Producer:
Sazerac UK Limited
Complainant:
Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)
Complaint:
“At first glance, the product resembles a squash or soft drink, which has a particular appeal to under-18s. While the label clearly states alcohol, the font, colours, and overall design are likely to appeal to teenagers, which should raise concerns”.
Decision:
Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)
3.2(h) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s
NOT UPHELD
The company’s submission
The company explained that it was a wholly owned subsidiary of Sazerac Company, Inc., one of the world’s largest distilled spirits companies, owning brands such as Southern Comfort and Buffalo Trace. The company highlighted its nearly 400-year history as a family-owned business with strong cultural foundations of integrity, trust, ethics and values, emphasising its close connections to the communities it served. The company stated that it had taken its obligations under the Code seriously and carefully considered the complaint, concluding that the complaint was not well-founded and could not be upheld, as Burst Blue Raspberry did not have any particular appeal to under-18s.
The company explained that Burst Blue Raspberry had been introduced to its product line in October 2020, manufactured in the United States and sold in the UK through licensed premises and retail outlets. It described the product as a raspberry fruit-flavoured liqueur intended to be consumed in small measures for a tart, refreshing taste, with its blue colour distinguishing it from other red fruit flavours such as strawberry and watermelon. The company added that the drink was part of a range of fruit-flavoured liqueurs under the “Burst” brand, developed to meet market demand for sweeter-tasting, lower ABV liqueurs catering to customers seeking better-tasting, lower-alcohol spirit drinks.
The company argued that Burst Blue Raspberry was neither labelled nor marketed to have any particular appeal to under-18s, emphasising that it was clearly identifiable as an alcoholic beverage. The company pointed out that the front label prominently displayed the wording “ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE WITH FRUIT FLAVOURING” and “Alcohol 15% vol” with similar information repeated on the back label alongside statutory alcohol product labelling. The company disagreed with the assertion that the product resembled a squash or soft drink at first glance, stating that even minimal attention to the packaging would reveal its alcoholic nature.
The company rejected the notion that the drink’s bright blue colour had a particular appeal to under-18s and explained that blue raspberry had been a recognised food colouring for over 60 years and was used to distinguish raspberry from other red fruit flavours. It noted that other well-known alcohol brands also used bright blue colouring.
Regarding the font used on the label, the company stated that it was designed to emphasise the brand name “Burst” and the flavour, using clear and uncluttered designs without child-like or playful elements. The company explained that the colours, explosive design and raspberry imagery were intended to highlight the product’s characteristics as a fruit-flavoured liqueur and appeal to adult customers seeking a fresh, fruity drink. The company added that the design was consistent with the brand and similar to other alcohol products using bright colours to emphasise fruit flavours.
The company rejected the assertion that bright labelling would appeal to teenagers and explained that the packaging clearly identified the product as alcoholic and was designed to reflect its characteristics. The company argued that finding bright colours inherently appealing to under-18s would be unreasonable and would implicate a wide range of alcohol products across the market.
The company argued that a breach of rule 3.2(h) of the Code required the Panel to be satisfied that Burst Blue Raspberry had a “particular appeal” to under-18s. It stated that the complaint had not identified any such appeal, emphasising that the packaging and labelling were designed to reflect the product’s characteristics and appeal to adult customers seeking a fruit-flavoured liqueur. The company highlighted that similar packaging designs were widely used across the spirits market, demonstrating their appeal to adult consumers. The company concluded that there was no basis to determine that the product had any particular appeal to under-18s and, therefore, no breach of rule 3.2(h) of the Code had occurred.
The Panel’s assessment
The Panel considered whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed the drink’s flavour ‘blue raspberry’ and noted that the flavour was fairly common in sweets and confectionery items which were popular with children, but that it was also a flavour that was well-established in adult-targeted products including alcohol. The Panel discussed previous precedent cases and noted that a sweet flavour in isolation was unlikely to have a particular appeal to under-18s under the Code. Instead, while a sweet flavour could contribute to the level of appeal a label might have to under-18s, it should be considered as one factor in the context of the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety.
The Panel then considered the imagery used on the label in more detail. The Panel noted the inclusion of raspberries which were realistic depictions of the fruit and were clearly intended to be representative of the drink’s flavour. As the raspberries were not cartoon-like or anthropomorphic, the Panel considered they would not have a particular appeal to under-18s as fruit and recognised that fruit flavours broadly appealed to all ages. The Panel noted that the predominant word ‘Burst’ was used on the front, back and neck of the label and discussed whether there was any similarity between the drink’s name and that of soft drinks like ‘fruit burst’. The Panel noted that there were several positive alcohol cues on the packaging such as the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the phrase ‘alcoholic beverage’ prominently positioned in a clearly visible white font. The Panel considered that the packaging was typical of a spirit drink in a 700ml bottle and as such it bore little resemblance to soft drinks targeted at children which created a separation between the packaging and drinks aimed at under-18s. Furthermore, the Panel noted that the majority of the font used on the packaging employed straight edge lines which overall presented as more adult-like. The Panel considered that while ‘Burst’ may have a level of appeal to under-18s, on balance, the drink’s label was fairly simplistic in design. It had few colours, mainly pink and blue, including the liquid which was visible through the glass and while the colours were bright, the colour palette was limited and not highly contrasting. The Panel considered that these elements, alone or combined, would not be sufficient to cause the packaging to have a particular appeal to under-18s in this case.
Taking the above points into account, the Panel concluded that the straight-lined font, simplistic design and realistic depictions of fruit meant that the overall impression conveyed by the packaging was adult and mature. The Panel concluded that the drink did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Action by Company:
None required.