Alcohol Advertising Review Board. Determination Report

Transcription

1 Alcohol Advertising Review Board Determination Report Reference number: 5/12 Product: Vodka Cruiser Pom Pom and Electric Pink Advertiser: Independent Distillers The complaint is upheld in part. 8 May 2012 This determination by the Alcohol Advertising Review Board Panel ( the Panel ) concerns the name and packaging of Vodka Cruiser Pom Pom and Electric Pink by Independent Distillers which was the subject of a complaint received on 21 March The Advertisement Vodka Cruiser Electric Pink comes in a clear bottle, filled with pink liquid. The label is pink and white, and features an image of an eagle at the top. Under this is the text Premium Blend and GENUINE DOUBLE DISTILLED, followed by VODKA CRUISER. The flavour, Electric Pink, is written underneath this. The packaging of the four pack is similar to the label. The carton is pink, with the Vodka Cruiser symbol printed in white and the text CRUISER printed in black. Vodka Cruiser Pom Pom comes in a clear bottle, filled with purple liquid. The label is purple and white, and features an image of an eagle at the top. Under this is the text Premium Blend and GENUINE DOUBLE DISTILLED, followed by VODKA CRUISER. The flavour, Pom Pom, is written underneath this. The packaging of the four pack is similar to the label. The carton is purple, with the Vodka Cruiser symbol printed in white and the text CRUISER printed in black. The Complaint The complainant believed this advertisement contravened: Section (4)(a)(i)(2) of the Alcohol Advertising Review Board Content Code, on the basis that the product name and packaging is associated with youth or youth symbols. The complainant believed the colours pink and purple are both youth symbols; in particular, they are symbols of young girls. Pom poms are associated with sports cheerleading by young females and the product name is a play on words relating to that youth theme;

2 Section (5)(1) of the Content Code, as the product name and packaging have an appearance of special appeal to young people by way of devices (colours) that predominantly appeal to young people, particularly young girls; and Section (5)(2) of the Content Code, as the product name and packaging may lead to confusion with confectionary or soft drinks. The Code The advertisement was reviewed against the Code, and in particular: Section (4)(a)(i)(1) of the Content Code: 4. Alcohol-specific provisions: 1. Young people i. Alcohol Advertisements shall not: 1. be directed at, or have a strong or evident appeal to, Young People; Section (4)(a)(i)(2) of the Content Code: 4. Alcohol-specific provisions: 1. Young people i. Alcohol Advertisements shall not: 2. associate any Product with youth or youth symbols, Section (5)(1), (5)(2) and (5)(3) of the Content Code: 5. Standards to be applied to the naming and packaging of Alcoholic Beverages Without limiting the application of the other provisions in this Code, labels, graphics, artwork, brand names, packaging, containers and other marketing materials and techniques shall not: 1. have an appearance of special appeal to Young People by way of designs, motifs, cartoon characters or other devices that predominantly appeal to Young People; 2. lead to confusion with confectionary or soft drinks; 3. lead to confusion as to the alcoholic nature and/or alcoholic strength of the product; The Advertiser s Comments The Advertiser was contacted for comment on 23 March A six-page response was received on 2 April 2012 and was passed on to the Review Panel for consideration. The response related to two separate complaints. Due to the length of the advertiser s response, a summary is provided here: 1. The advertiser noted: While we do share some of the concerns of the broader industry about the unilateral way in which the Alcohol Advertising Review Board was set up, we intend to fully and frankly respond to your investigations. Indeed, we have great respect for the constituent organisations which have joined together to support the AARB. On that basis, we hope to work cooperatively with you and explain why our product and marketing is in no way a breach of either the AARB s own new Code, or any other relevant voluntary or mandatory marketing requirements.

3 Independent Distillers, which has recently become a subsidiary of Asahi Group Holdings, takes its responsibilities as a maker of alcoholic products very seriously. Both Independent and Asahi have strict internal guidelines regarding product development and marketing to ensure that no inappropriate product or marketing material is ever released. 2. The advertiser provided details of Asahi s Guiding Principles. 3. The advertiser provided details on product development, including: At its heart, the ready to drink ( RTD ) market segment is serving a desire for convenience. This convenience comes at a substantial price premium, which is one of the main reasons that our target market is in the adult mid 20s+ age segment. A large component of our product development focuses on replicating existing drinking behaviours which are happening organically in adult venues such as bars and clubs, as well as in homes, across Australia. We take that existing behaviour, and then develop a safe, premeasured product which is similar in flavour to those drinks which people were previously selfmixing or ordering in bars. A key factor in the development of the Cruiser range has been the increasing popularity of premium Cosmopolitan style cocktails in the adult female mid 20s+ market segment. This is a reasonably affluent market segment which drinks in moderation but will pay a price-premium for little luxuries. It is this consumer segment for which we created Cruiser range, and these are the core consumers of new flavours such as Electric Pink and Pom Pom Cruisers. 4. The advertiser provided detail on their target market, including: We note with concern that both your complaints suggest or contain implications that our product or marketing is designed to appeal to young people, in particular, young girls. We would reiterate in the strongest terms that our products are not designed, marketed or priced in any way which is consistent with the targeting of young people or young girls. By any measure (including our own marketing policies) these products have been designed as a little luxury convenience for middle aged Australians who drink in moderation. With the greatest of respect, the assumptions made in the complaint in respect to the flavours, names and marketing of Cruiser s products are completely incorrect. For example, in respect of Pom Pom Cruiser, the complainant alleges, Pom poms are associated with school/sports cheerleading by young females and the product name is a play on words relating to the youth theme. In fact, the Pom Pom name evokes the intense pomegranate imagery for which Pom Pom Cruiser is named. Pomegranate is an unashamedly mature flavour appealing to older consumers. It was developed on the back of consumers who

4 were purchasing POM Wonderful pomegranate juice to make their own pomegranate flavoured cocktails. In short, Pom Pom Cruiser s target market is the opposite of what the complainant assumes. In respect of Electric Pink Cruiser, the explicit intention is to evoke the neon colour craze of the 1980s which our target market recalls with great fondness. Examples of how other companies have recently also used the retro appeal of neon for an early middle-aged audience can be seen in premium women s clothing company Gorman ( and leading Australian furniture designers ( By way of comparison, youth brand Sportsgirl ( is using a completely different colour palate, eschewing the 80 s retro colours which resonate with our older target market. In short, as mentioned before, our target market for Cruiser is mid 20s+ year old adult women. Typically, as younger women they watched Sex and the City in the late 1990 s and early 2000 s. Now, as early middle-aged women, they drink less in any given session, prefer that each individual drink is not as strong, but will pay a little extra to get the convenience and taste they expect from a premium adult range such as Cruiser. 5. The advertiser provided detail on their pricing policy, including: Independent Distillers has always had a policy of ensuring that our products are understood to be premium end of the market. This strategy requires premium pricing, and as a business we will always choose higher margin (reflecting our premium product) over higher volume. This policy has been further accentuated by the additional affect of the so-called alcopops tax. Not only is our product considerably more expensive than other alcoholic products, we are also typically more expensive than our direct competitors in the RTD space, deliberately pricing us right out of the highly price-sensitive youth market. 6. The advertiser provided detail on the alcohol content, including: All of the products mentioned in your two complaints have a standardised alcohol content of 4.6%, and come in 275 millilitre bottles, meaning that each bottle has just less than one standard drink. We believe that these are significantly weaker than many competitive products, but also much safer and weaker than the very consumer self-mix behaviour our products seek to replicate and replace. 7. The advertiser provided detail on their products sugar content, including: One of the markers often cited in respect of whether a beverage is inappropriately targeted at young people is sugar content. We acknowledge that this is a complex area without simple answers, but what is clear is that the Cruiser brand s sugar content is lower than its competitors.

5 Independent Distillers provided comparative BRIX ratings and stated, We feel that our lower sugar content is yet another strong indication that our drinks are neither created for, nor marketed towards, an inappropriately young audience. Rather, they are specifically designed and marketed towards the more mature taste of the adult female mid 20s+ market segment. 8. The advertiser responded to the sections of the Code outlined in the complaint: Both of your complaints reference potential breaches of exactly the same sections of AAR s Content Code, namely (4)(a)(i)(1), (4)(a)(i)(2), (5)(1), (5)(2) and (5)(3) The only one of these which we would consider conceding is (5)(3), as a proportion of our consumers would assume that our product is stronger than it actually is. However we assume in drafting this section, you intended to prohibit confusion where such confusion led to an assumption that the beverage in question is not as strong as it actually is. Panel s determination The complaint was referred to three Panel members for review. The Panel determined: 1. The advertisement did not contravene section (4)(a)(i)(1) of the Content Code, as while the names are likely to appeal to young people, they do not strongly or evidently appeal to young people. 2. The advertisement contravened section (4)(a)(i)(2) of the Content Code, as the majority of the Panel believed the colours pink and purple are associated with young girls, and pom-poms are associated with cheerleading, a youth sport. While the Advertiser notes that the flavour Pom Pom is in reference to the pomegranate flavour of the product, the majority of the Panel believes the likely interpretation of the term Pom Pom associates the product with a youth activity. 3. The advertisement contravened section (5)(1) of the Content Code, as the majority of the Panel believed the colour and designs on the labels and the names Electric Pink and Pom Pom would have an appearance of special appeal to young people, particularly young girls. 4. The advertisement contravened section (5)(2) of the Content Code, as the majority of the Panel believed the names Pom Pom and Electric Pink and the packaging leads to confusion with confectionary or soft drinks. 5. The advertisement did not contravene section (5)(3) of the Content Code, as the Panel did not believe the packaging led to confusion as to the alcoholic nature and/or alcoholic strength of the product, as the alcohol content is labelled and not confusing for those wanting to determine it. The complaint is upheld in part. Further action The Alcohol Advertising Review Board encourages the Advertiser to reconsider the use of product names and packaging that appeal to young people.