Jack Daniel's left with hangover by sobering ASA decision.

Yesterday's ASA decision about a poster as for Jack Daniel's No.7 is a further reminder of how strictly the ASA will apply the rules about alcohol advertising. It has also highlighted again the importance of ensuring that alcohol advertising is socially responsible, as well as how fine the lines can be between acceptable and unacceptable messaging. And we know how difficult it is to walk a straight line when you've had a few. 

The other interesting to point to note is that the ban results from one complaint from someone who saw the ad on the London Underground. Anyone who has had the misfortune to travel on the Tube recently will know that it is rammed, once again, just like pre-pandemic days. So millions of people must have seen it, but only complained, and that had triggered a full investigation and a ban. Was the complainant a non-drinker on a mission? If so, you have to hope you never find yourself standing next to them at a party. Or were they someone heading into work nursing a raging hangover and swearing to themselves that they'll never drink to much again? 

The CAP Code states that marketing communications for alcohol must be socially responsible and must not contain anything that is likely to lead people to adopt styles of drinking that are unwise. It also requires that marketing communications do not imply that alcohol might take priority in life or that drinking alcohol could overcome boredom.

A poster for Jack Daniel’s featured some friends sat around a table, two of whom were pouring Jack Daniel’s and a mixer into one glass, whilst others were seen holding glasses of Jack Daniel’s. Large text stated “Shorter days mean we can skip to the good part.” Text at the bottom of the poster stated “Jack Daniel’s: Make it count.” and further text underneath that stated “Remember the good parts. Please drink responsibly”.

The complainant challenged if the ad was irresponsible and breached the Code because it promoted adopting drinking styles that were unwise, implied that alcohol might take priority in life, and implied that drinking alcohol could overcome boredom by encouraging people to start drinking earlier in the day.

Jack Daniel’s argued that the poster showed a social occasion among friends, and the drinks featured were not irresponsible or excessive.

The ruling

The ASA considered the focus of the ad was on the alcohol present with the centre of the image being two individuals who were pouring Jack Daniel’s and mixer into a glass. This was further emphasised by other individuals holding glasses of Jack Daniel’s and a large image of a bottle of Jack Daniel’s at the bottom of the ad.

The ASA took the reference to “shorter days” to mean the end of British Summer Time and a return to Greenwich Mean Time, with fewer hours of daylight and sunset was earlier in the day. The ASA also considered that consumers were likely to understand “the good part” to refer to drinking alcohol, and in particular Jack Daniel’s. By suggesting that “shorter days” meant consumers could “skip to the good part” of the day - in other words, the evening when it was socially acceptable for consumers to drink alcohol - the ad implied that the rest of the day was mundane and a period of time to be endured. The ASA considered “the good part” was likely to be seen as a part of the day to be given a higher priority, and that drinking alcohol could overcome the boredom of the rest of the day. Furthermore, because the ad encouraged people to start drinking earlier than they would at other times of the year, the ASA thought that it encouraged people to consume more alcohol than they usually would.

The ASA acknowledged that the ad stated “Remember the good parts. Please drink responsibly”. But the further reference to “good parts” reinforced the impression that drinking alcohol was the most enjoyable part of the day and that it therefore took priority in life. It also considered that the drink responsibly message did not change the impression of the ad.

Because the ad implied that drinking alcohol could overcome boredom and encouraged people to start drinking earlier than usual, the ASA considered the ad implied that alcohol might take priority in life and that it promoted adopted drinking styles which were unwise. Therefore, it concluded the ad was irresponsible and breached the CAP Code.

This seems like a very literal application of the Code and illustrates some of the concerns about how the ASA operates. One person complained out of all the millions of people who will have seen this ad. It was then investigated by one person from the ASA Executive who applied the rules on a literal basis without taking a step back and asking themselves whether the average consumer would really take this as an invitation to start drinking earlier in the day to overcome their boredom. And while the final decision rests with the ASA Council, one is left wondering whether they actually debated the issue around the conference table, or simply clicked ‘approve’ while reviewing their weekly batch of decisions.  At least we can assume that they were stone cold sober while they did so! But when the rules about alcohol advertising are applied this strictly following a solitary complaint, one is left wondering whether we are simply creeping towards an effective ban on advertising for a legal product.

In any event, the ruling is a useful reminder to check that your alcohol advertising is responsible, especially in the context of new rules on alcohol alternatives coming into force on 14 May.