutic effect . The Panel also considered that if a consumer believed that it had these qualities they could base their alcohol consumption on these purported health benefits which could lead to irresponsible consumption.
The Panel concluded that the packaging in its entirety was socially irresponsible and stated that an alcoholic drink, which had a dehydrating effect, should not mimic branding of a non-alcoholic drink known for its hydrating and performance enhancing effect.
Finally, the Panel found no evidence which suggested consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity.
For these reasons, and as laid out in the full decision, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rules 3.2(f), 3.2(h)and 3.2(j), but did not uphold under 3.2(e).
Rule summary
All products have now been discontinued.
Commenting on the decisions, the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Nicola Williams, said: “It is socially irresponsible for a producer to mimic well-known non-alcoholic drink brands that are marketed on the grounds of weight loss, meal replacement and performance enhancing properties on alcoholic drinks packaging in such a flagrant manner. These cases set new, clear, precedents that all producers should take note of when using well-known non-alcoholic drink brands in alcohol marketing. All brands work hard to ensure that certain connotations are linked with their products and alcohol producers must remember that stricter rules apply in this space.”
Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group, said: “These precedent setting decisions draw a clear line to let alcohol producers know that there can be serious pitfalls when mimicking well-known non-alcoholic drinks brands. The Independent Complaints Panel do not consider producer intentions when reviewing product packaging, but these cases represent a continuation of concerning behaviour by Tiny Rebel. We have had constructive conversations with them and I sincerely hope the producer learns from this and ensures its products are compliant in the future by working with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service”.
Tiny Rebel was invited to comment and said “We are proud to have raised a significant amount of money from the sale of each of these beers which went directly into our Tiny Rebel Community Fund. The money raised has already started to be awarded to community projects around the UK. As code signatories and an alcohol producer we take our responsibilities very seriously and have now started to use the Portman Group’s advisory service to sense check our marketing campaigns as well as can designs.”
-ENDS-
For more information contact:
Joseph Meaden
Mobile: 07730 525 971