Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
820-839)
MR ANDY
FENNELL, MR
SIMON DAVIES,
MS DEBORAH
CARTER AND
MR GRAHAM
OAK
9 JULY 2009
Q820 Stephen Hesford: Roughly in
its form now, how long has your internal code been in existence?
Mr Fennell: I am not sure exactly
but four or five years.
Q821 Stephen Hesford: Therefore,
the CAP code and your code deprecate linking drinking with drunkenness?
Mr Fennell: Yes, that is right.
Q822 Stephen Hesford: It deprecates
linking advertising alcohol with toughness, bravado, that sort
of stuff?
Mr Fennell: That is right.
Q823 Stephen Hesford: That would
be completely unacceptable to your company?
Mr Fennell: Yes, that is correct.
Q824 Stephen Hesford: Can I ask you
to look at the pack that you have at page 14? Appendix three,
drinks manufacturers. That is clearly identified as Diageo.
Mr Fennell: Yes, it is.
Q825 Stephen Hesford: The central
theme is potency.
Mr Fennell: That is right.
Q826 Stephen Hesford: Why?
Mr Fennell: Can I explain?
Q827 Stephen Hesford: No. Please
bear with me. Answer my question. Why potency?
Mr Fennell: In order to answer
the question—
Q828 Stephen Hesford: No. Please,
just answer the question. Why potency?
Mr Fennell: I need to explain
what it is.
Q829 Stephen Hesford: I know what
potency is.
Mr Fennell: This is a document
which—
Q830 Stephen Hesford: Please, just
answer the question. Why potency?
Mr Fennell: This had no impact
on any consumer communication. This was screened at stage one.
I handed out the code. At stage one this was rejected as irresponsible.
It is irresponsible. It led to no consumer communication. I brought
with me the communication that was the campaign that we ultimately
used.
Q831 Stephen Hesford: The campaign
was the Smirnoff Maxability programme.
Mr Fennell: The communication
was a drink called Smirnoff Appleback which is a mix of Smirnoff,
apple juice and ginger ale. It is 1.9 units of alcohol, which
is less than a pint of standard lager. We train all of our people
to have the code front of mind all of the time, agencies and internally.
The reason that we have five stages of regime where we filter
at every stage and reject things is because we cannot rely on
that training. This was an internal discussion document which
was rejected at the first stage. It was rightly rejected at the
first stage because it is irresponsible.
Q832 Stephen Hesford: Can we just
examine what was rejected? We hear what you are saying about it.
"Image. Drinking this involves bravado or challenge."
You specifically said that Diageo will not go anywhere near that.
Mr Fennell: We have not.
Q833 Stephen Hesford: How did it
see the light of day, if that is a core belief?
Mr Fennell: It has not. It was
an internal document which was rejected.
Q834 Stephen Hesford: How could this
happen if it is an internal, core belief of the last five years?
Mr Fennell: It was rejected at
stage one. I had not seen it before the last couple of weeks.
I asked when it was rejected and the answer was at the first review.
Q835 Stephen Hesford: "Russianness.
Anything from Russia is a bit stronger and more sinister than
the rest." How on earth could that see the light of day?
Mr Fennell: It did not. This document
is an example of why our code is strong because somebody in their
wisdom put this together and it was rejected at stage one, and
it should have been rejected at stage one, because it is not compliant
with the code.
Q836 Stephen Hesford: "Flavour.
More flavour, e.g. PPS." I will not even go into what that
is. "Feminine. Challenging flavour, e.g. JD and Co. Masculine."
That is not permissible, is it?
Mr Fennell: No, it is not.
Q837 Stephen Hesford: Is there anything
in this document which is permissible, just looking at it?
Mr Fennell: This page did not
go anywhere. It was rejected at stage one.
Jim Dowd: How were you advisers so poorly
informed? This clearly does not accord with any of the priorities
you have.
Q838 Stephen Hesford: Who gave them
this brief? Which Diageo company gave them this brief?
Mr Fennell: I do not know where
this document came from. What I do know is that it was rejected
as a thought at stage one on the grounds of it not being compliant
with the code. There is no actionable insight that came from it
and the consumer communication which ultimately was displayed
in bars was a picture of an apple and "Try Appleback."
I agree with you that this is a waste of time.
Q839 Stephen Hesford: It is a disgrace.
Would you agree that it is a disgrace?
Mr Fennell: It would be—
| 
