News

Cannabis-flavoured gin, beer bottles featuring women with scratch-off clothing and a drink called Shag. Sound familiar? If not, it's not surprising - these products have all fallen foul of the Portman Group's Code of Practice for responsible alcohol packaging and marketing.

The Portman Code was established in 1996 following the arrival of alcopops. These drinks caused controversy when concerns grew that many were targeting under-aged consumers. Childish brand names, packaging designs and illustrations made them hard to distinguish from soft drinks, and the government demanded a solution.

However, in July of this year, ministers warned the sector to act more responsibly or face new laws governing the sale and the packaging of alcohol. The Department of Health consultation, which closes on 14 October, threatens alcohol producers with legislation that could force them to display mandatory health warnings on packaging by the end of the year.

Portman Group chief executive David Poley argues that its voluntary code is sufficient. The Portman Group’s code of practice covers the naming, packaging and merchandising of alcoholic drinks and states that the alcoholic nature and strength of a product should be clearly communicated, and products should not suggest any association with bravado, enhanced mental or physical capacity, illicit drugs or sexual or social success. In addition, products must not have particular appeal to under-18s.

The original motivation for the code was the protection of under-18s, and this is still the most common theme of complaint, explains Poley. For example, fcuk Spirit from Matthew Clark was found to be in breach of the code after a complainant alleged its packaging design too closely resembled that of fashion retailer French Connection’s clothing line, fcuk. They argued the brand was popular among teenagers and that the product’s alcoholic nature was poorly communicated in small, insignificant print.

Small amendments
The Portman Group’s independent panel found the product’s labelling clearly communicated the alcoholic nature and strength of the product in terms of colour, style of lettering and field of vision. It also didn’t think the brand name suggested sexual success. But it did believe the fcuk brand appealed to under-18s and, on that basis, part of the complaint was upheld. Matthew Clark swiftly withdrew the product from shelves.

In some cases an upheld complaint only needs a small amendment, explains Poley. For example, the alcoholic nature of the drink might be unclear and the size of the print will simply have to be increased. But on other occasions there are more fundamental changes that need to be made, and in extreme cases the product must be withdrawn altogether.

However, Martyn Hayes, design director at Elmwood, which handles wine packaging for Asda, does not believe the blame lies solely with the drinks producers. For underage binge drinkers it is all about getting pissed. They will buy anything they can get their hands on. It’s often down to the retailers. It wouldn’t matter what a product looked like if youths couldn’t get hold of it.

All packaging has a degree of influence and can entice people to buy a product, he adds. Asda takes under-age drinking very seriously and follows a code to make sure products aren’t youth focused. As far as packaging goes, the industry learned a lot from the mistakes that were made with alcopops.

Poley adds that there should be a realistic approach to the amount of information that can be featured on packaging. If manufacturers put too much information on alcoholic drinks consumers will be overloaded. Although the code is strict in parts, it allows a degree of marketing freedom.

He explains: Packaging design depends on context. The code doesn’t have any particular provisions as we can’t create an exhaustive list. Adult or discreet cartoons that are not prominent are not necessarily going to be a problem.

In July, Saucy Suckers, marketed as ‘alcolollies for grown-ups, was launched. The packaging for one flavour of the alcoholic ice lollies features a voluptuous lady sunbathing. Design agency Pearlfisher’s creative partner Karen Welman, also a partner in the alcololly venture, defends the design, stating: The whole concept is based on offering adults a palette-cleansing refreshment when they want to take a break from alcoholic drinks.

Jolly lollies
Welman says the saucy theme and imagery is based on 1930s cartoon-style postcards, and invokes nostalgia rather than promoting sexual success. In addition, the 5% ABV products are only supplied at over-18 music festivals. We make sure the products are not perceived as popsicles, as this might make them more attractive to a younger market. We want to stay as clear of that audience as possible, says Wellman.

Last year, Anne Hempstock launched Cream Cutie into the cream liqueur market. There are a lot of brands in this sector that look similar and so the product had to be different, says Hempstock. In fact, she was so confident with her drink and unique packaging featuring a cartoon woman, cat and love hearts, that she took her product on to BBC1 show Dragons’ Den. Although she didn’t get the cash backing, Hempstock still argues the product is a winner.

Each bottle costs £2 and is smaller than the average cream liqueur, to prevent wastage rather than promote down-in-one shots, Hempstock explains. The drinks are made from fresh ingredients and are aimed at the sophisticated lady. If there was a problem with the packaging the Portman Group would have come down on me like a tonne of bricks.

The Portman Code of Practice might be voluntary, but it remains a powerful force. If a complaint is upheld by its independent panel an alert bulletin is issued to retailers, published in trade press and sent to licensing officials and trade associations. It has widespread observation and is abided by across the board, says Poley. The alerts have always resulted in a product being withdrawn, he says.

But by protecting the consumer, alcoholic drink manufacturers and packaging designers are protecting the industry. If the government began enforcing regulations then it would be much more restrictive, says Poley. We prefer self-regulation over legislation as you can be flexible about how it is interpreted.

The code works to assist the drinks industry rather than placing all the blame for irresponsible alcohol consumption on it. In terms of consumer behaviour, the industry is not wholly to blame for irresponsible drinking, says Poley. Media influence, peer pressures, pub discounting and parenting all play their part. Any drink is capable of being misused. It doesn’t automatically put the manufacturer at fault.

When the code was first established, the Portman Group received around 40 complaints a year. This has since been cut in half. In a recent assessment of 500 products picked at random, carried out by PIPC on behalf of the group, only 3% of drinks packaging was found to be questionable. However, government threats of tighter controls on alcohol packaging and labelling are still looming.

THE PORTMAN CODE
The Portman Code seeks to ensure alcohol is promoted in a socially responsible way. It covers the naming, packaging and promotion of drinks and states that:

• The alcoholic nature and strength of a product should be clearly communicated
• Products should not promote bravado, enhanced mental or physical capacity, illicit drugs or sexual or social success
• They should not encourage binge-drinking or appeal to under-18s
• The code was established in 1996
• It is voluntary
• Complaints go through an independent panel
• It is funded by nine major drink companies, accounting for around 60% of the industry, and has a further 130 retailers and manufacturers signed up
• It has received around 150 complaints since it was founded
• A free advisory service is provided for guidance on packaging