The complaint about 99 Liqueur, a brand owned by global alcohol company Sazerac, was submitted to the Portman Group's Independent Complaints Panel after its marketing stunt attracted media attention this summer, with concerns raised about the potential appeal to children and young people.
The Panel upheld the complaint against the ice cream van promotion, finding that its associations with childhood breached the industry's Code of Practice. However, complaints against the products themselves were not upheld, prompting wider questions about the adequacy of existing rules and how alcohol products and promotional campaigns are regulated, and by whom.
Dr Richard Piper, CEO of Alcohol Change UK, said: “An ice cream van promoting alcohol sounds ridiculous, but it's a striking example of how far alcohol companies go to make their products appealing.
“What might be sold as a bit of childhood nostalgia for adults is just as likely to catch the attention of children. From sweet flavours and brightly coloured packaging to ‘playful’ marketing stunts in public spaces, the lines between products aimed at adults and those associated with childhood are becoming increasingly blurred.
“Children shouldn't have to navigate a world where alcohol is everywhere, and all too often associated with familiar sights, sounds and imagery of childhood. And, in cases where there is any risk that marketing could appeal to children, we shouldn't have to rely on members of the public to challenge it, one complaint at a time, retrospectively after the damage may already have been done.”
The decision comes amid wider scrutiny of alcohol marketing that risks appealing to children. In recent months, the Portman Group has also upheld complaints against products including BuzzBallz, for a stunt involving a giant gumball machine, as well as VK Squashka, Cactus Jack's and BeatBox, involving concerns about brightly coloured packaging, cartoon imagery and drinks resembling children's soft drinks.
The Portman Group's own figures showed that 85% of complaints considered by its Independent Complaints Panel in 2022 concerned the potential appeal of alcohol marketing to under-18s. However, the majority (76%) of complaints were not upheld, a result the Group deemed to represent “strong alignment between producers in the sector and the Code of Practice”.
Piper added: “Let's not forget that the Portman Group is funded and governed by the alcohol industry itself. The fact that it points to complaints being rejected as evidence of the industry's compliance with its own rules rather neatly illustrates the problem. It's a fundamental conflict of interest when the companies profiting from alcohol sales also get to shape the rules governing how their products are marketed. Alcohol marketing is also partly regulated by the ASA - another self-regulatory body - which makes it even harder for us as citizens to know who is actually in charge.
“It's time for proper, independent statutory regulation of alcohol marketing, separate from alcohol industry interests, particularly in public and online spaces where children spend their time. Protecting children's health and wellbeing must come before the commercial interests of alcohol companies.”
Public concern is also reflected in polling commissioned by Alcohol Change UK, which found that 61% of UK adults supported restrictions on alcohol marketing in places where it could be seen by significant numbers of children.
Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, Chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance, said: "An ice cream van giving away alcohol samples should have set alarm bells ringing from day one. This was a cynical marketing stunt that traded on childhood nostalgia to promote ultra-cheap alcohol and recruit the next generation of consumers. It is absolutely right that the complaint has been upheld, but the damage is already done. Serious questions must be asked about how this type of promotion was allowed to happen in the first place."
Sarah McKenna, the member of the public who submitted the complaint to the Portman Group, added: “When I first saw 99 Liqueur shots, I was struck by how deliberately child-friendly they felt - the colours, the cartoon imagery, the name and flavours like blue raspberry and pink lemonade. I’m glad the Panel recognised that the ice cream van promotion crossed a line, but surprised that the packaging itself was not found to breach the Code and that the 99p price point and the product flavours fell outside the Panel’s remit. Filing a complaint as a member of the public is not straightforward; the self-regulatory system isn't working and is failing to protect children and young people.”
