Download decision - New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority

07/232
DECISION
Meeting 10 July 2007
Complaint 07/232
Complainant: G. Vaughan - Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand (ALAC)
Advertisement: Independent Liquor (NZ) Ltd
Complaint: The instore advertisement for William Cody’s Bourbon and Cola
included a model of a “Remote Control Monster Truck”. A printed advertisement
beside it pictured the vehicle and contained the wording:
“BUY
- 1 dozen and be in to win this
bad ass
remote control
monster truck
valued at over $150
drawn: 17th May”
The Complainant, G. Vaughan - ALAC, said:
“I am writing to lodge a complaint regarding advertising for the William Cody's
Bourbon and Cola ready-to-drink brand. The advertisement in this case is a Cody's
branded remote control "monster truck". The truck is a giveaway that customers can
enter a draw to win upon purchasing a dozen Cody's RTDs. It is an in-store
promotion that appears to be nationwide and runs until 17 May. The attached
photograph was taken at a bottle store in Christchurch.
ALAC believes the remote control truck is an advertisement with strong appeal to
minors contrary to Principle 4 of the Code for Advertising Liquor. Granted, there are
likely some adults who enjoy playing with remote control trucks (some adults also
2
07/232
build model airplanes or collect teddy bears), but generally in the community remote
control trucks are perceived as toys for children. Also relevant to this case is
Guideline 4(d) of the Code, which advises particular care in advertising ready-to-drink
products.
The advertiser may argue that the advertisement in question is not directed at minors
because it appeared as part of a promotion that required the entrant to be over 18 in
order to purchase the product before entering the draw. This argument might have
some validity if the truck was not branded. However, William Cody's did put their
brand on it so the truck should be viewed as an advertisement in its own right rather
than just an element of the original promotion. Consider the likely end use of the
truck. Will it be used solely by adults or will young family members, friends and
neighbours also want to watch it and play with it? Perhaps it will become a gift to a
child. The counter-argument to this is that the parents should control what the child
plays with. However, this places an onerous burden on parents. There seems no
good reason why a liquor advertiser should build brand awareness using a child's
toy.”
The Chairman ruled that the following provisions were relevant:
Code for Advertising Liquor
Principle 2 - Liquor advertisements shall observe a high standard of social
responsibility.
Guideline
2(a)
No product shall be advertised that does not comply with the following
requirements taken from the National Guidelines on the Naming, Packaging
and Merchandising of Alcoholic Beverages, published by the Alcohol
Advisory Council of New Zealand (June 2000).
Labels, graphics, artwork, brand names, packaging, containers and
other marketing materials and techniques shall observe the law, and
shall not:
(i)
have the appearance of special appeal to minors by way
of designs, motifs, cartoon characters or other devices that
predominantly appeal to minors.
Principle 4
1.
Liquor advertisements shall be directed to adult audiences. Liquor
advertisements shall not be directed at minors nor have strong or
evident appeal to minors in particular.
The Advertiser, Independent Liquor (NZ) Ltd, said:
“I write in reference to the complaint by ALAC in regards to an in store promotion of
one of our brands...Cody's.
I shall refer to each relevant section individually
3
07/232
As you have mentioned, the relevant sections of the Code of Practice are:
Principle 2 - Liquor advertisements shall observe a high standard of social
responsibility.
Guidelines
2(a)
Labels, graphics, artwork, brand names, packaging, containers and other marketing
materials and techniques shall observe the law, and shall not:
(i)
have the appearance of special appeal to minors by way of designs, motifs, cartoon
characters or other devices that predominantly appeal to minors
The poster in question is devoid of any of the methods described in the act. There is
no cartoon type font, motifs, designs or pictures and no evidence of any attempt to
appeal to minors.
It is quite simply a promotional item, a remote control truck, and a poster advertising
it
Principle 4
1.
Liquor advertisements shall be directed to adult audiences. Liquor advertisements
shall not be directed at minors nor have strong or evident appeal to minors in
particular. Note: Particular care is needed in advertising products such as RTDs
which may appeal to the younger section of the adult market.
As the leading RTD supplier in NZ, we take this section of the code very seriously.
The code notes that advertising should be aimed at adults.
The poster in question and the remote control truck are both displayed in a liquor
store which is an R18 premises. In fact, this entire campaign has been run
exclusively with in R18 premises.
The complainant mentions that the remote control truck may be passed on to kids
and therefore our promotion breaks the code
While this would seem to be outside the bounds of the intention of the act, we have
actually worked to attempt to curb such behaviour
While this is the case for all promotional items that all liquor companies do, this item
is different in that the branding is purely on stickers that can be easily removed. (See
attached letter from our supplier)
The parent would have to make a conscious decision to give their child liquor
branded product.
To expect the liquor industry to stop this behaviour is very onerous indeed
In summary:
This is an adult promotion, placed exclusively in adult premises and can only be won
by adults.”
4
07/232
Powersource Promotions Pty Ltd, said:
“This letter is in direct reference to the William Cody's fully custom made Remote
Control Monster Trucks produced by Powersource Promotions Pty. Ltd. (Aust) for
Independent Distillers (NZ) Ltd.
Please be informed that these items were produced to be given away or sold in
conjunction with the purchase of a product that is licensed and only available for
purchase by an adult.
Powersource produces tens of thousands of these remote control vehicles worldwide
for many global brand name companies of which many are brewing and liquor
companies. These are used as a `Big Boys Toy' incentive for up-selling and
rewarding brand loyalist and are no way targeted at enticing children to purchase
liquor products under the legal age requirement in any country.
The aforementioned vehicle is fully custom branded along with full custom branded
packaging to ensure that the product is clearly brand distinctive and does not have a
generic retail look and feel.
If an adult receives or purchases one of these vehicles it is at their own discretion
that it would be passed onto a child. In addition the vehicles are branded with
removable decals (stickers) and these can be easily removed to turn it into an
unbranded tic vehicle should anyone find the branding offensive in any way.
If you have any further queries please don't hesitate to contact myself on ….”
Deliberation
The Complaints Board perused the relevant correspondence and an image of the
advertisement. It noted the Complainant, ALAC, was of the view that the
advertisement, a branded remote control truck, had strong appeal to minors,
breaching the Code for Advertising Liquor.
The Chairman directed the Complaints Board to consider the complaint with
reference to the Code for Advertising Liquor, Principle 2, Guideline 2 (a) (i) and
Principle 4 (1).
In making its determination the Complaints Board was required to consider the
context, product, audience and medium.
As a preliminary matter, the Complaints Board discussed whether or not a remote
control truck with the name of a liquor brand, fell within the definition of liquor
advertisement in the Code for Liquor Advertising.
The Complaints Board noted that the definition said:
"Liquor advertisement" means an advertisement, by whatever means it is
disseminated, that promotes liquor by product, brand or outlet, but does not include a
sponsorship credit or a sponsorship advertisement or an advertisement in which
5
07/232
reference to or the depiction of liquor or liquor packaging or a liquor outlet is
incidental to its purpose.
The Complaints Board agreed that the remote control truck, by virtue of the brand
name that appeared on it, was a liquor advertisement for the purposes of the Code
for Liquor Advertising.
The Complaints Board also noted that there have been previous Complaints Board
Decisions about objects or clothing used as a medium for advertisements.
Turning then to the complaint before it, the Complaints Board acknowledged that the
promotion where a consumer could win a remote control truck was within licensed
premises where the audience was likely to be 18 years and over. The Complaints
Board also noted that the prize, a remote control truck, had been designed and
branded with removable stickers so that any liquor brand name could be removed.
However, the majority of the Complaints Board agreed that despite the measures
taken by the Advertiser, the remote control truck, particularly in public places, did
promote a liquor brand and would have appeal to minors. Therefore a majority of
the Complaints Board agreed that the advertisement – a branded remote control
truck – did not meet the high standard of social responsibility required and was in
breach of Principle 2 and Principle 2 Guideline 2(a) (i). In addition, as the nature of
the advertisement would appeal to minors, it was also in breach of Principle 4 (1).
A minority of the Complaints Board considered that the principle purpose of the
remote control truck was clearly that of a prize in a competition and had not been
intended to be used as the promotion of a liquor brand. A minority of the Complaints
Board considered that taking a commonsense approach to the overall intent of the
promotion meant that the advertisement was not in breach of the Code for
Advertising Liquor
However in accordance with the majority view, the Complaints Board ruled to uphold
the complaint.
Decision: Complaint Upheld