Download DECISION

08/389
DECISION
Meeting 9 September 2008
Complaint 08/389
Complainant: C. Turner
Advertisement: 42 Below Ltd
Complaint: The magazine advertisement for 42 Below Vodka is headed:
“GENERALLY SPEAKING, I’VE FOUND BEES TO BE UNREASONABLE AND DOGMATIC”.
The text in the advertisement is a conversational style essay written in the ‘first
person’ by a marketer for the product. It commences as follows:
“I live in a house that somehow happens somehow to be perfectly in the middle of a
place where bees actually live and the place bees want to go to get the stuff bees
want to get.
What this means is that at any given moment of the day or night there will be at least
twenty bees trying to get into my house and another twenty bees trying to get out.
Going around the house to get to where they want to go is clearly not an option for
them.
And while part of me applauds their tireless efforts to wedge themselves through the
smallest window cracks in their quest to die two days later on the bottom of my
shower, another part of me can’t help but think that the intelligence of insects is
totally over rated. …”
The essay continues in the same tone and then refers to ‘applied tokenism’ and
says:
“They say Manuka honey is healthy so I drink 42BELOW Manuka Honey flavoured
vodka”.
Further on the essay says:
“This implication of a health benefit is also a great angle for marketing because
you’ll notice us marketers are much more concerned about ‘implied benefit’ rather
then ‘actual benefit’ “.
2
08/389
Included in the advertisement is an image of a bottle of 42 Below “Honey” flavoured
Vodka, with three bees lying around the base.
Complainant, C. Turner, said:
“Please note that this complaint, and any complaint that I may make in the future, is
not made on behalf of GALA.
I now write to complain about advertising for 42 Below Manuka Honey flavoured
vodka which appeared in the Sunday Star*Times Magazine supplement on 13 July
2008.
Part of the blurb says "They say Manuka honey is healthy so I drink 42 Below
Manuka Honey vodka." Another part says "This implication of a health benefit is also
a great angle for marketing because you'll notice us marketers are much more
concerned about 'implied benefit' rather then (sic) 'actual benefit' ".
I believe that the advertisement breaches Principle 2 of the liquor advertising code by
implying that a beverage containing 42% alcohol by volume is "healthy".
The Chairman ruled that the following provision was relevant:
Code for Advertising Liquor
Principle 2: Liquor advertisements shall observe a high standard of social
responsibility.
The Advertiser, 42 Below Ltd, said:
“Thank you for your letter concerning our recent advertisement for 42BELOW
Manuka Honey.
We do acknowledge the right of the complainant to formally express their personal
views on the promotion. However, we also strongly believe that the promotion is
consistent with the Advertising Codes of Practice.
We, and all contracted parties associated with us operate within a firm framework of
social responsibility and have taken great care not to breach Principle 2 of the Code
for Advertising Liquor by associating alcohol with any implied health benefits.
As can be seen in the advertisement we have stated "...people in the medical field
would doubt the medicinal value of Manuka Honey Flavoured Vodka..." which
denotes that there is no actual medicinal properties associated with our product.
This advertisement, written by our in house copy writer, was intended to be a
humorous, tongue in cheek, light-hearted read on a Sunday morning. We are
confident that the majority of consumers who read this took it in the spirit intended.
3
08/389
We therefore apologise for any offence caused by advertisement but cannot agree
that our advertisement was in breach of the Advertising Codes of Practice.”
The Media, Fairfax Media, said:
“We received your letter advising of the complaint made by C. Turner of the 42 Below
advertisement that appeared in Sunday Magazine on 13th July 2008.
We do not believe that the advertisement is in breach of Principle 2 of the Code for
Advertising Liquor. The ad talks about the health benefits of manuka honey and then
goes on to state that it suspects people in the medical field would doubt the medicinal
value of Manukau Honey Flavoured Vodka.
The reference to the "implication of a health benefit" from a marketing perspective,
we believe was intended to be humorous and not suggesting that there were health
benefits associated with Manuka Honey Flavoured Vodka.
We feel the tone of the advertisement to be humorous and fitting with the nature of
the brand itself, which we anticipate would be the consumer outtake. Therefore we
do not believe the advertisement is in breach of this code.”
Deliberation
The Complaints Board read the magazine advertisement which was the subject of
the complaint and the relevant correspondence. It noted C. Turner’s view that the
advertisement suggested the product, which contained 42% alcohol, was “healthy”,
and thereby it did not meet the high level of social responsibility required by
Principle 2 of the Code for Advertising Liquor.
In making its determination, the Complaints Board took into account the product,
medium, audience and context. It noted that the product was alcohol, and the
medium was the Sunday Star*Times, and thereby it observed that the reader would
be likely to be reasonably mature. In its view, the advertisement as a whole
contained a highly recognisable level of “tongue in cheek” humour which was part of
the 42 Below brand, and the reader would be likely to be familiar with this. In any
event, the Complaints Board said a reader would not interpret the advertisement as
making a serious claim that the product was “healthy” based on the fact that it
contained manuka honey.
Having made these observations, the Complaints Board said unanimously that the
advertisement met the high standard of social responsibility required Principle 2 of
the Code for Advertising Liquor and ruled that it was not in breach of that Principle.
The Complaints Board ruled to not uphold the complaint.
Decision: Complaint Not Upheld