Producer:
ALDI
Complaint:
A alcoholic beverage which is themed and flavoured after a popular children’s penny candy is clearly a breach of the code
Strawberry Laces, Bubblegum and Lemon Sherbet:
https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p-taurus-strawberry-laces-flavoured-english-cider-330ml/4061462753244
https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p-taurus-bubble-gum-flavoured-english-pear-cider-330ml/4061462753220
https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p-taurus-s-sherbet-flavoured-english-cider-330ml/4061462753268
The products are indicated as out of stock on their website but as of today was on sale in the Bishops Stortford Branch and are featured in today’s promotional email newsletter (“Sweetshop Cider”) (screenshot available, see below).
Complainant:
Member of the public
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)
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 stated that it did not believe the packaging was in breach of the Code of Practice. The company explained that confectionary-flavoured alcoholic drinks had previously been considered by the Panel and highlighted two precedents for context;
Cactus Jack’s Schnapps (Fruit Salad and Black Jack) and AU Vodka Bubblegum which were not found in breach of the Code. The company stated that based on those precedents, it was well established that confectionary-flavoured products did not inherently have particular appeal to under-18s. Instead, in past cases the Panel had always considered the overall impression of the packaging which was key in determining whether a breach of the Code had occurred.
The company accepted that Bubble Gum appeared prominently on the packaging but stated this alone did not create a particular appeal to under-18s and that confectionary-flavoured drinks were commonplace in the alcohol industry. The company explained that the name was used in line with wider market practices and did not create a particular appeal to under-18s.
The company stated that the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated on the packaging with absolute clarity and this also prevented any particular appeal to under-18s. The company highlighted various positive alcohol cues which included:
• The clear use of ‘English Cider’
• The prominent use of “ALC. 3.4% VOL.”
• The inclusion of ‘TAURUS’ and the Taurus logo which was only used on cider products thus consumers would only associate them with alcoholic beverages.
The company stated that the name of the drink ‘Bubble Gum’ appeared immediately above the descriptor ‘English Cider’ and below the Taurus logo which all negated the potential risk of a particular appeal to under-18s. The company explained that the stylisation of the Taurus logo was sophisticated, minimalistic and not anthropomorphic or cartoonish in any way. The company stated that ‘bubble gum’ was nostalgic in nature, referring to a flavour that had long been available and enjoyed by adult consumers.
Furthermore, the overall impression created by the packaging was nostalgic, sophisticated and designed to be retro in nature. The company explained that the label had a crimped border which gave the impression of an old-fashioned label and the pastel shades alongside the relatively plain stylisation of the background had been chosen to ensure the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s.
The company noted that in the decision regarding Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad and Black Jack Schnapps the Panel stated that the use of a specific colour did not in and of itself create a particular appeal to under-18s. In this case, the company explained that the packaging had used muted pastel shades, the colours of which corresponded to the flavour of the product. Alongside the flavour, the company highlighted that relatively plain fonts had been used with no cartoon imagery. This was directly in contrast to the packaging of ‘Au Vodka Bubblegum’ which featured a bubble style font but was nevertheless found to comply with the Code. Therefore, the company did not believe that when considered in the whole the packaging of Taurus Bubble Gum Cider had a particular appeal to under-18s.
Finally, the company stated that the drink was exclusive to Aldi stores and it was only stocked with other alcoholic products in the relevant retail section. The company explained that it also operated a challenge 25 policy on the sale of all alcoholic products.
The company reiterated that it was committed to continuing to implement
such measures to ensure that alcoholic drinks were not placed or marketed in such a way as to create any particular appeal to, or sold to, under-18s.
The Panel’s assessment:
The Panel considered whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel discussed the confectionery flavour and noted that in previous precedent cases, notably Au Vodka Bubblegum and Cactus Jack’s Schnapps (Black Jack and Fruit Salad), it had found that a sweet flavour alone was not enough to constitute a particular appeal to under-18s. Therefore, the overall impression conveyed by the packaging would determine compliance with the Code.
The Panel first discussed the flavour in more detail and noted that whilst strawberry laces was a flavour that some adults may enjoy it was arguably more associated as a sweet that was popular with children. Therefore, the Panel considered the rest of the packaging in the context of a confectionary flavour which had a strong appeal to children.
The Panel noted that ‘Strawberry Laces’ was prominently positioned on the front of the label which also incorporated a various shades of pink. The Panel noted the company’s response that the colour used was intended to represent the flavour of the drink and give a retro and nostalgic feel to the packaging. The Panel acknowledged this point but expressed concern that ‘strawberry laces’ were still a popular sweet choice for children today and therefore the concept was not necessarily nostalgic due to the contemporary nature of the flavour. When assessing the packaging further, the Panel noted that the drink was in a 330ml slimline can and while it was common for alcohol to be in this size of container, it did bear similarity to a soft drink in the context of the flavour and colour. The Panel considered that these combined elements could all enhance the appeal the drink could have to children.
With that in mind, the Panel discussed the application of Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that to breach the Code, packaging must resonate with under-18s in a way that it would not with adults. The Panel also discussed the accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.2(h) and considered that it was often the combination of multiple elements such as cartoon or sweet images, bubble writing, bright contrasting primary colours as well as sweet flavours that caused packaging to have a particular appeal.
The Panel assessed the rest of the front label which included the clear display of the word ‘Cider’ and prominent positioning of the product’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV). In addition to this, the back label contained the unit content of the product, pregnancy logo, the UK Chief Medical Officer’s weekly unit guidelines which all contributed to the drink’s positive alcohol cues as highlighted by the company. The Panel also considered that there were no thick keylines used and the font employed straight lines and edges as opposed to bubble or curved style text. The Panel noted that the packaging did not contain any sweet or cartoon imagery and that the ‘Taurus’ font was fairly plain and depicted a realistic image of a bull which was not anthropomorphised.
Whilst the Panel did have some concerns about a confectionary-flavoured alcoholic drink in the context of a 330ml slimline can that was also synonymous with soft drinks packaging, it noted there was an absence of other elements that typically accumulated to create ‘particular’ appeal. The Panel noted that the packaging did not incorporate cartoon or sweet imagery, bubble writing, bright contrasting primary colours or characters that may particularly appeal to children.
After much discussion, the Panel concluded that whilst the flavour was close to the line of acceptability, the overall impression conveyed by the packaging did not have a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.