Code makers

Adam Withrington reports on the Portman Group's Independent Complaints Panel.

There were 33 comments on a story published on thePublican.com in February. The subject? The decision by the Independent Complaints Panel to uphold a complaint that Kalashnikov vodka was in breach of The Portman Group's Code of Practice on the naming, packaging and promotion of alcoholic drinks.

This decision more than any made in recent times by the panel, has provoked outrage. "It is political correctness gone mad!" cry the licensees. Indeed most decisions made by the panel seem to provoke moral outrage from licensees, be they to uphold complaints against Roxxoff or Charles Wells' Muse cocktail Sex on the Beach.

Somewhere down the line the role of the panel and The Portman Group and what they are both trying to do has been lost in a whirlwind of bad publicity.

Jean Coussins, chief executive of The Portman Group, believes people need to see the bigger picture: "The code is now in its ninth year and it has been praised by the Better Regulation Taskforce - the red tape watchdog - and by the government as being very effective. The government also claimed that the code was responsible for a drop in the consumption of RTDs by younger drinkers in its National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy."

David Poley, director of policy and good practice at The Portman Group, feels too many people have lost sight of why the group was formed in the first place.

"The code is not trying to undermine the industry's freedom to advertise, it is actually trying to protect its right to advertise. The code was set up in response to the massive concern regarding RTDs. The government effectively told the industry to sort out these problems or it would sort them out itself. It is important not to forget that, especially if you look at the Scottish Executive's decision in February to ban all promotions in pubs," he says.

The Portman Group says it does its best, but it also recognises that the complaints process is far from infallible. Lord Condon, the former Metropolitan Police chief who also chairs the Independent Complaints Panel, admits that there is an "element of arbitrariness" to the whole procedure.

"One complaint is made and the whole process is triggered. And this can mean that you get tit-for-tat complaints - you do get people and companies trying to tactically complain," he points out.

"Inevitably when you are involved in this kind of self-regulation you can get uncomfortable juxtapositions - such as with the pre-mixed Sex on the Beach cocktails.

"We are acutely aware of the impact that our decisions can have on peoples' lives and businesses and I can assure you that it is something that the members do not take lightly."

What's next for The Portman Group?​

The Portman Group has certainly taken a bit of a hammering in recent times over the code. Why should a panel of seven people be able to decide the fate of a product which may have the livelihoods of its owners riding on it?

What are the alternatives? Would it be better to have a licensing system where every single product in the trade is looked at and licensed rather than having the current complaints system?

Jean Coussins says a licensing system simply would not work. "It would be a wholly disproportionate regulation - think how many new products come out each year," she argues.

"But why not leave us alone?" is a question many licensees would then ask. The Portman Group argues that this simply is not an option. Lord Condon says that unless the industry gets its house in order, the government will intervene. And that could lead to any number of unpalatable results.

So what next? Lord Condon told The Publican last week of the need to close the gap between retailers and drinks producers. Is there room to expand The Portman Group's role into the retail arena? Licensees might squirm at that thought but if the industry is going to avoid legislation then it is going to have to pull together from all angles. And currently there is too much inconsistency.

How can it be right that the panel feels compelled to uphold a complaint against a pre-mixed cocktail called "Sex on the Beach" and yet have no influence over retailers selling made-up cocktails of the same name?

And how can big drinks companies pat themselves on the back for being signatories to the Code of Practice when their products are used in irresponsible promotions and in cocktails with names that are considered to breach The Portman Group's Code? "At the same time if drinks companies are found to market a product directly at under-18s they get a rap on the knuckles. If pubs are found to sell to under-18s fines and convictions are handed out," she said. The situation is just downright confusing and does not send out signals to the public and more importantly the government that the industry is pulling together.

Lord Condon on difficult judgements:​

• Kalashnikov​

"There was certainly not an immediate feeling to uphold the complaint on this product - as we have had with other products. The final decision was very heavily debated. However, the fact is that the makers of the drink decided to call it "Kalashnikov". They could have called it "General Kalashnikov's vodka", for example - making a close association with the general. But instead they made a direct play with the gun imagery. The fact is that we are all very worried about gun culture - why brand a product around a gun name when there were other choices?"

FCUK​

"This was a very prolonged process as we realised the importance of the decision because it was a cross-over product - other fashion labels could have followed suit."

The Independent Complaints Panel​

• Chairman:​ Lord Condon
• Lord Condon on the role of the panel:​ "We have a good balance of members. We have people with marketing backgrounds and people in education who have a good insight into products that may appeal to younger drinkers. We have regular rotation of the members and I will be standing down in 18 months' time."
• Members of the panel:​
  • Nigel Long - Has 20 years' experience in advertising and is currently a non-executive advisor to communications strategy company Naked
  • Callum Jacobs - Head of personal, citizenship, health education and sociology and psychology teacher at Copthall comprehensive school in Barnet, North London
  • John Eggleton - Works in marketing for United Biscuits
    Morven Proctor - Welfare adviser at Liverpool John Moores University Student Union
  • Shona Steven - Director for Glasgow, Communities Scotland. Formerly director of policy and development at the Prince's Trust, Scotland
  • Angela Surkis CBE - A BBC governor and non-executive director on the Home Office Correctional Services board.
    All the members of the panel are volunteers and get a small
    fee for their services.

The complaints process​

• The complaint is made to The Portman Group
• It is deliberated by the complaints panel
• The panel makes a preliminary decision and that is delivered to the drink manufacturer/producer
• If there is a protest the panel is open to changing its mind. "Occasionally we have been persuaded to change our original decision as we have done on a couple of occasions during my time as chairman," says Lord Condon
• If the panel still upholds the decision then the offending company has the right to take the decision to judicial review
• The Portman Group then issues a Retailer Alert on the offending product.

Fact or fiction?​

• The Portman Group is responsible for all decisions made on whether products breach the Code of Practice: Fiction. The Independent Complaints