Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A press ad and a TV ad for Kronenbourg 1664 lage:.
a. The press ad stated "IF YOU FIND A BETTER TASTING FRENCH BEER, WE'LL EAT OUR BERETS. The French know a thing or two about taste. That's why Kronenbourg 1664 is always brewed with the aromatic Strisselspalt hop for A Taste Supreme". Small print in the bottom corner of the page stated "Brewed in the UK".
b. The TV ad, featuring footballer Eric Cantona, stated "Here in Alsace, things are a little bit different. The hop farmers are treated like the footballers of Britain. They are idolised and adored. And why not? They are living legends. They are the men that grow the noble hops that make Kronenbourg the taste supreme ...". On-screen text present in the corner of the screen for several seconds stated "Brewed in the UK".
Issue
The ASA received two complaints.
1. One complainant challenged whether ad (a) was misleading because it implied that Kronenbourg 1664 was brewed in France, when he understood that was not the case; and
2. The second complainant challenged whether ad (b) was misleading because it implied that the hops used to produce Kronenbourg 1664 were grown in France, when he understood that was not the case.
Response
Heineken UK Ltd stated that, despite being brewed under licence by their company in the UK, Kronenbourg 1664 was an inherently French beer and had first been brewed in 1952 in Alsace by Brasseries Kronenbourg to celebrate their founder. They said in the UK it was brewed to a French recipe in a process supervised and approved by Brasseries Kronenbourg. Heineken said the beer's "Frenchness" was an integral part of the brand that had been regularly communicated to consumers even before they had acquired it in 2008 and would not be a new concept for the general public.
Heineken stated that Kronenbourg 1664 was brewed with the Strisselspalt hop, which to the best of their knowledge was only grown commercially in Alsace, France, and which had been the major aroma hop produced in the area since 1885. They said their ads communicated the provenance of the Strisselspalt hop as a product of Alsace and the character it lent the beer. They believed that Kronenbourg 1664 could correctly and reasonably be described as a "French beer" because of its heritage, the origin of its recipe and the use of the Strisselspalt hop, as well as its ownership and the yeast type used.
1. Heineken said ad (a), including the text "That's why Kronenbourg 1664 is always brewed with the aromatic Strisselspalt hop for A Taste Supreme", focused on the inclusion of the Strisselspalt hop, which was sourced from Alsace, in the recipe for Kronenbourg 1664. They noted that the ad did not refer to the beer as being brewed in France, but rather included the text "Brewed in the UK". They considered that the ad made clear that Kronenbourg 1664 was brewed in the UK, but that the Strisselpalt hop used in the recipe was sourced from the Alsace region.
2. Heineken stated that the Strisselspalt hop had been a key ingredient of all Kronenbourg 1664 brewed and sold in the UK since 2003, and that all hops of that variety were sourced from Alsace, France. They provided evidence including an information sheet from a hop producer about the Strisselspalt hop which described it as originating in the Alsace region, a letter from their supplier of Strisselspalt hop extract confirming that it was produced using hops grown in Alsace, and documents relating to their ordering and import processes.
Heineken said it was common practice in the brewing industry for a recipe to include several varieties of hop. They supplied a list of the other hops used in the Kronenbourg 1664 recipe, which were grown outside of France, and the relative proportions in which they were used. They noted that the Strisselspalt hop was one of three aroma hops, each of which lent the beer an individual set of qualities, and also provided information about the amount of Strisselspalt hops in the recipe relative to the other aroma hops. They stated that the inclusion of the Strisselspalt hop, in combination with other aroma hops, was a key differentiator in the beer and their ads drew attention to the hop for that reason. They provided an information sheet containing a flavour profile of the Strisselspalt hop and asserted that the contribution of that hop to the final character and taste of Kronenbourg 1664 was far greater than would be inferred from a simple calculation of the proportion in which it featured in the recipe.
Heineken said the ad did not state or imply that the Strisselspalt hop was the only hop used in the beer but rather made clear, in a humorous and clearly fantastical narrative, how important they considered it was to their final product.
Clearcast noted that the ad did not claim that the Strisselspalt hop was the sole hop used in the production of Kronenbourg 1664, but rather than it was one of the ingredients in the beer and that its inclusion in the brewing process had a perceptible effect on the flavour of the beer. They said at the time of clearing the ad for broadcast they had received substantiation from Heineken that Kronenbourg 1664 was brewed with the inclusion of the Strisselspalt hop and that it was grown in Alsace. They were satisfied that the Strisselspalt hops referred to in the ad were grown in France and considered that the ad complied with the Code.
Assessment
THIS ADJUDICATION REPLACES THAT PUBLISHED ON 12 FEBRUARY 2014. THE VERDICT HAS CHANGED, MAKING THE COMPLAINT NOT UPHELD.
1. Not upheld
The ASA acknowledged that ad (a) presented the product in a French context, for example by describing it as a "French beer" and using the slogan "A Taste Supreme". We understood that the Strisselspalt hop used in Kronenbourg 1664 was grown in France but that the brewing process took place in the UK. We noted that the beer had originally been produced in France and that a French company still had oversight of its production today. We considered it would be acceptable to describe the product as "French" if the ad made clear on what basis that claim was made.
We considered that the text "The French know a thing or two about taste. That's why Kronenbourg 1664 is always brewed with the aromatic Strisselspalt hop for A Taste Supreme" contextualised the references to French aspects of the beer by explaining that its taste was derived from the use of a French hop in its recipe. Further, the ad contained a large image of a glass of beer accompanied by hops and the slogan "A TASTE SUPREME". We considered that it was clear from that image, in conjunction with the text quoted above, that the focus of the ad was on the hops used to produce the beer rather than the brewing process itself. We also noted that the ad contained small print stating that Kronenbourg 1664 was brewed in the UK. Because we were satisfied that consumers would understand the association with France in the context of one of the ingredients used rather than the location of production, and because the ad contained clarification that the beer was brewed in the UK, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.3
3.3
Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead the consumer depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the marketing communication is constrained by time or space, the measures that the marketer takes to make that information available to the consumer by other means.
(Misleading advertising) and
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
and
3.10
3.10
Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We understood that the Strisselspalt hop was one of several hops used to create Kronenbourg 1664, and noted from the documentation supplied that it was sourced from the Alsace region of France. We considered that the ad, including the statement that hop farmers in Alsace "… are the men that grow the noble hops that make Kronenbourg the taste supreme ...", implied that the distinctive taste of the product was derived from hops grown in France, but did not go so far as to indicate that all hops used to make the beer were sourced from that country. On that basis, and because we were satisfied that the Strisselspalt hops used in Kronenbourg 1664 were sourced from Alsace, France, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.
On that point, we investigated ad (b) under BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.2
3.2
Advertisements must not mislead consumers by omitting material information. They must not mislead by hiding material information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner.
Material information is information that consumers need in context to make informed decisions about whether or how to buy a product or service. Whether the omission or presentation of material information is likely to mislead consumers depends on the context, the medium and, if the medium of the advertisement is constrained by time or space, the measures that the advertiser takes to make that information available to consumers by other means.
(Misleading advertising),
3.9
3.9
Broadcasters must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that the audience is likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) and
3.10
3.10
Advertisements must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.
(Qualification), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
