A complaint against four products from producers BeatBox Netherlands has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (Panel).
The complaint, from a member of the public, expressed concern that the products could appeal to children due to the “bright, fun imagery” and “juice-box format”.
The Panel considered and upheld the complaint against four products: BeatBox Blue Razzberry, BeatBox Fruit Punch, BeatBox Juicy Mango and BeatBox Orange Blast.
Each product was found in breach of Code rule 3.2(h) whereby a drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not have a particular appeal to under-18s. They were also found in breach of Code rule 3.1, whereby the alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity. You can find the full decisions here.
In considering if the product held a particular appeal to under-18s, the Panel considered the overall impression conveyed by the packaging. The Panel acknowledged that while a Tetra Pak was not at present considered a standard container for alcohol and the packaging format was more typically associated with soft drinks aimed at adults and children in the UK, this alone would not create a particular appeal to under-18s. Instead, the Panel cautioned that producers should exercise care when using novel packaging, particularly in formats that were also used for soft drinks and children’s drinks, to ensure that the presentation of the packaging as a whole did not particularly resonate with under-18s.
When considering the broad overall impression conveyed by the products, which across all four variants included typography of the brand name ‘BeatBox’, bubble-writing, chunky font, thick black keylines, novel style packaging, sweet fruit flavours, bright, contrasting colours and simple cartoon images, the Panel concluded that these cumulative elements created an overall impression that had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).
Similarly, in considering 3.1, the Panel expressed concern that the overwhelming impression created from the combination of these elements was one that detracted from the alcoholic nature of the drink. The alcohol information that was included was in small difficult to read font and was less prominent than the fruit flavour of each variant and busy artwork. In the context of novel packaging strongly associated with soft drinks, the Panel concluded that the overall impression did not communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity and found the product in breach of Code rule 3.1.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “These cases highlight the importance of considering the overall impression conveyed by a product’s packaging. The 330ml Tetra Pak is a relatively new packaging format in the UK for alcohol products and while the Code does not seek to stifle innovation, producers must be cautious when being one of the first to utilise a packaging format that is more commonly associated with soft drinks. While it is always important to consider each design element in isolation, it is equally as important to consider the overall impression of how such elements may combine to create a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel welcomes the producer’s willingness to work with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to make changes to the product range.”
A spokesperson for BeatBox Netherlands said: “We respect Portman Group’s decision and, although we dispute the Panel’s conclusions, we have collaborated with Portman Group to modify the packaging. We always strive to comply with applicable codes and will ensure that we are in alignment with the decision.”