Behind Portman doors
The Portman Group, the drinks industry watchdog, has faced stiff criticism recently for blacklisting Kalashnikov vodka and Charles Wells' Sex on the Beach. Below, Independent Complaints Panel chairman LORD PAUL CONDON explains how thesystem operates and its inherent problems
The difficulty of self-regulation
The vulnerability of any self-regulatory system is that it is only activated when there are complaints. You could have one old lady somewhere in the country, or anyone else, who makes a complaint and that triggers a process. It often means you get titfortat complaints from within the industry. The producers themselves are not prohibited from making complaints and we do get people trying to complain to influence the market. I do make sure the panel members are aware who is making the complaint and we can read into that what motivations come with it.
We feel quite uneasy when our role, which is about pre-produced drinks, is juxtaposed to what can happen with drinks on a [pub] premises. We could ban, after a complaint, say Screaming Orgasm, and that gets withdrawn. But then you could go [into a pub] and get exactly the same thing.
I guess you either have a fully-licensed, heavily-controlled system, where every new product has to come forward to be licensed for its suitability, or you rely on the complaints system. If you rely on the complaints system, like any industry with self-regulation, you are at the mercy of that complaints system.
Decision-making
When I was first on the panel, we were operating under the 2000 code and I think the industry thought we were quite soft. We didn't uphold a complaint against Shag lager. There was a feeling that they wanted a stronger code, they wanted stronger decisions. So we now operate under the latest version of the code and it's pretty strong not by our doing but after industry's consultation. There is now a fairly low threshold to offend against.
The fcuk debate
The fcuk case was a very prolonged process and we realised it was an important one for the industry because of the crossover of one marketing environment to another. If fcuk had gone ahead, what about Nike, what about other crossover-type brands? So a lot of energy went into that process. The company itself came and gave oral evidence. Its own marketing data and customer information ultimately led us to the decision (to ban it). It showed that if you look at footfall, interest and those who most associated with the brand it was 14 to 17-year-olds. That was from their own information.
The Kalashnikov controversy
With something like Kalashnikov, it was very difficult. Our thinking was that the producers can choose any name they want and they could have called it General Kalashnikov's vodka but they chose to brand it Kalashnikov.
History is my great passion and I didn't want to do anything that is disrespectful to General Kalashnikov. I realise and the panel realises the hugely historical role he occupies in Russia. But in Russia it (Kalanshnikov vodka) is sometimes branded in bottles the shape of rifles.
Sometimes you can sense the panel feels very strongly one way. This was not the case with Kalashnikov. There was a lot of deliberation but there was a feeling it had been branded and marketed a particular way to get a particular image.
Those (on the panel) in marketing and advertising felt quite strongly about this. We worry about gun culture.
Guns in themselves are not new and obviously they can be used legally and lawfully but they are dangerous. So why brand a product around a gun when there are other choices?
And they still had the opportunity to come back, talk to the advisory service and see if there were ways to brand it in a slightly different way. That's their choice.
When the revised code came out, it said you can distinguish between historical and of the moment names' and Kalashnikov is very much an of the moment name'. It is the weapon of choice by terrorists and others. You can go anywhere in the world and say Kalashnikov and it has an immediate reference. They know exactly what you are talking about. There is no connotation that Kalashnikov is a bad' gun but the resonance of the word is a gun. The code says don't have anything to do with violence.
There are times when I come away from the decision and think that was rather a difficult one, finely balanced, and I'd put Kalashnikov in that category.
Sex on the Beach case
Sometimes it's fairly easy. If you have a product branded Screaming Orgasm or Blow Job it's fairly easy to see how that offends.
Sex on the Beach? Where do you draw a line? We had some very interesting de-bates. I find it quite interesting that the strongest advocates of setting pretty tough standards seem to be the youngest members of the panel and those most closely associated with youngsters. So I find myself, almost paradoxically, a dove rather than the hawkish end of [the panel]. Recent decisions have caused us a lot of angst and a lot of deliberation."
Appeal processes
When a complaint is made, the producer is asked to respond. We are then presented with a dossier of information. We then make a provisional decision. That provisional decision is taken back to the producer and they are invited to respond. Most don't come up with any new information and most seem to accept the decision. Some will challenge all or part and we try and give them very full reasons for the decision.
They may say have you thought there is a different way of looking at this' and then we either confirm the decision or we don't. Sometimes, I must admit, the producers say we actually think you have misconstrued what we are trying to do around this product and occasionally we have been persuaded by that. If it is still upheld, then really the next step (for the drink producer) is a legal challenge and we have been threatened with that. And they can consider judicial review. For that, they would have to say we are acting outside the borders of engagement or they think we have been biased or influenced unduly.
Looking to the future
It seems daft to us that we ban a product because of its name, but then a cocktail with that name can still be served in a bar. It is one of those inconsistencies, and other associations are looking at that. It's a live debate the whole time. But something has to give to harmonise the situation. Either the on-trade takes a tougher stance or this (the code) has to be relaxed.
Drinks products on the blacklist
Test tube cocktails alcoholic nature not communicated clearly
Turbo white cider alcoholic strength is dominant theme
Kalashnikov suggestion of aggressive behaviour
Cannabis vodka association with drugs
Shag lager link to sexual success
Screamer atomiser sprays encouraging irresponsible consumption
Fcuk alcopop appealing to under-18s
Red boasted of enhancing mental and physical ability
Portman's code
The current Portman Group Code of Practice says that a drink, its packaging and any promotional material should not in any direct or indirect way:
l Have the alcoholic strength, relatively high alcohol content, or the intoxicating effect, as a dominant theme.
l Suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous or anti-social behaviour.
l Suggest any association with, acceptance of, or allusion to, illicit drugs.
l Suggest any association with sexual success.
l Suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to sexual success.
l Encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as binge-drinking, drunkenness or drink driving.
l Have a particular appeal to under-18s.
l Incorporate images of people who are, or look as if they are, under 25 years of age, unless there is no suggestion that they have just consumed, are consuming or are about to consume alcohol.
l Suggest that any product can enhance mental or physical capabilities.
