Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Seven Instagram posts by @auvodka and a website for AU Vodka, seen in April 2021:
a. The first Instagram post featured an image of a man pouring a bottle AU Vodka onto his mouth and teeth, with the drink splashing down him, while holding another bottle of AU Vodka in his other hand, alongside the caption “@dutchavelli Washing His Grills”.
b. The second Instagram post featured an image of the rapper Ghetts sitting in a gold chair embellished with fur, holding a bottle of AU Vodka and a glass which contained a drink. He was surrounded by 13 AU Vodka bottles, some of which were on the floor and others on tables on either side of him. A golden statue of a cat and a larger AU Vodka bottle was placed next to him on the floor. The caption stated “Congratulations On The Album @therealghetts Celebrating The Gold Way”.
c. The website www.auvodka.co.uk, included an image of a man smiling with his hands outstretched, carrying a bottle of AU Vodka in one hand and a glass filled with the drink in the other, with several bottles of vodka alongside various tropical fruits placed in front of him. Another image featured a man holding a vodka bottle and a glass filled with the drink alongside a bathtub and table filled with AU Vodka bottles.
d. The third Instagram post featured a video of the rapper Chipmunk sitting on the bonnet of a car while pouring AU Vodka into a glass on a table, which contained many AU Vodka bottles. He was shown drinking from a glass containing AU Vodka, and then shown sitting in the passenger's seat of the car drinking again, with three bottles of AU Vodka placed on his lap. The caption stated “@officialchip Got The Long Stem Glasses Ready For Black Friday #auvodka #blackfriday”.
e. The fourth Instagram post featured a man sitting in a forklift truck, holding a bottle of AU Vodka and a glass containing the drink. The caption stated “@headieone getting your orders ready for the weekend #specialdelivery”.
f. The fifth Instagram post featured rapper Aitch holding up two bottles of AU Vodka. The caption stated “@aitch x @auvodka”.
g. The sixth Instagram post featured a man sitting at a desk holding an AU Vodka bottle to his ear like a telephone. He was surrounded by money and 17 bottles of AU Vodka. The caption stated “UK’s Number 1 Vodka”.
h. The seventh Instagram post featured a man sitting in a plane holding an AU Vodka bottle to his ear like a telephone. The table in front of him included money, several bottles of AU Vodka and a glass containing the drink. The caption stated “Black Grape Flying Out #BlackFriday”.
Issue
The ASA challenged whether:
1. ads (a), (b) (c), (g) and (h) were irresponsible because they encouraged excessive drinking and whether ad (a) was likely to encourage people to adopt styles of drinking that were unwise because it showed alcohol being handled irresponsibly;
2. ads (d) and (e) were irresponsible because they linked alcohol with the use of potentially dangerous machinery or driving; and
3. ad (f) was irresponsible because it featured someone who was under 25 years of age.
Response
1. AU Vodka Ltd said that they did not believe the ads encouraged excessive drinking and although numerous bottles were visible, they were used for decorative purposes. They said that the nature of their aesthetically-pleasing gold bottles meant that they were often treated as decorative items for their ads. They said that they had also seen other drink brands feature numerous bottles on display in their advertising.They said that all the bottles, with the exception of one or two, were sealed and were not being shown in a way that related to drinking. The measures of alcohol shown in the glasses were not excessive and the people featured in the ads did not display any behaviour that suggested they had consumed an excessive amount of alcohol. They said that ads (g) and (h) were eye-catching and light-hearted and their playful nature was not irresponsible and did not encourage excessive drinking. They said that after reviewing ad (a), they felt that it could cause confusion around encouraging excessive drinking and had removed it.
2. Au Vodka said that ad (d) featured the music artist Chipmunk, who sent the video to them. They said that they would ensure they did not share any content where a person was shown sitting in the driver or passenger seat of a car in future. They said that ad (d) had been removed and that ad (e) would also be removed to ensure that no connection was made between drinking and driving or the operation of heavy machinery.
3. AU Vodka said that ad (f) had been removed. The image was sent to their marketing team and was not paid for by them. They said that their marketing team had since expanded and the growth of the team meant that these types of ads would not be published again.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The CAP Code required marketing communications to be socially responsible and contain nothing likely to lead people to adopt styles of drinking that were unwise, including encouraging excessive drinking.Ad (a) featured an image of a man pouring a bottle of AU Vodka onto his mouth and teeth, with his head tilted to the side and the drink splashing down him, while holding another bottle of AU Vodka in his other hand. We considered that the image showed alcohol being handled and consumed in an uncontrolled and irresponsible manner and was likely to encourage people to adopt styles of drinking that were unwise.
Ad (b) showed an image of Ghetts holding a bottle of AU Vodka and a glass which was a third full. He was surrounded by 13 AU Vodka bottles, some of which were on the floor and others on tables on either side of him, including a very large bottle on the floor.
Ad (c) showed two images, one of which featured a man alongside six bottles of alcohol and a jug filled halfway with alcohol, while he was holding a glass which was two-thirds full in one hand, and a bottle of AU Vodka in the other. The second image featured a man holding a bottle of AU Vodka and a glass which was two-thirds full. A bathtub next to him was filled with AU Vodka bottles, as well as a table containing several AU Vodka bottles. Ads (g) and (h) featured rappers Headie One and Fredo respectively, both of whom were surrounded by many bottles of AU Vodka. While we acknowledged that there was no indication that any of the people in the ads had consumed excessive amounts of alcohol, we considered that the image of one person drinking in the presence of a large number of bottles of alcohol in each of the ads was likely to encourage excessive consumption of alcohol.
We acknowledged AU Vodka’s removal of ad (a). However, we concluded that the ads were irresponsible because they encouraged excessive drinking and that ad (a) showed alcohol being handled in an irresponsible manner and therefore breached the Code.
On that point, ads (a), (b), (c), (g) and (h) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 18.1 18.1 Marketing communications must be socially responsible and must contain nothing that is likely to lead people to adopt styles of drinking that are unwise. For example, they should not encourage excessive drinking. Care should be taken not to exploit the young, the immature or those who are mentally or socially vulnerable. (Alcohol) and ad (a) also breached rule 18.11 18.11 Marketing communications must not feature alcohol being handled or served irresponsibly. (Alcohol).
2. Upheld
The CAP Code required that marketing communications must not link alcohol with activities or locations in which drinking would be unsafe or unwise and that they must not link alcohol with the use of potentially dangerous machinery or driving.
Ad (d) showed Chipmunk drinking from a glass containing AU Vodka while sitting in a car and linked alcohol with driving. Ad (e) showed a man sitting in a forklift truck, holding a bottle of AU Vodka and a glass containing the drink and linked alcohol with the use of potentially dangerous machinery and driving.We acknowledged AU Vodka’s removal of the ads. However, both of the ads linked alcohol with activities in which drinking would be unsafe or unwise and we therefore concluded that the ads were irresponsible and breached the Code.
On that point, ads (d) and (e) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule
18.12
18.12
Marketing communications must not link alcohol with activities or locations in which drinking would be unsafe or unwise.
Marketing communications must not link alcohol with the use of potentially dangerous machinery or driving. Marketing communications may feature sporting and other physical activities (subject to other rules in this section; for example, appeal to under-18s or link with daring or aggression) but must not imply that those activities have been undertaken after the consumption of alcohol.
(Alcohol).
3. Upheld
The CAP Code required that ads for alcoholic drinks should not show people who were, or appeared to be, under 25 years of age in a significant role.
We understood that Aitch was 21 years old at the time the ad appeared. We considered that because he was the focus of the image, he played a significant role in the ad and therefore concluded the ad was in breach of the Code.
On that point, the ad (f) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 18.16 18.16 People shown drinking or playing a significant role must neither be nor seem to be under 25. People under 25 may be shown in marketing communications, for example, in the context of family celebrations, but must be obviously not drinking. (Alcohol).
Action
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told AU Vodka Ltd to ensure that their ads were not irresponsible in the future. We told them to ensure that their ads did not encourage excessive drinking or unwise drinking styles, for example by featuring multiple bottles of alcohol alongside one person drinking and featuring alcohol being handled or served irresponsibly. We also told them to ensure that their ads did not link alcohol with activities in which drinking would be unsafe, for example with the use of potentially dangerous machinery or driving. We also told them to ensure that their alcohol ads did not show people who were, or appeared to be, under 25 years of age in a significant role.
