A watchdog with bite?
Ben McFarland asks if The Portman Group is doing enough to guard the industry's reputation.
At the end of last year, The Portman Group announced another successful year of self-regulation for the drinks industry.
It reported that during 2002, there was a 50 per cent increase in both the number of complaints and the proportion upheld by the group and this, it claims, "demonstrates that the industry's Code of Practice has real teeth".
The banned list of products does indeed read like a rogues gallery of devious drinks with Crack Ice, Cannabis Vodka and Logan Original Hemp Vodka all named and shamed.
However, the fact remains that The Portman Group only sunk its teeth into a dozen new drinks during a year when a glut of weird and wonderful products were unleashed into the UK drinks market.
Is The Portman Group's bark worse than its bite?
A 50 per cent rise in the number of complaints and the proportion of those upheld makes a good soundbite, but this figure is unlikely to counter claims that The Portman Group is too close to the drinks industry.
In fact, if those who support the introduction of a hard-hitting independent regulator were to look beyond the headlines, there's little to convince them otherwise.
In the past, the Office of Fair Trading has declared The Portman Group's code on the responsible marketing of alcoholic drinks as "an excellent example of self-regulation" and branded the group "genuinely independent".
Indeed, it boasts an impressive list of signatories including Allied Domecq, Interbrew, Coors and Scottish & Newcastle and those drinks in breach of the code have found routes to market blocked. It is also almost impossible to successfully disobey the final decision from The Portman Group's independent panel.
However, I feel The Portman group could do more in order to bolster the industry's defence if and when the government come knocking at the door with an agenda of its own.
Firstly, as a regulator bereft of legislative powers, The Portman Group is unable to comment on specific products before the decision of its independent panel or act before a complaint is made.
Would it not be better if these products were nipped in the bud before they reach the bar?
It may be impossible to keep tabs on the marketing plans of every "entrepreneur" operating from a dodgy garage in the UK, but the likes of Crack Ice and Cannabis Vodka should be the subject of a swift and instant withdrawal, pending a review, before they can bring the drinks industry into disrepute.
The current reactionary approach means that culpable drinks companies can breach the code, often intentionally, by launching a controversial new product and then wait for the complaints to flood in.
These companies, who are rarely responsible brand builders or purveyors of drinks with longevity, can then profit substantially from the ensuing media furore and publicity.
While the bucks roll in, The Portman Group cannot act until the independent panel, which meets only eight times a year, makes a decision and even then it can take more than a month before pubs and retailers are ordered to withdraw the naughty product.
In June, Halewood International, a signatory to the code, launched a new cider called HardCore with an ABV of 8.4 per cent.
As well as the potent liquid, the packaging boasted a triple X logo, the slogan, "you would with 8.4 per cent HardCore" and the warning "Adult use only". Scantily clad women and condoms were also set to feature in promotional activity.
However, it wasn't until the end of October - four months later - that The Portman Group ruled the brand's marketing breached the code of practice that forbids names, packaging and point-of-sale materials that "in any direct or indirect way suggest sexual success or prowess".
Hardcore has only just returned with new packaging (although the bottle looks little different) and, more importantly, a well-publicised roguish reputation that will no doubt drive sales among the target audience of 18 to 24-year-old drinkers.
Halewood International is by no means a first-time offender having previously breached the code with Sorted, a range of vodka-based drinks that fell foul of a clause forbidding association with "violent, aggressive or anti-social behaviour".
As a so-called responsible signatory to the code, is it presumptuous to suggest the company is fully aware of the guidelines?
What's more, it's "incredulous" reaction to complaints about Hardcore cider and its absurd defence that it was a reference to apples was akin to that of a cheeky schoolboy and, even after the brand's relaunch, Halewood remained grudgingly defiant.
At a time when the majority of drinks companies are trying their best to raise standards, is it not time to establish a "three strikes and you're out policy" or a 12-month probation period where every product from a dissident company must be vetted by the Independent Panel prior to launch?
The Portman Group also missed a chance earlier this year when, amid a media furore linking manufactured shots to binge drinking among the young, it failed to condemn the category.
The down-in-one craze is hardly compliant with The Portman Group's message: "If you do do drink, don't do drunk" while its potential demise would have been unlikely to bring the industry to its knees.
Instead, The Portman Group gave the products its blessing.
At a time when the drinks industry is being blamed for every social ill imaginable, and with murmurs of discontent from conservative circles following licensing reform likely to get louder, it is imperative that The Portman Group is seen to be making a meaningful industry stand to ensure that government regulation isn't imposed.
As long as it is a regulator rather than a legislator, The Portman Group's hands are, to a certain extent, tied.
However, there are ways it can sharpen its teeth, without damaging innovation in the industry unduly, and keep the government wolves, with even sharper fangs, from the drinks industry's door.
Next week: Jean Coussins, The Portman Group's chief executive, has her say.
