Saturday, 7 March 2020

Running with Tigger

There has been a considerable amount of outrage this week over the decision by the Portman Group to uphold a complaint against the packaging design of Lost & Grounded Running With Sceptres, which features a parade of cartoon animals. While it does not have the power to prevent the packaging being used, it can recommend that retailers do not stock it, which will obviously severely limit its distribution.

There are plenty of reasons to be critical of the Portman Group – its judgments often seem censorious and heavy-handed, it can act on no more than a simple flimsy complaint, which may have come from someone involved in the public health lobby, and it offers no appeals process. However, it’s important to remember, as Martyn Cornell points out in this blogpost, that it was set up as a voluntary body with the specific objective of staving off the possibility of statutory regulation of alcohol promotion and marketing. Some people may naively imagine that a statutory regulator may offer a more benign regime, but that is very hard to imagine, and in reality it is much more likely to result in much more severe restriction.

So: if you don’t want state regulation of the advertising and marketing of alcohol, don’t give the wowsers reasons to complain by using cartoon images on your cans and bottles that would not look out of place in the children’s section of a bookshop. And if you feel that restricts your artistic liberty, I really don’t have any sympathy: I’d rather see cartoon teddies and tigers banned from beer bottles than a Norwegian-style total prohibition on any sort of advertising or marketing.
Sometimes it may need to act in a firm manner to make it clear to the watching world that it is doing its job. And is defending figures reminiscent of children’s cartoon characters really the hill you want to die on when standing up for the rights of alcohol producers? It can’t be denied that the cartoon tiger looks very much like Tigger out of the Winnie the Pooh books. And alcohol is an adult product – why should anyone even want to use imagery that can all too easily be interpreted as appealing to children? Whether in practice it will do isn’t really the issue.

The charge has been levied against the Portman Group that, considering it is funded by large brewers and drinks producers, it discriminates against small and innovative brewers. However, surely it is simply the case that the large firms have a better awareness of the regime they are operating under and are naturally risk-averse. If small brewers fall foul of the code, it is more likely due to naivety about the nature of the regulatory environment, or indeed in some cases deliberately tweaking its tail for the publicity value, although I’m not suggesting that applies here.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that, at least to some extent, craft brewers believe that they are operating on a higher moral plane than the mass-market producers and can thus push the boundaries further. You can’t really imagine George the Bear being brought back to advertise Hofmeister. And this sudden anger against the anti-drink tendency seems very selective and limited in scope – how many of those who are complaining about this have spoken out against much more serious manifestations of the trend such as minimum pricing, which was introduced in Wales only last week? At root, it’s really more concerned with getting at “big beer” than confronting the anti-drink lobby.

If you look into it, the ruling against Oranjeboom 8.5% is actually much more worrying. It is revisiting a packaging design than had already been approved a couple of years previously, and seeking to micromanage the size and positioning of text conveying purely factual information. That is surely much more concerning than objecting to cartoon tigers. Apparently the producers were already going to withdraw this product from the British market, but the precedent has been set. One day this will come back to bite the craft brewers - who have been known to put very strong beers in large containers - on the backside.

12 comments:

  1. whilst I agree this isnt necessarily the case thats the hill to die on this issue, Im reminded that the police,police only by consent.

    The Portman Group by continuing to issue these increasingly absurd decisions risk making themselves irrelevant. It is not reasonable that a single anonymous complaint against a product that has been on sale for many years can result in that product being effectively "banned" from shops signed up to the Portman Groups listings, based only on a very narrow interpretation.

    Wherever you stand on the issue of cartoon art in the craft beer world,and I genuinely think thats a seperate issue from this, the fact a cartoon goat on a beer called Lawless is considered as encouraging illegal behaviour and glamourising beer & violence, whilst a well known European mass market European lager brewer can put a guy in a tuxedo whose entire 58 year history is about glamourising what he does, with a stylised gun on their beer, and not the alcohol free beer their adverts focus on, but the full fat 5% version, but is considered perfectly ok by the same Portman Group...then there is something very wrong

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I say in the post, I'm certainly not suggesting that the Portman Group is above criticism. I can't see any evidence on their website that they have actually reviewed the James Bond imagery, but I'd guess that, given it is a very stylised representation of a gun, and is the familiar logo of a long-running and popular film franchise, they'd probably say it was OK. If it showed someone actually being shot, or was a picture of a cartoon teddy with a gun, they might take a different view.

      It would be taking things too far to prohibit any representation of guns - for example Thwaites continue to market a beer called 13 Guns with a picture of an antique cannon on the label.

      It really isn't the world's most convincing argument to say:

      "We're really concerned about the growing influence of the anti-drink lobby."

      "What have they done now, then?"

      "They've stopped us putting cartoon teddies on our can labels."

      Delete
  2. Currently in a pub selling many Hawkshead beers on cask and I'd noticed the branding has become very bland. That brewery has also become widely-sold and this blandness could reflect the desire to be unprovocative. I've noticed that with a few other breweries recently too including Brewdog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hawkshead could try using Beatrix Potter characters, as they have a local connection. But that might incur the disapproval of the PG ;-)

      Delete
  3. In upholding the complain PG is making the fallacious assumption that the A A Milne stories are only read by and to children. Whereas Tigger and co have a huge adult following.
    Oh look, it's stopped raining and the stream is roaring: off out to play Poohsticks

    ReplyDelete
  4. Professor Pie-Tin8 March 2020 at 10:32

    Keep up the good work Mudgie ...
    https://unherd.com/2020/03/why-the-world-needs-curmudgeons/?=frlh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I saw that. Good to know my efforts are appreciated :-)

      Delete
  5. Where can one buy this Oranjeboom 8.5?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately you can't, as the report says it's been withdrawn from the British market. If you've got one, your best bet for good-value high strength lager is probably your local Polish shop :-)

      Delete
  6. The small hill on which I'm prepared to die is that the cartoon tiger looks nothing like Tigger - the head shape and body proportions are different, the markings are different, and Tigger is mostly quadrupedal. Basically that's an anthropomorphised tiger (on two legs), and Tigger is an anthropomorphised soft toy (on four legs).

    It certainly is an anthropomorphised tiger, though - and the whole illustration looks like it's come out of a children's book - so I reluctantly agree with you (& Martyn) on the main point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It looks pretty much like Tigger from the Disney cartoons.

      Delete
  7. I dread to think sometimes what the Portman Group would make of some of the packaging for US breweries.

    ReplyDelete

Comments, especially on older posts, may require prior approval by the blog owner. See here for details of my comment policy.

Please register an account to comment. Unregistered comments will generally be rejected unless I recognise the author. If you want to comment using an unregistered ID, you will need to tell me something about yourself.