As part of its market-wide audit focused on responsible drinks marketing, the Portman Group has chosen not to uphold complaints against beer giant Brewdog.
The complaint concerned Brewdog’s Lucky Break beer. It argued that the bright, playful design – including a Japanese lucky cat – made the product appealing to under-18s.
In response, Brewdog conducted a consumer survey via Vypr, which found that 87% of participants believed the product was aimed at adults. The company also explained that the maneki-neko (Japanese lucky cat) and the colour scheme were chosen to reflect cultural symbols of luck and fortune.
The panel discussed the cultural context of maneki-neko, rooted in Japanese folklore, and decided that the figure was primarily associated with adult themes of good luck. As such, the complaint was not upheld.
In the same audit, the Portman Group also dismissed complaints against Sazerac’s Burst Blue Raspberry and Beavertown’s Lupuloid.
Concerns about Burst Blue Raspberry focused on its bright colour and flavour appealing to children. The panel however, ruled that both were well-established in adult-targeted alcoholic products. The label also clearly indicated it contained alcohol.
Complaints against Lupuloid noted the bright green monster and playful name as potentially appealing to children. The panel acknowledged that the design was near the boundary of acceptability but decided the complex artwork was sophisticated and aimed at an adult audience.
However, the Portman Group did uphold a complaint against Põhjala Brewing for its Heli Imperial Gose.
The complaint highlighted that the 330ml can resembled a soft drink and did not clearly indicate that it was alcoholic. The word ‘beer’ appeared only in small text on the back of the can and the front label lacked positive alcohol cues such as unit information or guidance from the chief medical officer. While not required, the panel noted these are useful cues for UK consumers.
The panel found that, particularly given the unfamiliarity of the beer style in the UK, the absence of clear alcohol indicators made the product non-compliant with Code Rule 3.1.
