Poster and press ads for Brewdog Beer seen in August 2020:
a. The poster, seen outside Fulham Boys' School, Camden Town Centre and Chiswick in London, in Northumberland Street, Newcastle upon Tyne and in George Square, Glasgow, featured large text
taking up the whole ad which stated F**k You CO2. Brewdog Beer Is Now Carbon Negative. The letters between F and K were obscured by a can of Brewdog Punk IPA.
b. The press ad, a full or double-page ad seen in The Metro, The Week and The Economist, was
identical to the poster.
Complainants challenged whether the text F**k You was offensive and inappropriate for display in a medium where it could be seen by children.
BrewDog plc said they had wanted to shock people into thinking about the
planet and reducing and removing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. They said the billboard hosts and media print titles were aligned with their objectives and message and that The Economist, The Week and Metro recognised that the message would be
understood by their readers and were happy to run the ad. They said every media placement and poster site had been approved by the media owner or landlord and that every poster site had been planned in accordance with guidelines on proximity to schools
and religious buildings as advised by Outsmart.
BrewDog said they had consulted a broader range of outdoor contractors and had consulted with them on the campaign and its environmental message versus the potential for offence. They said the campaign
had run at a time when schools were closed for the summer holidays and so any exposure to the ad by children going to or from school would have been limited. BrewDog said the ads implied a swear word but that it was not explicitly stated, which they
believed followed precedent of what was acceptable. They did not believe the message would have caused harm or offence.
ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld
The ASA acknowledged that the poster showed an obscured version of the word Fuck; that it
had been placed in accordance with guidelines on proximity to schools and religious buildings; that the ad had run during school summer holidays and that one local authority (Newcastle City Council) had been asked and considered the ad acceptable for
use. Nevertheless, we considered it would be clear to most of those who saw it that the ad referred to the word Fuck in the context of the expression Fuck you and was making a pun, in reference to the impact of climate change.
We considered the word
Fuck was so likely to offend a general audience that such a reference should not appear in media where it was viewable by such an audience.
We therefore concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious and widespread offence and was not
appropriate for display in untargeted media.
We acknowledged that most readers of Metro were adult. We considered that many would accept that the ad was using a play on words to make a statement about environmental issues as part of its marketing
message. Nevertheless, as a widely available, free newspaper, the ad was untargeted. Although the ad intended to use a pun to get its message across, we considered it would be clear to most readers that it referred to the word Fuck, a word that was
likely to be considered unacceptable by many readers in untargeted media. We also considered the expression the ad referred to Fuck you ? was likely to be associated with an aggressive tone. We concluded therefore that the ad was likely to cause serious
and widespread offence in Metro and was not appropriate for use in that publication.
We considered, however, that an obscured version of the word Fuck reflected similar use of language elsewhere in The Week and The Economist and, in light of the ad's
intended message, was not out of place. We also acknowledged these publications were not free and had to be actively purchased in a shop or by subscription. While some readers might have found it distasteful, we considered it was unlikely to cause
serious or widespread offence in those publications.
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of unless suitably targeted. We told BrewDog to ensure they avoided causing serious or widespread offence by, for example, avoiding references to
expletives in media targeted to a general audience. No further action necessary in respect of the ad appearing in The Week or The Economist.
The government consults on banning all advertising for food that tastes good enforced by onerous new censorship and red tape requirements that will strangle British companies whilst advantaging US corporate giants
We want your views on our proposal for a total online advertising restriction for HFSS (high in fat, salt or suger) products to reduce the amount of HFSS advertising children are exposed to online.
This consultation closes at
Consultation description
We're asking questions on:
what types of advertising will be restricted
who will be liable for compliance
enforcement of the restrictions
In 2019 the government consulted on restricting advertising of HFSS for TV and online . It asked for views on whether to extend current advertising restrictions on broadcast TV and online media, including consulting on watershed
restrictions. In July 2020 the government confirmed its intention to introduce a 9pm watershed on TV .
This new consultation goes further and looks at how a total HFSS advertising restriction could be implemented online. It should
be read with the 2019 consultation.
The perennial hindu whinger Rajan Zed is urging Prairie Krafts Brewing Company from Illinois to apologize and rename/withdraw its Trishul Pale Ale; claiming it to be highly inappropriate.
Zed said that inappropriate usage of sacred Hindu symbols
or concepts or deities or icons for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the devotees. Zed indicated that Trishul was an emblem of Lord Shiva and one of the principal divine symbols in Hinduism; and its three prongs denoted the powers of
creation, preservation, destruction; and represented three gunas (fundamental principles of universe).
Breweries should not be in the business of religious appropriation, sacrilege, and ridiculing entire communities. It was deeply trivializing of
divine Hindu symbol to be displayed on a beer can, Zed claimed.
Upset Hindus have urged Anheuser-Busch InBev, largest brewer in the world, to change the name of its popular Brahma beer, claiming it to be highly inappropriate. The perennial hindu whinger Rajan Zed said:
Creator god Lord
Brahma was highly revered in Hinduism, and was meant to be worshipped in temples or home shrines and not to be misused as a toasting tool or selling beer for mercantile greed.
Anheuser-Busch InBev should not be in the business of
religious appropriation, sacrilege, and ridiculing entire communities. Inappropriate usage of sacred Hindu deities or concepts or symbols or icons for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the devotees.
Rajan Zed added that
Hollywood celebrities Megan Fox and Jennifer Lopez have reportedly acted in Brahma beer commercials.
Brahma was created by Swiss immigrant Joseph Villager in Brazil in 1888. The company is known throughout Brazil as beer number 1.
Beers sold under the Brahma name include a lager, a double malt, a wheat beer and a chocolate stout, all named after a smart English geezer called Joseph Bramah, who invented the draft pump valve. But the unnamed and ooh-so-touchy
interfaith coalition is convinced that the name belongs exclusively to Lord Brahma, Hinduism's four-headed god of creation, and wants the brewer to find a new name for the product.
Lucas Rossi, Head of Communications for Anheuser-Busch InBev's Latin
America subsidiary, appears not be be intimidated. He said:
After explaining that the spelling was changed from Bramah to Brahma to make the name work better in the Portuguese language, and that the Brahma brand s very
important to the culture of Brazil which has a tiny minority of Hindus.
Perenniel whinger Rajan Zed has called Sheffield's Neepsend Brew Co. to apologize and withdraw its Hanuman beer claiming it to be highly inappropriate.
Hindu campaigner Zed said that inappropriate usage of sacred Hindu deities or concepts or symbols
or icons for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the devotees. He said that that Lord Hanuman was highly revered in Hinduism and was meant to be worshipped in temples or home shrines and not to be used in selling beer for mercantile
intent. Moreover, linking Lord Hanuman with an alcoholic beverage was very disrespectful.
Neepsend Brew Co. has apologized after Hindus protested over its Hanuman Beer.
Gavin Martin, Director/Head Brewer of Neepsend Brew Co wrote to Rajan Zed:
Thank you for bringing this to our attention and we of course apologise for any offence we have caused. Though ignorance isn't an excuse we
certainly didn't mean any deliberate insult or disrespect by using the name...we'll be sure to research beer names more thoroughly in the future to avoid something like this happening again.
The Portman Group, a trade group for the drinks industry have banned Lawless Unfiltered Lager from Purity Brewing. The company markets the beer with the description: 'Lawless is a maverick beer' and 'is a law unto itself'.
The
Portman Group panel considered its rule 3.2(b):
A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent,
aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.
The Panel expressed concern that the name Lawless suggested an association with illegal behaviour.
The Panel noted the text on the back
of the can, which said Lawless is our maverick beer named after our farmyard fiend, Bruno the goat. Just like our lager he is law unto himself, full of character with a sharp kick!. The Panel acknowledged that the producers were a small company
challenging the established order in their industry and understood that they intended to convey that spirit. The Panel considered, however, that the text on the back of the can was not enough to prevent the name Lawless from being seen as a reference to
illegal behaviour.
The Panel noted the producer's argument that the name of the product was Lawless Unfiltered Lager and that Lawless never appeared in isolation. The Panel also noted the wording on the back of the can, however,
which stated Lawless is our maverick beer and Lawless is brewed with a big dose of El Dorado hop. The Panel rejected the argument that Lawless was only ever used as part of the phrase Lawless Unfiltered Lager.
The Panel discussed
the image of the goat and the explanation around the name. Whilst the line drawing of the goat on the front of the can was not a problem in itself, the connection between the animal and the name as a motivation for the Lawless branding was not
sufficient. The Panel concluded that the name would still be problematic, even with more extensive text linking the artwork to the name.
The Panel agreed that to be a maverick or breaking the mould was not the same as breaking the
law, and considered that positioning a beer as maverick or highlighting quirky or mould-breaking qualities could be acceptable under the Code, whereas a reference to breaking the law was unacceptable.
After considering all the
arguments put forward, the Panel maintained their view that Lawless was fundamentally incompatible with the rule that alcohol products should not suggest any association with illegal behaviour. They emphasised that their concern was about the product
name alone and they believed the Code breach to be unintentional. The Panel considered that the name Lawless directly implied breaking the law, which was by definition illegal behaviour. Therefore, it could not be justifiable through content given the
nature of the Code. The complaint was therefore upheld under Code rule 3.2(b).
The perennial hindu whinger Rajan Zed is urging Three Hills Brewing in
Northamptonshire to apologize and withdraw its Veda India Pale Ale; calling it highly inappropriate.
He said that inappropriate usage of Hindu scriptures or deities or concepts or symbols or icons for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt
the devotees. Vedas were revealed Sanskrit texts considered as eternal-uncreated-divine-direct transmission from Absolute. Vedas were foundation of Hinduism and included Rig-Veda, world's oldest extant scripture. Zed claimed:
Using Vedas to sell beer was highly insensitive and trivializing of the immensely revered body of sacred and serious knowledge.
Shavasana Ale
Rajan Zed is also urging Newport (Oregon) based Rogue Ales
& Spirits brewery to apologize and rename its "Shavasana" (Imperial, Granola Blonde Ale) beer; calling it highly inappropriate.
Zed stated that Shavasana, a highly important posture in yoga, was the ultimate act of conscious
surrender and was also used in Yoganidra meditation. Yogis slipped into blissful neutrality in Shavasana. "
The logo for Jägermeister alcohol is not religiously offensive, a Swiss court has ruled.
The Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property had blocked efforts by the German spirit brand to expand its trademark to cosmetics and entertainment
services. It claimed that the logo - a stag and a cross - could offend the country's Christians.
But Swiss federal judges ruled in favour of Jägermeister. The Federal Administrative Court ruled that the "intensive" use of the logo had
"weakened its religious character" over time, making the chance of genuine offence unlikely, Swissinfo reported.
The logo refers to the legend of St Hubertus, the 'Apostle of the Ardennes', who is said to have converted to Christianity one Good Friday in the 8th century after witnessing a stag with a crucifix between its antlers.
Jägermeister can
now use its logo on a wide-range of products in Switzerland including cosmetics, mobile phones, or telecommunications services.
The US perennial religious complainer Rajan Zed continuously rails against beers betaring references to Hinduism so it is interesting to read what the UK drinks censor makes of religious references in marketing.
The Portman Group represents the UK
alcohol trade and has a self censorship role to censor drinks packaging that may inspire offence taking. It recently considered a complaint against the Australian Lucky Buddha beer brand.
Complaint (which was not made by a
religious person but by a food and drinks consultancy, Zenith Global).
The shape of the bottle, the name and the Buddha symbol are all prominently displayed on the bottle. This may cause widespread offence to Buddhism followers
who consider the Buddha as a sacred symbol to the religion. Displaying this on an alcoholic beverage is perceived as disrespectful to the faith.
The company explained that they were an Australian company who had sold their
uniquely packaged beer for over 12 years on the international market. The company stated that they owned the Lucky Beer and Lucky Buddha brands and that the bottle and the logo were trademarks in many parts of the world. The company explained that the
product was produced in China, was sold internationally in restaurants and supermarkets and had been sold for 10 years in UK supermarkets and restaurants. They argued that, if their product caused serious or widespread offence, they would have heard
about it: they said they had never received an email or negative comment from any government or religious agency.
The company said the bottle showed Pu Tai, the Laughing Monk, not Buddha. The company explained that: Pu Tai's image
was used in amulets and within restaurants; Pu Tai had become a deity of contentment and abundance; people rubbed Pu Tai's belly for wealth, good luck and prosperity; Pu Tai was the patron saint of restauranteurs, fortune-tellers and bartenders; when
someone ate or drank too much, it was jokingly blamed on Pu Tai.
The Portman Group assessment: Complaint not upheld
The Panel first discussed whether the product name or packaging had caused serious
or widespread offence. The Panel noted the product was sold in predominantly Buddhist countries including Thailand. The Panel noted that there were different named Buddhas and different images of Buddha. Despite the fact that the bottle included the
brand name Lucky Buddha, the Panel considered that the bottle was in fact a representation of Pu Tai. The Panel also noted that this product had reached the complaints process following a compliance audit of the new Code and considered that it did not
provide evidence that Buddhists were offended by the name or packaging.
The Panel accordingly did not uphold the complaint under Code rule 3.3.
Unrealistic nanny state consumption guidelines result in absurd censorship by ASA who argue that anything above 2/3rds of a pint in an evening could be considered 'excessive'
A Facebook post by The Folly Bar in Boston, Lincolnshire, seen on 29th September 2019, featured text which stated Buy your own keg for you and your friends! Over 50 cold pints available at your fingertips -- Have it next to your table in the main room,
our private room or outside in the beer garden! The ad featured an image of a man in a suit with a pint of beer leaning on a bar, under which sat a keg of beer.
A complainant challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because it
encouraged the excessive consumption of alcohol.
The Folly Bar said that the keg was offered to groups of 10 or more people. As that offered up to five pints of beer to each person, they did not deem such consumption as excessive.
They said the keg was predominantly purchased for birthdays and stag parties, and their staff monitored the consumption throughout. The Folly Bar said that their local Licensing Authority saw no issue with the ad, and that the keg was only available for
pre-purchase, where consumers were required to complete an online form confirming how many people would be attending the event. They said they would amend the ad so that it stated For group bookings.
ASA Assessment: Complaint
upheld
The CAP Code required marketing communications to contain nothing that was likely to lead people to adopt styles of drinking that were unwise, including excessive drinking. The ASA considered that consumers would understand
from the text Buy your own keg for you and your friends! Over 50 pints available at your fingertips -- Have it next to your table in the main room, our private room or outside in the beer garden to mean that they and a group of friends could purchase the
keg, which offered them 50 pints of beer, in various areas of the pub, and consequently implied it was readily available to any size group.
We acknowledged The Folly Bar's comment that the product was available to groups of 10 or
more people. However, that was not accounted for in the ad, and we noted that the Office of National Statistics (ONS) defined binge drinking as having over eight units in a single session for men and over six units in a single session for women. We
understood that the UK's Chief Medical Officer (CMO)'s Low Risk Drinking Guidelines advised both men and women not to drink regularly more than 14 units a week. It also advised consumers not to save up their 14 units, and that it was best to evenly
spread them across the week. We understood that five pints of 5% beer such as the one on offer equated to 14 units, which went beyond the ONS's definition of binge drinking, and went against the CMO's advice to spread the units evenly across the week. In
light of the above, we considered the ad was irresponsible because it encouraged the excessive consumption of alcohol and was therefore in breach of the Code.
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told The Folly Bar
to ensure that their future advertising did not encourage excessive drinking.
The perennial hindu whinger Rajan Zed is urging Three Hills Brewing in
Northamptonshire to apologize and withdraw its Veda India Pale Ale; calling it highly inappropriate. 