Dead Man's Fingers Super Spiced Rum, 70cl

Product Information

The Panel considered whether the highlighted danger in the name was supported by other cues, given that both products had a singular image of different types of skulls. A complaint by a member of the public against Dead Man’s Fingers Super Spiced Rum and Dead Man’s Fingers Tequila Reposado was not upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP). The producer said that neither the design nor brand name was threatening, violent, aggressive or dangerous or encouraged such behaviour. The Panel noted that the supporting information on the pack sought to emphasise that ‘super’ related to the spices in the rum, rather than the strength of the ABV. The Panel discussed skull imagery more generally and noted that a skull and cross bones was sometimes used in popular culture to indicate danger or a warning.

Dead Man’s Fingers products not upheld Complaint against Dead Man’s Fingers products not upheld

this Super Spiced Rum is a bold reinvention of the sweet, smooth, and spicy spirit that’s made Dead Man’s Finger the UK’s top cult favourite rum.The company stated that in this instance, the design of the skull was not the standard skull found on other Dead Man’s Fingers products, as this was a limited-edition product. a), that a drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way give the higher alcoholic strength, or intoxicating effect, undue emphasis. The company explained that for this limited-edition variant it had chosen red colouring for the skull and flames to make the image bold and to emphasise the ‘Super Spiced’ nature of the product. After discussion, the Panel considered that ‘super spiced rum’ was clearly a reference to the spiced flavour of the product as opposed to the product’s higher alcoholic strength. In the absence of any imagery or written references to danger or dangerous activities the Panel concluded that the product did not breach Code rule 3.

Dead Man’s Fingers Super Spiced Rum 70cl | VIP Bottles

The company explained that the Dead Man’s Fingers range was generally edgy and bold and that the name of the brand was a play on words relating to the inedible part of a crab. I saw Deadmans fingers tequila on the shelf in Tesco and I was shocked to see that the letters in the name highlighted the word DANGER – which for an alcohol brand surely can’t be ok.The Panel concluded that the overall impression of the bottles did not create an association, either directly or indirectly, with dangerous behaviour, and therefore did not breach Code rule 3. Halewood Artisanal Spirits was invited to comment and said “We agree with the panel’s finding and in our opinion this was never a breach of the code. A product’s lower alcoholic strength may be emphasised proportionately when it is below the average strength for similar beverages. The company highlighted that spice was regularly depicted by flames on both food and drinks packaging and was intended to reflect the hot nature of the spice.

Dead Mans Fingers Spiced Rum Cocktails including Rum Punch 5 Dead Mans Fingers Spiced Rum Cocktails including Rum Punch

However, the Panel considered that in this instance, the skull was reminiscent of imagery used in horror films and created an edgy brand feel to appeal to its target market of young adults. In reviewing both bottles, the Panel considered that the skulls were used to create an edgy brand feel to appeal to its target market of young adults.Pour into a glass filled with ice cubes and slowly drizzle over a teaspoon of Grenadine and decorate with a cocktail umbrella. The Panel considered the flaming skull on the front of the bottle, the word ‘super’ and noted the 43% ABV in bold red font on the front of the bottle which was further emphasised by placement on a lime green background. The company further explained that the name was created in association with the Crab Shack Bar in Cornwall. The Panel considered the overall impression conveyed by the product in combination with the skull imagery and noted that no part of the product implied that it was dangerous to consume or implied any potential effect that drinking the product could lead to dangerous behaviour on the part of the consumer. Produced by Halewood Artisanal Spirits plc the complaint for both products was made in relation to rule 3.