The logo stronger than the brand

Some people are aware that, despite the fact that France is a major alcohol-producing country, advertising for this type of product is particularly restricted by law, for public health reasons. The Evin Act of 1991 has taken on the task of delimiting the cases in which alcohol advertising is permitted. You may have noticed that there are no alcohol advertisements on television at any time of day. On the other hand, producers make up for this with huge 4X3s in the subway, in the street (bus shelters, vehicles, billboards...), in magazines or on the radio where, especially now with the holidays starting, we are literally swamped with advertisements for beer or rosé wine. Finally, one can wonder about the effectiveness of these measures... But the advertising restriction does not stop at brands of alcoholic products: it also covers brands that are likely to remind the consumer of an alcoholic beverage. This is called indirect advertising. And this is where the focus of our news lies. Indeed, Carlsberg, the famous Danish beer producer, has obtained sponsorship for some Euro 2016 matches. This sponsorship is being channelled through huge advertising banners surrounding the pitch. The problem is that the Evin Act very clearly prevents this type of advertising in one of its provisions: "Sponsorship is prohibited where it has the object or effect of propaganda or advertising, direct or indirect, for alcoholic beverages." So we had to find a solution that would allow us to advertise, without advertising. It was then that Carlsberg's marketing department had a brilliant idea: to take over all the visual codes of the Carlsberg logo, but replacing the brand with the term "Probably". The latter, as such, does not evoke a brand of alcohol to the consumer, and that's it: This type of hijacking is common on the internet, or in logo quizzes (which you may have already played on your phone). We can see that thanks to certain visual elements, the consumer immediately knows which brand he is dealing with, even if it is not expressly mentioned. So, genius move or not? From the point of view of the law, it seems to us that Carlsberg's idea is not that brilliant: as long as most people who see the ad for "Probably" make the link with Carlsberg, it seems to us that it is indeed an indirect advertisement for alcoholic beverages, which is therefore liable to the penalties provided for by law. That being the case, someone still has to take the matter up and take it to court. It remains to be seen whether this will be the case, or whether Carlsberg will simply get away with an excellent publicity stunt. Thanks to Philippe Guibert for the record!