In this blog series, we’ll celebrate 30 years of the Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks Code of Practice by looking at 30 key decisions from across the past three decades.

The First Edition of the Code was published in April 1996.  Its introduction is often linked to the popularity of alco-pops in the 90s and the rise of sweet drinks with brightly coloured liquid, artwork and some with cartoon character mascots.  The industry, in partnership with the Portman Group, recognised that responsible standards needed to exist for alcohol marketing so that it did not appeal to children.

While there are a few rulings from 1996 that reflected this concern by complainants, one of the most famous decisions was against Hooch in September 1996.  Hooch, produced by Bass Brewers Ltd in 1996, became a motif of the 90s with its illustrated lemon imposed on a black background.  Alcohol Concern complained that the cartoon lemon was similar in design to cartoon figures on products that were more likely to appeal to under-18s.  The decision, one of the only taken by the Portman Group just before the creation of the Independent Complaints Panel, agreed with the complainant and upheld the complaint on the basis that the cartoon character was “similar to existing motifs appealing to under-18s”.  As a member of the Portman Group, Bass Brewers removed the cartoon lemon from packaging.

In 2025, Hooch, now owned by Global Brands, re-introduced the cartoon lemon on a limited edition can to celebrate Hooch’s 30^th anniversary.  After discussion with the Portman Group, Global Brands self-referred the product for complaint with the request that the case be reconsidered on the basis that, as a nostalgia-based product, it was designed to appeal to adults.  The Panel considered that the lemon did not appear to be playful or friendly and was unlikely to be engaging to a younger audience as it differed vastly from children’s cartoon characters who usually adopted a welcoming stance, large eyes and a smiling face.  In addition to this, as the lemon did not bear similarity to characters that were popular with contemporary children, the Panel concluded that the lemon would instead have a particular nostalgic appeal to those who would remember it from the 90s and would now be over 30 years old. Read the 2025 decision.

The Hooch case is unique in that it is the only case to have been reviewed 30 years later.  It shows how the Code and its accompanying guidance has evolved over time to take into account changes in societal perceptions and reflects the evolving nature of contemporary marketing and what particularly appeals to children today.  The Code itself has changed too with more detailed regulatory guidance on what marketing elements could have a particular appeal to under-18s.

Most upheld cases result in a product being removed from the market.  The majority of cases that we’ll review as part of this series no longer exist and show how the standards in the Code have changed the appearance of alcohol packaging and marketing over the years.

Author: Laura Demorais

Laura is responsible for leading and developing regulatory policy in relation to alcohol marketing issues. She is also responsible for providing the Code Secretariat function to support the Independent Complaints Panel and has oversight of the Advisory Service and Complaints function.

The Portman Group’s primary purpose as a self-regulator is to protect consumers from harm, particularly those who may be vulnerable and a fundamental part of this is protecting those who are under-18. In 2023 the Portman Group consulted to amend Code rule 3.2(h) to allow for further protection of under-18s, the rule reads:

3.2(h) A drink, it’s packaging or promotion should not have a particular appeal to under 18s.

In 2023, the Portman Group and the Independent Complaints Panel commissioned a children’s marketing agency, Kids Industries, to provide insights on marketing techniques used to appeal to children and teenagers outside of the alcohol industry, for instance, by analysing marketing used for children’s food products. This year, in the 30^th year of the Code of Practice, the Portman Group and the Independent Complaints Panel asked Kids Industries to update the report to provide new insights into a constantly evolving area of marketing in order to support the application of Code rule 3.2(h).

The 2026 update to the report, which can be read in full here, featured four key areas:

Child Development

Each child develops at their own pace and the age at which children reach different developmental stages will differ from child to child.  Broadly speaking, children will go through three broad shifts in their development and this can impact how they engage with marketing content.  In the early years, for under sevens, it’s all about ‘me and my family’ with the focus on the key people in their life.  This extends to ‘me and my peers’ around ages seven to twelve when children will become more impressionable, keen to fit in and begin to reject things that they consider babyish.  In the teenage years, the focus becomes ‘me and the world’ where young people increasingly desire autonomy, social status and feel a stronger pull towards content that is culturally relevant and reflects real dynamics and aspirational lifestyles.

Trends in Marketing

Influence transforms as children age and parental impact on decision-making gradually diminishes. Children’s access to marketing is strongly influenced by their media habits with children having significant access to digital devices at a young age.  In the UK 69% have access to a tablet at age three to five and by aged sixteen to seventeen 98% of young people have their own smartphone.  Influencers are beginning to rival friends and family as trusted sources of information as well as having considerable influence over purchases including toys and groceries. Gaming is also an increasingly popular trend beginning at age three with interactive experience-based games graduating to a point where this becomes a significant social and cultural environment for mid to late teens.  Part of the attraction in the gaming world is the ability to customise experiences and explore self-expression.  By adolescence, self-identity becomes influenced by a broader mix of cultural and social factors and old-fashioned marketing stereotypes about gender don’t necessarily reflect the way that young people view themselves or want to be represented.

Appealing to Kids

Packaging specifically designed to appeal to young children often features bright colours, often with a key thick black outline, which helps children to distinguish items as they develop visual perception skills.  Characters are a key feature too, those which resonate with young children are often cartoon-like and anthropomorphic, safe and funny.  For older children, popular characters are less defined by how they look and more by what they symbolise, with humour and cultural references such as meme-like behaviour being represented.

Packaging which features a collectible element has long been popular with children, under sevens seek to collect by quantity whilst older children and teens are more motivated by quality, viewing their collections as a means of social connection and self-expression. Many adults also enjoy collecting, so there can be some overlap between what appeals to teenagers and adults.  However, collectibles that encourage trading, sharing and being part of current trends or popular culture are more likely to appeal to teenagers.  Collectibles that focus on history, tradition, expertise, or a deep interest in a subject are more likely to appeal to adults.

Flavour preferences will influence packaging appeal with under sevens enjoying classic flavours that are easy to understand like chocolate or strawberry.  Eight to twelve-year-olds tend to prefer exciting tastes with unusual novelties such as pickles.  In the teenage years, experimentation becomes more refined and likely expressed through premium flavours like mocha rather than purely playful elements.

Aspirational cues shape how children and young people engage with marketing too, under sevens are typically drawn to imitation and imagination.  As children grow up their awareness of what is considered ‘cool’ increases and by late teens, the aspiration switches to adult brands and a mature aesthetic.

Cultural relevance is woven throughout the way that children and young people engage with marketing.  For young children it is driven through familiarity, recognition and alignment with trusted characters such as Bluey.  As children grow up, they become more aware of trends that travel via social media into peer environments with appeal driven by what is being talked about rather than brand messaging alone. By late teens, cultural relevance becomes more closely tied to social fluency with brands that feel current and ‘in the know’.

Considerations

The Kids Industries report culminated in a summary of factors that the Independent Complaints Panel might consider when making their evaluations of what constitutes particular appeal to under-18s with detailed indicators on; colour and clarity, characters, names and logos, collectability, licensing, flavour, aspirationalism and cultural relevance.

The report will be used to inform an updated version of particular appeal to under-18s guidance later in the year alongside new case precedents from the Independent Complaints Panel.

If you are an alcohol producer or marketing agency working with alcohol brands and you’d like free and confidential advice on whether packaging and marketing may particularly appeal to under-18s you can contact the Portman Group’s Advisory Service for a view using our or direct email address advice@portmangroup.org.uk.

Author: Laura Blackmore

Laura is responsible for providing tailored regulatory advice and training under the Portman Group’s Codes of Practice.  Laura brings experience from a successful career in education, leadership and management. Laura utilises her educational background to deliver bespoke training and advice through the Portman Group’s advisory service.

Meteorologists say summer began on June 1^st, Astronomists say the date changes in line with the summer solstice and this year it will start on June 21^st. Meanwhile many people in the U.K feel like summer arrived early for 2026 with the hottest May bank holiday on record.  The bright and sunny weather brings a great opportunity for marketing cool and refreshing drinks, here’s the Advisory Service’s guide to making sure alcohol marketing doesn’t make you sweat!

Social Success

Marketing lines which place alcohol as a legitimate accompaniment to a social occasion are acceptable but producers should be careful not to tip over into suggesting that alcohol can be a catalyst to social success.  Lines such as ‘get the summer started’ could be interpreted as a suggestion that consumption of the drink could improve the success of the summer season. We would instead recommend that marketing lines focus on the quality and taste of the drink, for example ‘a refreshing choice for your summer drinks’.

Novel packaging

Packaging which makes drinks easy to freeze or easier to carry and reseal when outdoors are often popular in the hotter months.  Novel packaging is not inherently an issue under Code rules, but care should be taken to ensure that the alcoholic nature of the drink is absolutely clear to avoid any confusion for consumers.

Water sports and beach play

Producers often want to use beach or pool scenes to communicate the summery nature of their product.  Creative designs can be acceptable under Code rules so long as care is taken to avoid any images that suggest the drink has been consumed before or during taking part in water sports or swimming.  Additionally, some beach and pool accessories may particularly appeal to under-18s, such as buckets and spades or inflatables with child-friendly themes and so these images should be avoided to minimise risk.

Therapeutic benefits

Alcohol marketing should not suggest that consumption of a drink can change mood or behaviour.  Presenting a chilled drink as a serving suggestion is acceptable, but care should be taken to avoid any suggestion that a chilled drink could make a consumer feel ‘chilled’ or relaxed.

Alcohol Alternatives

Alcohol alternatives are a popular choice during warmer weather especially for those who may be designated driver on beach or festival days.  Just as with alcohol products, it is important to minimise consumer confusion, an alcohol alternative drink should make it clear that it is below the threshold to be considered an alcoholic drink. This could be achieved by communicating the product’s ABV or using a descriptor where appropriate i.e., ‘alcohol-free’.

Just like alcohol products, a drink its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not have a particular appeal to under-18s. The alcohol alternative category is intended for adult consumers and so any marketing or associated merchandise should not have a particular appeal to under-18s.

Free Advisory Service

If you are an alcohol producer or marketing agency that would like to access free, fast and confidential advice for your summer activations, please do get in touch using our webform or direct email, the Advisory Service will be happy to hear from you.

Author: Laura Blackmore

Laura is responsible for providing tailored regulatory advice and training under the Portman Group’s Codes of Practice.  Laura brings experience from a successful career in education, leadership and management. Laura utilises her educational background to deliver bespoke training and advice through the Portman Group’s advisory service.

A new study has revealed near universal levels of compliance across the alcohol industry with the voluntary health labelling guidelines set by the Portman Group – the UK alcohol marketing self-regulator and social responsibility body.

The study sampled 500 alcohol products taken from the UK’s top brands, who together roughly cover over 90% of the retail alcohol sold by volume across all major UK retailers.

The results show that UK consumers are now provided with more information than ever before on alcohol labels, enabling them to make an informed choice to support moderation and responsible drinking behaviour. This also demonstrates that the industry has taken the initiative on responsibility in the absence of any Government-required mandate.

The study found near universal coverage of the Portman Group’s minimum recommended guidelines:

• Over 99% of labels carry a pregnancy warning logo or message.
• 96% carry alcohol unit content information.
• 89% carry the UK Chief Medical Officers weekly low-risk drinking guidelines not to regularly drink more than 14 units per week.
• 85% carry a reference to the independent education charity Drinkaware – and we recognise that this carries a license cost implication for producers.

The research also revealed significant increases in many brands going above and beyond the guidelines with the following additional elements:

• Close to two thirds (62%) carry calorie information on label.
• Just under half (48%) carry a warning against drink driving.
• 41% carry an age restriction warning.

For over 30 years, the UK alcohol industry has proactively worked to ensure that alcohol labelling is both socially responsible and informative for consumers, and since 2017 the Portman Group has been advising the industry on adhering to the most recent industry Best Practice Guidance.

We recognise the UK Government’s intention to consult later this year on the mandatory provision of health warnings and nutritional information on packaging. As a pro-active and pro-growth responsibility body, the Portman Group shares the view that clear and consistent and actionable product information for consumers is vital. We would urge as a reasonable first step, applying consistency in existing high labelling standards to close the remaining gaps whilst avoiding unfairly penalising responsible producers who have voluntarily applied responsible consumer advice. We strongly urge the Government to take a collaborative approach to work with the Portman Group and wider industry, taking advantage of our knowledge and experience in setting and applying standards.

Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group said: “We are proud to see our best practice guidance voluntarily adopted near universally across UK alcohol products – helping consumers to make an informed choice around alcohol and supporting moderation and responsible drinking behaviour.

“Go into your nearest supermarket and pick up a bottle of beer, cider, wine or spirits from the top brands on the UK market and you are likely to find a wealth of information voluntarily provided. Alongside an ABV you will see pregnancy warnings, unit information, the Chief Medical Officer low-risk guidelines, calorie information, and increasingly ingredient information as well as further health warnings against drink driving or underage drinking.

“This huge progress should not be taken for granted and represents significant hard work and investment from responsible producers, retailers and importers across the industry – all the more impressive given how diverse and ever-changing the sector is.

“We recognise there is more work to do and we stand ready to work with the Government to close the small gaps in the existing high standards with those who need to go further whilst not unfairly penalising and adding additional burdens to the vast majority of producers who have voluntarily carried consumer health information.”

The full report can be found here.

The Men’s FIFA World Cup 2026 is set to begin on 11 June, for the first time the tournament will be co-hosted by three countries; Canada, USA and Mexico and a record 48 teams will be taking part.  The enthusiasm around the World Cup is sure to inspire some creative marketing ideas for alcohol brands and the Portman Group’s Advisory Service is at the sidelines ready to help balance innovation with a responsible approach to marketing.  Alcohol producers and marketing agencies are welcome to get in touch for free and confidential advice using our webform or direct email address.  Here are some football themed guidance topics, ready to help abide by the Portman Group Codes of Practice and avoid any own goals!

Sponsorship

Drinks companies may sponsor football teams but there are some important rules to be aware of.  To begin, at least 75% of the team must be aged 18 or over and any under-25-year-olds should not be used individually, or in a significant role, in brand promotional material.  For example, a poster featuring a ‘player of the match’ alongside an alcohol logo would not be suitable for players under 25 years of age.  Players over 25 can be featured in brand promotional material but any suggestion of them consuming the drink should be clearly post-match and should not suggest that it can enhance physical capabilities such as post-match recovery.

Particular appeal to under 18s

Football itself has a notably broad appeal, but care should be taken with elements of promotional activity that may have a particular appeal to under-18s.  Some mascots, especially animal or cartoon character mascots, are more likely to have a particular appeal to children and as such they should not wear alcohol branded clothing or interact with the brand in any way.  Likewise, any merchandise such as children’s clothing or items designed for children (such as a child’s single duvet cover or lunchbox) should not feature an alcoholic drink’s branding.

Sampling

Sampling is a great way to introduce consumers to the taste and quality of a drink, but care should be taken to avoid any risk of immoderate or irresponsible consumption.  Sample sizes should ensure that consumers do not exceed 4 units in one drinking session.  Sampling activity should not take place in areas where children may gather, like play areas.  Or where people are likely to have driven to, such as an out-of-town retail park.   The World Cup is set to have 13 different kick-off times and the time differences mean some games may be very early in the morning UK time.  We would recommend not scheduling sampling activities in train stations at times where people may reasonably be heading off to work afterwards. Producers should also use the Challenge 25 approach and avoid any marketing that could particularly appeal to under 18s, for example brightly coloured novelty balloon displays.

Experiential marketing

Immersive and interactive marketing is a great way to make products stand out, we know that gamified experiences such as fairground or arcade style activities are a popular way to encourage consumers to interact with a brand.  We recommend that care is taken to ensure that fun experiences do not tip over into being particularly appealing to under-18s.  Depending on presentation, we know that under-18s can be particularly drawn to bright colours and friendly looking anthropomorphic characters so these should be avoided along with prizes that include collectible elements such as stickers or toy-like items.

If you are an alcohol producer or marketing agency that would like to access free and confidential advice ahead of your World Cup inspired summer activations, please do get in touch using our webform or direct email, the Advisory Service will be happy to hear from you.

Read how newly updates Guidance on Alcohol Sponsorship

A complaint against VK’s Squashka products has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP).

The complaint, from a member of the public, expressed concern that the products could appeal to children due to the “childlike flavours, colourful packaging in a carton synonymous with children’s drinks” and “using the word ‘squash’ in the title of an alcoholic drink”.

The Panel considered and upheld the complaint against three products:  VK Squashka Berries & Cherries, VK Squashka Orange & Pineapple and VK Squashka Apple & Blackcurrant.

Each product was found in breach of four Code rules:

– 3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.

– 3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.

– 3.2(f) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.

– 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.

You can find the full decisions here.

When considering whether the product held a particular appeal to under-18s the Panel focused on the overall impression conveyed by the packaging. The Panel acknowledged that while a 500ml Tetra Pak was not a conventional container for alcohol, unconventional packaging alone would not automatically create an appeal to under-18s. However, the Panel cautioned that producers should exercise care when using novel packaging, particularly packaging formats that were also used for soft drinks and children’s drinks to ensure that the presentation of the packaging did not particularly resonate with under-18s.

The Panel acknowledged the company’s response that the name was intended to communicate a cocktail serve which consisted of vodka and squash mixed together. While acknowledging that adults also consumed squash, the Panel stated that because of a child’s predisposition to enjoy simple, sweet flavours, squash was a highly popular drink for under-18s and would strongly appeal to them. In this case, the Panel noted that the packaging placed a significant emphasis on ‘squash’ and considered that the name had an elevated risk, which when placed in the context of a Tetra Pak with a sweet, simple flavour, contrasting colours and thick black keyline created a particular appeal to under-18s. Based on the overall impression,  the complaint was upheld under Code Rule 3.2(h).

The Panel further concluded that these same factors placed a greater obligation on the products’ labelling to clearly communicate its alcoholic nature. While the product did meet the minimum standards set by labelling regulations, the Panel expressed concern that the overwhelming impression created from the combination of the ‘Squashka’ name, a flavour commonly associated with squash, the colours and Tetra Pak container was one that detracted from the alcoholic nature of the drink and therefore could reasonably cause confusion as to whether the drink was alcoholic. On that basis the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.1.

The Panel also concluded that the line ‘Flavour Sorted. Party Started’ found on the top of the packaging was a breach of Code Rule 3.2(e), whereby a drink’s packaging should not suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity. The Panel considered that ‘Party Started’ could suggest that the presence of alcohol had acted as a catalyst to the success and enjoyment of the party. The Panel acknowledged that while the company may not have intended for the line to be interpreted in such a manner, the ambiguous meaning had created an inadvertent breach of the Code.

Finally, the Panel noted that the instruction on the back of the label to ‘Drink. Dance. Recycle. Repeat’ was likely a playful way to encourage good environmental practices but nonetheless concluded that the line encouraged immoderate consumption by encouraging consumption of more than one drink in one sitting, thereby taking a consumer to seven units in one sitting even if only two were consumed. The complaint was therefore upheld under Code rule 3.2(f) (a drink, should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness).

Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “. The VK Squashka cases provide an interesting and balanced precedent for the industry. Innovation in product packaging alone is unlikely to breach the Code but producers must be mindful how such creativity may enhance the appeal of a product to under-18s when combined with other factors such as a name, soft drink crossover, colours and artwork. I am pleased that the producer has chosen to work with the Advisory Service so openly and positively to redesign the packaging and change  the product’s name to address the concerns raised by the Panel.”

Matt Bulcroft, Marketing Director at Global Brands, added: “We welcome the opportunity to work alongside Portman Group to uphold high standards across the industry and support responsible marketing. Our move into Tetra Pak was driven by evolving consumer demand for more convenient and environmentally conscious formats. However, we recognise the importance of considering broader perceptions when introducing a new packaging format within the category. Following constructive discussions with the Portman Group, we have agreed to update the design and name of the products in question, to strengthen on-pack clarity and ensure our branding and messaging remain firmly aligned with responsible consumption. We look forward to announcing further details on the new product design and name in due course.”

Producer:

Global Brands Ltd

Complainant:

Member of the public

Complaint:

“I would like to express my concerns around a product I have recently seen advertised on social media which is available in shops now. It is called VK Squashka and is a highly alcoholic drink at almost 8%. As a parent I am very concerned that this could easily appeal to children particularly given its childlike flavours – apple and blackcurrant, orange and pineapple and cherries and berries- along with its colourful packaging in a carton which is synonymous with children’s drinks. Using the word ‘squash’ in the title of an alcoholic drink is totally inappropriate”.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.1

3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.

UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(e)

3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.

UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(f)

3.2(f) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.

UPHELD

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.

UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company welcomed the opportunity to respond to the complaint to ensure that its products were fully aligned with the Code. The company understood the complaint primarily related to Code rule 3.2(h) and whether the product packaging, naming or marketing had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company submitted that the packaging did not breach the Code rule when assessed in line with the Panel’s established approach, which required consideration of the overall impression of a product rather than individual elements viewed in isolation.

While not subject to complaint, the company stated that the drink communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The company highlighted that the main body of the packaging had at least six explicit alcohol cues which included:

• The alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) positioned at the top of the packaging to elevate it in the reading hierarchy. This was also included on the back label;
• The use of the word Vodka as part of the product descriptor which was repeated on the back label;
• The VK brand logo which was well established and recognised widely by UK consumers as an alcoholic drinks brand;
• Alcohol health-related information which included a drink responsibly message and signposting to Drinkaware;
• Inclusion of an 18+ logo.

When taken together, these elements ensured that communication of the drink’s alcoholic nature was dominant on packaging.

The company addressed the concern regarding the use of a Tetra Pak format. The company noted that the Panel had previously stated that unconventional packaging formats were not inherently problematic under the Code. Additionally, the company stated that it was important to consider the wider industry and regulatory context in which decisions on containers were being made. The increased use of alternative packaging formats, including cartons, across the alcoholic drinks sector, had been accelerated by environmental considerations and by regulatory changes, which included the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) obligations in the UK. The company explained that those measures had contributed to a broader shift across the alcoholic drinks sector toward alternative packaging formats with lower environmental impact. Within that context, the adoption of a Tetra Pak format for VK Squashka reflected broader category and regulatory trends rather than any attempt to emulate a child’s product. In addition to this, the company explained that several further contextual factors were relevant for consideration including:

• The Tetra Pak format was well-established in alcoholic beverages globally, including products across the UK and Europe;
• The closure used was a re-closable spout system designed for adult beverage consumption, which was materially different from straw-based systems commonly associated with children’s drinks. When Tetra Paks had been used in children’s products, it was almost exclusively paired with a straw;
• The re-closable spout supported adult consumption patterns and moderation, rather than single-use drinking behaviour;
• The Panel had previously confirmed that packaging format alone did not determine appeal to under-18s.

When viewed in that regulatory, environmental and category context, the company stated that the packaging format did not mimic children’s drinks in a manner that would create an appeal to under-18s, especially when combined with the strong and repeated alcoholic cues.

The company explained that the colourways and graphic treatment used on the packaging was intentionally adult-led. The colours used were tempered through the consistent use of black and darker base tones combined with bold condensed typography. The company stated that these elements were aligned with established market designs for Ready To Drink’s (RTD) rather than children’s soft drinks. Furthermore, there were no use of childish illustrations, playful mascots, or imagery commonly associated with products directed at children.

The company highlighted that the flavours used were fruit-based descriptors which were also widely established across the category and wider market. The company noted that previous Panel precedent made clear that breaches typically occur where confectionery style flavour names are combined with playful typography and sweetshop visual language, rather than from fruit flavours alone. In this case, the drink did not use confectionery or novelty flavour language, nor did it cluster multiple childlike cues.

The company explained that the term ‘squashka’ was commonly understood in UK drinking culture to describe a mixed drink of vodka and squash. The drink’s name was not playful or fabricated and “squashka” functioned as a descriptive cocktail term. The company stated that the name would be understood by adult consumers, rather than create an appeal to under-18s and had sought independent legal advice to validate that point.

The company stated that wider marketing activity for the drink online included strict age gating and targeted controls. Creative executions in-store were adult in tone and situated within alcohol retail environments with visual treatment that was dark and adult coded. Therefore, the company stated that accompanying product marketing did not create a particular appeal to under-18s either.

The company concluded that the packaging aligned with established Panel precedents and did not create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s.

The Panel’s assessment

3.1

As part of its consideration of the product and addressing the company’s response to the complaint, the Panel raised Code rule 3.1 for discussion to determine whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel first assessed the format of the packaging which was a resealable 500ml Tetra Pak. The Panel considered that, at the time of complaint, Tetra Paks were not a standard container for alcohol and were more typically associated with soft drinks in the UK. The Panel acknowledged the company’s point that the decision to use that type of container was driven by wider regulatory circumstances and clarified that Tetra Paks were not inherently problematic under the Code. However, the Panel noted that Tetra Paks were a novel style of packaging which consumers would not readily link with alcohol as they were a fairly innovative form of packaging for the category. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.1 which stated that novel containers needed to work harder to ensure that a drink’s alcoholic nature was communicated with absolute clarity in order to minimise consumer confusion. The Panel noted that guidance stated that this could be achieved by including multiple recognisable positive alcohol cues on the front and back of packaging and should be presented in a clear and unambiguous way.

With that in mind, the Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging. The Panel reviewed the front label where ‘VK’ and ‘Squashka’ were displayed prominently in large, bold, white text with black keylines which emphasised the words as the focal point of the label. The Panel discussed that the brand name ‘VK’ would not necessarily be a positive alcohol cue for consumers, as some may not be aware of the brand and therefore it could not solely be relied upon to denote that the drink was alcoholic which was also consistent with accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.1. The Panel then considered the descriptor ‘Squashka’ and discussed how it would be understood by the average consumer. The Panel acknowledged the company’s response that the name was a reference to a cocktail serve which consisted of mixing vodka with squash. However, the Panel noted that ‘Squashka’ was mainly drunk by a younger adult demographic and considered that it was not possible to assume that all consumers within the target demographic of 18-24 year olds, and those outside of it, would be familiar with the serve name or that it was an alcoholic drink. The Panel expressed concern that for those who were unaware, the emphasis on ‘squash’ in the name, as a more commonly known soft drink, could mean that the drink was mistaken for a soft drink particularly when used on a Tetra Pak format which was also heavily associated with non-alcoholic beverages. The Panel considered that as ‘Squashka’ was not a well-recognised alcoholic descriptor, and was more commonly associated with a soft drink, the name could cause confusion as to the drink’s alcoholic nature when seen in the context of the overall product packaging and labelling.

The Panel reviewed the rest of the packaging and noted that the back label included several positive alcohol cues such as references to ‘vodka mix’, the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and unit content information. Additionally, the Panel noted that the back label included a drink responsibly message, the Chief Medical Officers’ low-risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol which were all presented in small white text alongside recycling information and the company’s details. On the front label, the Panel noted that some positive alcohol cues were included such as the product’s ABV and legal name of the drink ‘Vodka’. On the Apple and Blackcurrant variant of the drink, the ABV was displayed in a yellow oval shape on the top of the label as ‘alc 7% vol’. The Panel discussed the presentation of the ABV and considered that while the yellow text contrasted with the purple background, it was displayed in a smaller font comparatively to the rest of the label meaning it was less conspicuous. The Panel further noted that the legal name ‘vodka’ appeared at the bottom of the packaging in small text underneath the flavour descriptor ‘apple and blackcurrant’, which had been presented in a larger font size and given more prominence, and as a result ‘vodka’ was less discernible. In the context of the brand name ‘Squashka’, the Panel considered that the apple and blackcurrant flavour of the drink was highly recognisable as a squash flavour. The Panel noted that this link was further compounded by the colour scheme, purple with green and red highlights, which placed further emphasis on the fruit flavour rather than denoting the drink’s alcoholic content.

The Panel carefully considered these factors and acknowledged that while there were some positive alcohol cues on the packaging the majority were on the back label. While it was not a requirement of the Code to include specific information on the front label, the flavour, colours, ‘Squashka’ name and Tetra Pak container all created a strong resemblance to a soft drink. The Panel considered that it was therefore imperative that the packaging should make it absolutely clear that the product was alcoholic to minimise any potential consumer confusion. However, in this particular case, the Panel considered that the minimal positive alcohol cues on the label did not go far enough to mitigate the cumulative effect of the product’s soft drink similarities. On balance, while the product did meet the minimum standards set by labelling regulations, the Panel expressed concern that the overwhelming impression created from the combination of the ‘Squashka’ name, a flavour commonly associated with squash, the colours and Tetra Pak container was one that detracted from the alcoholic nature of the drink and therefore could reasonably cause confusion as to whether the drink was alcoholic. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed did not communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.1.

3.2(e)

The Panel Chair raised Code rule 3.2(e) for discussion to determine whether the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity. The Panel assessed the label and noted that the line ‘Flavour Sorted. Party Started’ appeared at the top of the drink by the lid. The Panel considered the meaning of ‘Party Started’ was ambiguous. It could mean that the drink was intended to be drunk at the start of an occasion and therefore was suggesting a time to best enjoy the drink. However, the Panel considered that in the context of an alcoholic drink, ‘Party Started’ was also a common idiomatic phrase that meant the fun would begin and the phrase was juxtaposed to suggest that the drink would provide both the flavour and the moment when the party would be started, suggesting alcohol was integral to the success of the event . The Panel noted guidance for Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that alcohol should not be portrayed as a key part in the success of an event, or that the presence or consumption of alcohol could transform a dull or boring occasion into a more lively or successful one. The Panel considered that ‘Party Started’ could suggest that the presence of alcohol had acted as a catalyst to the success and enjoyment of the party. The Panel noted that this interpretation was compounded by the line appearing close to the lid where consumers would only read it upon opening the container; this further linked an improved party atmosphere with alcohol consumption. The Panel acknowledged the ambiguous nature of the line and noted that while the company may not have intended for the line to be interpreted in such a manner, where the meaning of a phrase was ambiguous and left open to interpretation, there would be an increased risk of inadvertently breaching the Code as was the case here. On that basis, the Panel concluded that in the context of an alcoholic drink, the line ‘Flavour Sorted. Party Started’ suggested that consumption of the drink would lead to social success. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).

3.2(f)

The Panel Chair raised Code rule 3.2(f) for discussion to determine whether the packaging encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption. The Panel assessed the packaging and noted that it contained 3.5 units of alcohol in a resealable 500ml container. The Panel considered that where a container was easily resealable, there was an established cultural assumption that the drink could be consumed over more than one occasion unless additional factors suggested otherwise. The Panel also noted that the number of units of alcohol in the container was not overly high if it was drunk over more than one occasion. However, the Panel noted that this was not the only consideration under Code rule 3.2(f) and packaging could still be deemed problematic if it included language or imagery that could encourage immoderate consumption; defined in guidance as consuming more than four units of alcohol by one person in one sitting.

With that in mind, the Panel assessed the rest of the label and noted that it included a drink responsibly message, other alcohol health-related information and a recycling message which read ‘Drink. Dance. Recycle. Repeat’. The Panel considered that the line was likely a reference to a song by Fat Boy Slim ‘Eat, Sleep, Rave, Repeat’ and was playfully encouraging good environmental practices. However, the line also categorically linked to alcohol consumption and encouraged a person to drink and then repeat this action with another drink. The instruction to ‘recycle’ meant that the implication was that a person should consume more than one carton at a time, as one would only dispose of the container when it was empty. The Panel considered that the implication was therefore that a person should drink the entire amount, then recycle the packaging and repeat. The Panel reiterated the point it made during its consideration of Code rule 3.2(e) and noted that the broad phraseology of the line meant that it was open to interpretation and in this case the literal reading of it encouraged consumption of more than one drink in one sitting, thereby taking a consumer to seven units in one sitting even if only two were consumed. The Panel acknowledged that the breach was likely an inadvertent one, with the intention to promote recycling rather than to encourage the consumption of multiple drinks in one session but nevertheless concluded that the line encouraged immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).

3.2(h)

The Panel considered whether the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel reiterated that, at the time of complaint, a Tetra Pak was not a standard container for an alcoholic drink but emphasised that in line with Portman Group guidance non-conventional packaging would not automatically create a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel explained that while innovative packaging was unlikely to cause a direct breach in and of itself, its presentation could be a contributing factor depending on design and therefore careful assessment was required.  The Panel considered the company’s response which explained that ‘Squashka’ differed from a typical children’s drink carton which usually had a straw based serve system and ‘Squashka’ in contrast had a resealable lid. The Panel discussed the wider use of Tetra Paks in the drinks market and stated that while some children’s drinks included a straw, that was not always the case. The Panel noted that some milk-based products in Tetra Paks were marketed at children and did not include a straw and instead had a resealable lid mechanism similar to ‘Squashka’. The Panel discussed soft drinks that currently appeared in a Tetra Pak format and acknowledged that the packaging was used for soft drinks that were adult targeted but also used for some drinks that were targeted at children. On those grounds, the Panel stated that the Tetra Pak format in and of itself did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s but considered that because it was a packaging format also used for children’s drinks producers would need to proceed with caution when using novel packaging in the alcoholic drinks market to ensure that the presentation of the packaging did not particularly resonate with the under-18s demographic.

The Panel then considered the rest of the label which included the drink’s name ‘Squashka’ presented in large bold white text with a thick black key line. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that thick black key lines were often used in children’s marketing to make images or words more distinguishable for them and the design more engaging. The Panel acknowledged the company’s response that the name was intended to communicate a cocktail serve which consisted of vodka and squash mixed together. The Panel repeated that the cocktail serve may not be well recognised outside of a young adult demographic and for the average consumer, the name highlighted the ‘squash’ ingredient of the drink. The Panel noted that ‘Squash’ was a very well-recognised descriptor for dilutable juice in the UK and the emphasis on this ingredient would increase the appeal the drink would have to children who would not recognise it as an adult-only beverage. The Panel discussed squash products and noted that the ranges which were targeted at both children and adults had simple sweet fruit flavours in comparison to other ranges that had been launched in recent years that were specifically targeted at adults with more complex flavour pairings and sophisticated artwork. The Panel noted that  the simpler fruit flavours of squash were one of the primary drinks in the UK consumed by young children for hydration, as it made water more palatable for that age range. The Panel considered that the ‘apple and blackcurrant’ flavour of the drink would be recognised by children as a familiar flavour of squash as it was commonly used in drinks aimed at children.

The Panel then considered the overall presentation of the packaging and noted the inclusion of purple, red and green as the colours represented the fruit flavours and accentuated the drink’s resemblance to its soft drink counterpart.  In addition to this, the Panel discussed the bright contrasting colour palette which included secondary colours and considered that this would be visually stimulating for children. While acknowledging that adults also consumed squash, the Panel stated that because of a child’s predisposition to enjoy simple, sweet flavours and the fewer drink options in that segment of the market specifically targeted at that age bracket squash was a highly popular drink for under-18s and would strongly appeal to them. In this case, the Panel noted that the packaging placed a significant emphasis on ‘squash’ and considered that the name had an elevated risk, which when placed in the context of a Tetra Pak with a sweet simple flavour, contrasting colours and a thick black keyline would have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel expressed concern that the name and its crossover appeal could often lead to situations where the product and its associated marketing could inadvertently breach responsible alcohol marketing rules because of the name’s high baseline of appeal to under-18s.

In the context of the packaging, the Panel concluded that the reference to ‘squash’ in the drink’s name, the novel style packaging, the sweet simple flavour, contrasting colours and a thick black keyline all contributed to an overall impression which meant the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

Action by Company:

Working with the Advisory Service.

Producer:

Global Brands Ltd

Complainant:

Member of the public

Complaint:

“I would like to express my concerns around a product I have recently seen advertised on social media which is available in shops now. It is called VK Squashka and is a highly alcoholic drink at almost 8%. As a parent I am very concerned that this could easily appeal to children particularly given its childlike flavours – apple and blackcurrant, orange and pineapple and cherries and berries- along with its colourful packaging in a carton which is synonymous with children’s drinks. Using the word ‘squash’ in the title of an alcoholic drink is totally inappropriate”.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.1

3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.

UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(e)

3.2(e) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest that consumption of the drink can lead to social success or popularity.

UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(f)

3.2(f) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.

UPHELD

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.

UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company welcomed the opportunity to respond to the complaint to ensure that its products were fully aligned with the Code. The company understood the complaint primarily related to Code rule 3.2(h) and whether the product packaging, naming or marketing had a particular appeal to under-18s. The company submitted that the packaging did not breach the Code rule when assessed in line with the Panel’s established approach, which required consideration of the overall impression of a product rather than individual elements viewed in isolation.

While not subject to complaint, the company stated that the drink communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The company highlighted that the main body of the packaging had at least six explicit alcohol cues which included:

• The alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) positioned at the top of the packaging to elevate it in the reading hierarchy. This was also included on the back label;
• The use of the word Vodka as part of the product descriptor which was repeated on the back label;
• The VK brand logo which was well established and recognised widely by UK consumers as an alcoholic drinks brand;
• Alcohol health-related information which included a drink responsibly message and signposting to Drinkaware;
• Inclusion of an 18+ logo.

When taken together, these elements ensured that communication of the drink’s alcoholic nature was dominant on packaging.

The company addressed the concern regarding the use of a Tetra Pak format. The company noted that the Panel had previously stated that unconventional packaging formats were not inherently problematic under the Code. Additionally, the company stated that it was important to consider the wider industry and regulatory context in which decisions on containers were being made. The increased use of alternative packaging formats, including cartons, across the alcoholic drinks sector, had been accelerated by environmental considerations and by regulatory changes, which included the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) obligations in the UK. The company explained that those measures had contributed to a broader shift across the alcoholic drinks sector toward alternative packaging formats with lower environmental impact. Within that context, the adoption of a Tetra Pak format for VK Squashka reflected broader category and regulatory trends rather than any attempt to emulate a child’s product. In addition to this, the company explained that several further contextual factors were relevant for consideration including:

• The Tetra Pak format was well-established in alcoholic beverages globally, including products across the UK and Europe;
• The closure used was a re-closable spout system designed for adult beverage consumption, which was materially different from straw-based systems commonly associated with children’s drinks. When Tetra Paks had been used in children’s products, it was almost exclusively paired with a straw;
• The re-closable spout supported adult consumption patterns and moderation, rather than single-use drinking behaviour;
• The Panel had previously confirmed that packaging format alone did not determine appeal to under-18s.

When viewed in that regulatory, environmental and category context, the company stated that the packaging format did not mimic children’s drinks in a manner that would create an appeal to under-18s, especially when combined with the strong and repeated alcoholic cues.

The company explained that the colourways and graphic treatment used on the packaging was intentionally adult-led. The colours used were tempered through the consistent use of black and darker base tones combined with bold condensed typography. The company stated that these elements were aligned with established market designs for Ready To Drink’s (RTD) rather than children’s soft drinks. Furthermore, there were no use of childish illustrations, playful mascots, or imagery commonly associated with products directed at children.

The company highlighted that the flavours used were fruit-based descriptors which were also widely established across the category and wider market. The company noted that previous Panel precedent made clear that breaches typically occur where confectionery style flavour names are combined with playful typography and sweetshop visual language, rather than from fruit flavours alone. In this case, the drink did not use confectionery or novelty flavour language, nor did it cluster multiple childlike cues.

The company explained that the term ‘squashka’ was commonly understood in UK drinking culture to describe a mixed drink of vodka and squash. The drink’s name was not playful or fabricated and “squashka” functioned as a descriptive cocktail term. The company stated that the name would be understood by adult consumers, rather than create an appeal to under-18s and had sought independent legal advice to validate that point.

The company stated that wider marketing activity for the drink online included strict age gating and targeted controls. Creative executions in-store were adult in tone and situated within alcohol retail environments with visual treatment that was dark and adult coded. Therefore, the company stated that accompanying product marketing did not create a particular appeal to under-18s either.

The company concluded that the packaging aligned with established Panel precedents and did not create an overall impression which had a particular appeal to under-18s.

The Panel’s assessment

3.1

As part of its consideration of the product and addressing the company’s response to the complaint, the Panel raised Code rule 3.1 for discussion to determine whether the drink’s packaging communicated its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. The Panel first assessed the format of the packaging which was a resealable 500ml Tetra Pak. The Panel considered that, at the time of complaint, Tetra Paks were not a standard container for alcohol and were more typically associated with soft drinks in the UK. The Panel acknowledged the company’s point that the decision to use that type of container was driven by wider regulatory circumstances and clarified that Tetra Paks were not inherently problematic under the Code. However, the Panel noted that Tetra Paks were a novel style of packaging which consumers would not readily link with alcohol as they were a fairly innovative form of packaging for the category. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance for Code rule 3.1 which stated that novel containers needed to work harder to ensure that a drink’s alcoholic nature was communicated with absolute clarity in order to minimise consumer confusion. The Panel noted that guidance stated that this could be achieved by including multiple recognisable positive alcohol cues on the front and back of packaging and should be presented in a clear and unambiguous way.

With that in mind, the Panel assessed the overall impression conveyed by the packaging. The Panel reviewed the front label where ‘VK’ and ‘Squashka’ were displayed prominently in large, bold, white text with black keylines which emphasised the words as the focal point of the label. The Panel discussed that the brand name ‘VK’ would not necessarily be a positive alcohol cue for consumers, as some may not be aware of the brand and therefore it could not solely be relied upon to denote that the drink was alcoholic which was also consistent with accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.1. The Panel then considered the descriptor ‘Squashka’ and discussed how it would be understood by the average consumer. The Panel acknowledged the company’s response that the name was a reference to a cocktail serve which consisted of mixing vodka with squash. However, the Panel noted that ‘Squashka’ was mainly drunk by a younger adult demographic and considered that it was not possible to assume that all consumers within the target demographic of 18-24 year olds, and those outside of it, would be familiar with the serve name or that it was an alcoholic drink. The Panel expressed concern that for those who were unaware, the emphasis on ‘squash’ in the name, as a more commonly known soft drink, could mean that the drink was mistaken for a soft drink particularly when used on a Tetra Pak format which was also heavily associated with non-alcoholic beverages. The Panel considered that as ‘Squashka’ was not a well-recognised alcoholic descriptor, and was more commonly associated with a soft drink, the name could cause confusion as to the drink’s alcoholic nature when seen in the context of the overall product packaging and labelling.

The Panel reviewed the rest of the packaging and noted that the back label included several positive alcohol cues such as references to ‘vodka mix’, the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and unit content information. Additionally, the Panel noted that the back label included a drink responsibly message, the Chief Medical Officers’ low-risk drinking guidelines, a pregnancy warning logo and an 18+ symbol which were all presented in small white text alongside recycling information and the company’s details. On the front label, the Panel noted that some positive alcohol cues were included such as the product’s ABV and legal name of the drink ‘Vodka’. On the orange and pineapple variant of the drink, the ABV was displayed in a yellow oval shape on the bottom of the label as ‘alc 7% vol’. The Panel discussed the presentation of the ABV and considered that while the yellow text contrasted with the orange background, it was displayed in a smaller font comparatively to the rest of the label meaning it was less conspicuous. The Panel further noted that the legal name ‘vodka’ appeared at the bottom of the packaging in small text underneath the flavour descriptor ‘orange and pineapple’, which had been presented in a larger font size and given more prominence, and as a result ‘vodka’ was less discernible. In the context of the brand name ‘Squashka’, the Panel considered that the orange and pineapple flavour of the drink was highly recognisable as a squash flavour. The Panel noted that this link was further compounded by the colour scheme, orange with green and yellow highlights, which placed further emphasis on the fruit flavour rather than denoting the drink’s alcoholic content.

The Panel carefully considered these factors and acknowledged that while there were some positive alcohol cues on the packaging the majority were on the back label. While it was not a requirement of the Code to include specific information on the front label, the flavour, colours, ‘Squashka’ name and Tetra Pak container all created a strong resemblance to a soft drink. The Panel considered that it was therefore imperative that the packaging should make it absolutely clear that the product was alcoholic to minimise any potential consumer confusion. However, in this particular case, the Panel considered that the minimal positive alcohol cues on the label did not go far enough to mitigate the cumulative effect of the product’s soft drink similarities. On balance, while the product did meet the minimum standards set by labelling regulations, the Panel expressed concern that the overwhelming impression created from the combination of the ‘Squashka’ name, a flavour commonly associated with squash, the colours and Tetra Pak container was one that detracted from the alcoholic nature of the drink and therefore could reasonably cause confusion as to whether the drink was alcoholic. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed did not communicate the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.1.

3.2(e)

The Panel Chair raised Code rule 3.2(e) for discussion to determine whether the packaging suggested that consumption of the drink could lead to social success or popularity. The Panel assessed the label and noted that the line ‘Flavour Sorted. Party Started’ appeared at the top of the drink by the lid. The Panel considered the meaning of ‘Party Started’ was ambiguous. It could mean that the drink was intended to be drunk at the start of an occasion and therefore was suggesting a time to best enjoy the drink. However, the Panel considered that in the context of an alcoholic drink, ‘Party Started’ was also a common idiomatic phrase that meant the fun would begin and the phrase was juxtaposed to suggest that the drink would provide both the flavour and the moment when the party would be started, suggesting alcohol was integral to the success of the event . The Panel noted guidance for Code rule 3.2(e) which stated that alcohol should not be portrayed as a key part in the success of an event, or that the presence or consumption of alcohol could transform a dull or boring occasion into a more lively or successful one. The Panel considered that ‘Party Started’ could suggest that the presence of alcohol had acted as a catalyst to the success and enjoyment of the party. The Panel noted that this interpretation was compounded by the line appearing close to the lid where consumers would only read it upon opening the container; this further linked an improved party atmosphere with alcohol consumption. The Panel acknowledged the ambiguous nature of the line and noted that while the company may not have intended for the line to be interpreted in such a manner, where the meaning of a phrase was ambiguous and left open to interpretation, there would be an increased risk of inadvertently breaching the Code as was the case here. On that basis, the Panel concluded that in the context of an alcoholic drink, the line ‘Flavour Sorted. Party Started’ suggested that consumption of the drink would lead to social success. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(e).

3.2(f)

The Panel Chair raised Code rule 3.2(f) for discussion to determine whether the packaging encouraged irresponsible or immoderate consumption. The Panel assessed the packaging and noted that it contained 3.5 units of alcohol in a resealable 500ml container. The Panel considered that where a container was easily resealable, there was an established cultural assumption that the drink could be consumed over more than one occasion unless additional factors suggested otherwise. The Panel also noted that the number of units of alcohol in the container was not overly high if it was drunk over more than one occasion. However, the Panel noted that this was not the only consideration under Code rule 3.2(f) and packaging could still be deemed problematic if it included language or imagery that could encourage immoderate consumption; defined in guidance as consuming more than four units of alcohol by one person in one sitting.

With that in mind, the Panel assessed the rest of the label and noted that it included a Drink Responsibly” message, other alcohol health-related information and a recycling message which read ‘Drink. Dance. Recycle. Repeat’. The Panel considered that the line was likely a reference to a song by Fat Boy Slim: ‘Eat, Sleep, Rave, Repeat’ and was playfully encouraging good environmental practices. However, the line also categorically linked to alcohol consumption and encouraged a person to drink and then repeat this action with another drink. The instruction to ‘recycle’ meant that the implication was that a person should consume more than one carton at a time, as one would only dispose of the container when it was empty. The Panel considered that the implication was therefore that a person should drink the entire amount, then recycle the packaging and repeat. The Panel reiterated the point it made during its consideration of Code rule 3.2(e) and noted that the broad phraseology of the line meant that it was open to interpretation and in this case the literal reading of it encouraged consumption of more than one drink in one sitting, thereby taking a consumer to seven units in one sitting even if only two were consumed. The Panel acknowledged that the breach was likely an inadvertent one, with the intention to promote recycling rather than to encourage the consumption of multiple drinks in one session but nevertheless concluded that the line encouraged immoderate consumption. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(f).

3.2(h)

The Panel considered whether the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel reiterated that, at the time of complaint, a Tetra Pak was not a standard container for an alcoholic drink but emphasised that in line with Portman Group guidance non-conventional packaging would not automatically create a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel explained that while innovative packaging was unlikely to cause a direct breach in and of itself, its presentation could be a contributing factor depending on design and therefore careful assessment was required.  The Panel considered the company’s response which explained that ‘Squashka’ differed from a typical children’s drink carton which usually had a straw based serve system and ‘Squashka’ in contrast had a resealable lid. The Panel discussed the wider use of Tetra Paks in the drinks market and stated that while some children’s drinks included a straw, that was not always the case. The Panel noted that some milk-based products in Tetra Paks were marketed at children and did not include a straw and instead had a resealable lid mechanism similar to ‘Squashka’. The Panel discussed soft drinks that currently appeared in a Tetra Pak format and acknowledged that the packaging was used for soft drinks that were adult targeted but also used for some drinks that were targeted at children. On those grounds, the Panel stated that the Tetra Pak format in and of itself did not have an inherent particular appeal to under-18s but considered that because it was a packaging format also used for children’s drinks producers would need to proceed with caution when using novel packaging in the alcoholic drinks market to ensure that the presentation of the packaging did not particularly resonate with the under-18s demographic.

The Panel then considered the rest of the label which included the drink’s name ‘Squashka’ presented in large bold white text with a thick black key line. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(h) and noted that thick black key lines were often used in children’s marketing to make images or words more distinguishable for them and the design more engaging. The Panel acknowledged the company’s response that the name was intended to communicate a cocktail serve which consisted of vodka and squash mixed together. The Panel repeated that the cocktail serve may not be well recognised outside of a young adult demographic and for the average consumer, the name highlighted the ‘squash’ ingredient of the drink. The Panel noted that ‘Squash’ was a very well-recognised descriptor for dilutable juice in the UK and the emphasis on this ingredient would increase the appeal the drink would have to children who would not recognise it as an adult-only beverage. The Panel discussed squash products and noted that the ranges which were targeted at both children and adults had simple sweet fruit flavours in comparison to other ranges that had been launched in recent years that were specifically targeted at adults with more complex flavour pairings and sophisticated artwork. The Panel noted that the simpler fruit flavours of squash were one of the primary drinks in the UK consumed by young children for hydration, as it made water more palatable for that age range. The Panel considered that the ‘orange and pineapple’ flavour of the drink would be recognised by children as a familiar flavour of squash as it was commonly used in drinks aimed at children.

The Panel then considered the overall presentation of the packaging and noted the inclusion of orange, yellow and green as the colours represented the fruit flavours and accentuated the drink’s resemblance to its soft drink counterpart.  In addition to this, the Panel discussed the bright contrasting colour palette which included secondary colours and considered that this would be visually stimulating for children. While acknowledging that adults also consumed squash, the Panel stated that because of a child’s predisposition to enjoy simple, sweet flavours and the fewer drink options in that segment of the market specifically targeted at that age bracket squash was a highly popular drink for under-18s and would strongly appeal to them. In this case, the Panel noted that the packaging placed a significant emphasis on ‘squash’ and considered that the name had an elevated risk, which when placed in the context of a Tetra Pak with a sweet simple flavour, contrasting colours and a thick black keyline would have a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel expressed concern that the name and its crossover appeal could often lead to situations where the product and its associated marketing could inadvertently breach responsible alcohol marketing rules because of the name’s high baseline of appeal to under-18s.

In the context of the packaging, the Panel concluded that the reference to ‘squash’ in the drink’s name, the novel style packaging, the sweet simple flavour, contrasting colours and a thick black keyline all contributed to an overall impression which meant the packaging had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h).

Action by Company:

Working with the Advisory Service.

A complaint against Fortitude Spirit’s Cactus Jack’s alcoholic schnapps products has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP).

The complaint, from a member of the public, expressed concern about some of the product names, such as Fruit Salad Frenzy and Cola Kick, the cactus cartoon character and sweet flavours which could have a particular appeal to under-18s. The complainant was also concerned that the Red Cherry Rebel product suggested that “it’s cool to be badly behaved”.

The Panel considered the concerns raised by the complainant and the additional concerns raised by the Chair which resulted in all seven products being found in breach of the Code. Several Code rules were considered by the Panel with the majority being found in breach. You can find each decision, including the Code rules considered by the Panel, below:

Cactus Jack’s Red Cherry Rebel

Cactus Jack’s Cola Kick

Cactus Jack’s Electric Blue Raspberry

Cactus Jack’s Fruit Salad Frenzy

Cactus Jack’s Twisted Strawberry and Lime

Cactus Jack’s Wicked Green Apple

Cactus Jack’s Peach Pucker

The Panel considered each product individually and carefully assessed them in the round. The Panel discussed the products’ use of cartoon imagery, bright colours and sweet flavours. They noted that these elements in isolation were not inherently problematic but that they could contribute to a breach of Code rule 3.2(h) (whereby a drink should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s). The Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the cartoon-like cactus with exaggerated features, thick bold keylines, bright contrasting colours and sweet flavours, all combined in a way which meant the products did have a particular appeal to under-18s.

The Panel also considered the language on the products’ labels. Each product included the wording, ‘Turn it up…anything goes from here’, ‘Just add mates, music and a little chaos’, and ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’. The Panel discussed the three lines and noted that they all insinuated that something unexpected, disordered and unrestricted would happen due to consuming the product and that there was a clear inference that alcohol would play a key part in producing a ‘legendary evening’ with consumption of the product acting as the catalyst. The Panel stated that glorifying chaotic and unconstrained behaviour and linking such behaviour with alcohol consumption was unacceptable under the Code. Accordingly, all three lines were upheld under Code rule 3.2(f) (whereby a drink should not encourage irresponsible consumption). The line ‘turn unplanned moments into legend’ was also upheld under Code rule 3.2(e) (a drink should not suggest it can lead to social success) on the basis that it suggested that consumption could transform a moment into legend and alcohol was the catalyst for the success of the social occasion.

Similarly, each product was found to be in breach of Code rule 3.2(g) (a drink, should not urge the consumer to ‘down’ a product in one). The Panel concluded that the phrase ‘Shoot it straight was problematic as ‘shooting’ a drink usually referred to drinking it in one go. The Panel acknowledged the company’s response that it intended the phrase to communicate a serve suggestion but stated that the instruction ‘shoot it straight’ encouraged a style of consumption rather than communicating a serve measurement.

The Panel also considered the use of the flavour name ‘Red Cherry Rebel’ under Code rule 3.2(b) (whereby a drink should not suggest any association with anti-social or illegal behaviour). However, the Panel concluded that to be a ‘rebel’ or to ‘rebel’ against an action did not necessarily mean that rules or laws would be broken, or that such actions would result in anti-social behaviour. The complaint was therefore not upheld under this Code rule.

Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs said: “The use of language was especially important to consider in this case. Producers must exercise caution when using words or phrases that could, individually or in combination, encourage irresponsible consumption, down in one consumption or suggest a change in mood or behaviour. In addition, the overall impression of the design, the anthropomorphised cactus and sweet flavours created a particular appeal to under-18s. I would always encourage producers to contact the Portman Group’s Advisory Service and consult the detailed online Guidance when making changes to product packaging”

A spokesperson from Fortitude Spirits said: “Although disappointed, we are committed to complying with the Portman Group Code and will be working with the Portman Group Advisory Team to amend the design whilst retaining the essence of the Cactus Jack character”