Producer:
Bearded Brewery
Complaint:
The logo features a bird being stabbed in the back by a sword which exits through the bird’s chest, with red blood on the sword tip from the impalement. Although this sword/swallow scene is a take on a traditional tattoo design, these are usually more stylised, less violent looking. Graphically depicting an aggressive and violent act towards an animal does not seem fitting for the promotion of an alcoholic drink. It appears to breach rule 3.2(b) association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 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.
UPHELD
The company’s submission:
The company acknowledged that complaints were dealt with on a case-by-case basis and that the Portman Group did not seek out cases to prosecute. However, the company stated that it believed the complaint was vexatious and that many worse examples of alcohol marketing existed. Nonetheless, in the spirit of cooperation, the company agreed to engage with the complaints process.
The company explained that Swallows Rest was the name of its brewhouse which was given that moniker because of the multitude of swallows that frequented the property. The company stated that the design of the logo was a traditional tattoo theme and was based on a similar real-life design used by one of the company’s directors. However,
the company stated that it would be willing to adapt the design if required to comply with the Code.
The Panel’s assessment:
The Panel considered whether the packaging created any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel assessed the label which depicted a swallow impaled by a knife and noted the company’s response that the image represented a tattoo. The Panel acknowledged that the design was in keeping with a traditional tattoo style but stated that careful consideration needed to be given to the inclusion of a knife. The Panel discussed previous case precedents under Code rule 3.2(b) and noted that in some circumstances inclusion of weapons on packaging had been deemed acceptable as the depiction was fantastical or otherworldly and as such had a degree of separation from real life violence. The Panel therefore considered the imagery in that context and noted that the bird was not a fantastical creature and that the knife was not a fictional weapon. The Panel noted that the design employed a fine line style which created a realistic depiction, with the knife tip dripping with blood compounding the life-like portrayal of the bird being stabbed. The Panel expressed concerned about the representation of a knife being used as a weapon and considered the imagery depicted a fairly aggressive and violent act of killing a bird.
The Panel stated that while it was clear that the imagery had a close personal link to the company, the realistic and violent depiction of killing a bird created an association with aggressive and violent behaviour. The Panel acknowledged that the company had not set out to breach the Code but encouraged all producers to think carefully before transferring violent graphic imagery to alcohol packaging. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b).
Action by company:
Working with