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 – berries and cherries, 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:
3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity.
UPHELD
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
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
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 drnk 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 Berries and Cherries variant of the drink, the ABV was displayed in small white text at the bottom of the label as ‘alc 7% vol’. The Panel discussed the presentation of the ABV and considered 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 ‘berries and cherries’, 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 berries and cherries flavour of the drink was highly recognisable as a squash flavour. The Panel noted that this link was further compounded by the colour scheme, red with green and purple 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 ‘berries and cherries’ 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 red, purple 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