NIADA continue to have concerns over the promotion of caffeinated alcoholic drinks particularly for younger users where the risk of the caffeine masking the effects of the alcohol may lead to increased health harms and disinhibited risky behaviours.” At NIADA we have serious concerns about these high caffeinated and alcoholic drinks, especially Dragon Soop, as so many young people are consuming this drink usually in large quantities. Our focus group concluded that while young people drink the cans, they also mix them with other substances. One 16-year-old female reported ‘they are sweet and fruity flavours they can be mixed with vodka’. The Panel considered that the product factually and neutrally explained the ingredients of the product and did not overemphasise the caffeine content or the effect that drinking caffeine and alcohol could have on consumers. Furthermore, the ‘unique drinking experience’ stated on the product was in relation to how the product tasted and did not suggest the drink had therapeutic qualities (3.2(j) – therapeutic qualities). Inactive - Do very little exercise, going for the occasional walk (moderate pace, low intensity). Spend majority of leisure time doing activities such as watching TV, playing computer games, on the internet, reading, cooking, driving, general household chores.

In summary of the above, the Panel concluded that Dragon Soop Venom did breach Code rule 3.2(b), but did not breach Code rules 3.1, 3.2(a), 3.2(f), 3.2(h),3.2(j) or any other part of the Code. Action by company: The Panel then discussed the word ‘venom’ and whether it had any other well-known connotations or meanings. The Panel noted that the company had provided a definition from Urban Dictionary that stated that the word was used by younger people to mean ‘cool’ or attention grabbing. The Panel discussed this online interpretation and considered that, while a minority demographic of the UK population may use the word to mean ‘cool’, the majority of UK consumers would recognise the word to mean ‘poison’ in its day-to-day usage. In addition to this, the Panel also considered it was unlikely that the company intended ‘venom’ to mean cool in the context of the product, particularly when viewed alongside the snake imagery. The company then stated that its support of the Portman Group’s Code had been demonstrated by its history of cooperating with the Portman Group over many years.The company then explained that since Dragon Soop had been launched in 2010 there had only been three complaints in the intervening 12 years (the complaint from 2015 which was considered against Dragon Soop Strawberry and Lime, which was found not to be in breach of the Code, and the other two which were currently subject to investigation.) The company stated that this was a remarkably low figure for a brand that sold 13.6 million cans per year. That while the product’s alcoholic strength was clearly communicated there was no undue emphasis of the strength or intoxicating nature (3.2(a) – alcoholic strength); Under the ‘Health effects concerns’ paragraph of the complaint, the company highlighted that NIADA had stated that “so many young people are consuming this drink usually in large quantities.” The company stated that this claim was based on shaky evidence of one small focus group made up of young, often under-age, substance and alcohol abusers. The company stated that there was no proof that Dragon Soop was consumed in greater excess than any other alcoholic drink. Additionally, the company stated that young people who did consume alcohol in great excess might reasonably be supposed to consume any popular alcoholic drink in large quantities. The company then examined the second paragraph under the heading entitled ‘strength’ which stated that “the high caffeine intake along with the high alcohol intake masks the effect of drunkenness”, which the company stated NIADA had not provided proof of. The company stated that the formulation did not break any of the Portman Group’s rules and that the Portman Group must agree with this because according to an SHS Drinks’ press statement, the Advisory Service had been consulted by the company prior to the launch of WKD X, which was a drink that closely mirrored Dragon Soop, and was destined for major grocery outlets in May 2022. The company explained that in 2015, Dragon Soop was fully investigated by the Independent Complaints Panel (Panel) under Code rules 3.2(f) and 3.2(h) which it found to not be in breach. The company highlighted that it had received a letter from the Chair of the Panel that there had not been any breach of the Code and that the decision was final.

Whilst creativity and brands expressing their identities through their products is to be encouraged, care must be taken to avoid associating alcohol with bravado, or suggesting a consumer must be daring to drink it.. In this case, the name and imagery created an overall impression that was over the line of acceptability. For these reasons, it was a breach of the Code.” Commenting on the decision, the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Nicola Williams, said: “Whilst creativity and brands expressing their identities through their products is to be encouraged, care must be taken to avoid associating alcohol with bravado or suggesting a consumer must be daring to drink it.The high strength content encourages binge and excessive drinking and leads to irresponsible behaviour as most young people drink more than one can breaching the anti-social behaviour code of conduct. The high caffeine intake along with the high alcohol content masks the effects of drunkenness. Hence, young people don’t realise how intoxicated they are, which can lead to becoming unwell and engaging in risky behaviours. It may be necessary to inform consumers that a product contains certain ingredients, for example high caffeine content, but this must be done in a factual and ‘non emotive’ way.” However, the complaint was not upheld against five other Code rules. These included alcoholic content and strength; appeal to under 18s; and health effects concerns. Scheduled for self-release at the end of March, his Subtle As Dynamite album coincides with a big tour across Scotland throughout April and May, supported by Dragon Soop. We spoke to Graham about his upcoming tour, going viral, game shows and eating too many crisps. When considering all these elements in combination, the Panel concluded that the name venom, in this particular context, and its presentation, in combination with the aggressive snake imagery, gave the overall impression that the product was marketed mainly on the danger associated with venom, and therefore required bravado to drink it.

In addition, the muted colour scheme, the font and the imagery were not considered to have a particular appeal to under 18s. As a membership group that delivers alcohol and drug services daily to a large number of young clients, we feel the need to raise our concerns around this drink as It breaches numerous codes of conduct. Therefore, we are asking you to consider all points made above and take on board our recommendations to reduce both the alcohol and caffeine content and rethink the marketing strategies of this brand and particularly the impact it has on our young people and their health.”The company noted the Panel’s rationale that Dragon Soop Venom was significantly different to the rest of the Dragon Soop range as it considered that Venom did not indicate its flavour and was marketed mainly on the danger and intimidation associated with venom, alongside the aggressive snake imagery. The company also noted the Panel’s point that Dragon Soop Venom had a clear association with poison, which implied that the drink was dangerous to consume and therefore required bravado to do so. The company concluded by stating that it was important as a self-regulatory body that the Portman Group continued to be seen by all its members as demonstrably fair and transparent. The company noted that the Portman Group was obliged to proceed against a member company or Code Signatory every time a company was accused of a breach of the rules; regardless of who had made the complaint or however credible the complaint was. The company also explained that the Portman Group proceeded with breach procedure, even if the company had previously been cleared of breaching those rules. The company stated that the Panel’s decisions had far reaching consequences, which could potentially lead to a Retailer Alert Bulletin which resulted in the removal of a brand from all retail shelves. The company then highlighted various definitions on Urban Dictionary, which stated that venom could simply mean ‘attention grabbing’, ‘worthy of respect’ and ‘cool’. The company also explained that a ‘venom’ tattoo could be a symbol of empowerment amongst women, as in a specific font it would be read upside down as ‘women’.

In this case, the name and imagery created an overall impression that was over the line of acceptability. For these reasons, it was a breach of the Code.” The company stated that a company, whether it be a Code Signatory or member of the Portman Group, should be able to trust that a ‘final’ decision was final. The company explained that should the same product be subject to complaints of the same nature on more than one occasion, businesses would find it impossible to make medium to long-term planning and investment decisions. The company agreed that four participants in the focus group had provided quotes that demonstrated they used Dragon Soop irresponsibly, and for one participant, immoderately. However, the company stated that the participants in this focus group were young people with known alcohol abuse problems and so whichever alcoholic drink they chose, it would be likely that they would consume it irresponsibly and immoderately. The company stated that whilst their responses were wholly regrettable, they were not surprising and could not be admissible because they constituted a skewed unrepresentative sample. The company explained that if NIADA had put together a similar small sample group of its clients who preferred other types of alcohol such as rum, vodka or cider, and were then asked about their abuse of that drink, they would likely give similar answers. The company stated that NIADA could not claim to have knowledge of what ‘most young people’ did, as its day-to-day work and research was conducted with a very specific group of young people, all of whom had serious alcohol or substance abuse issues. The company explained that this research group could not in any way be seen to be representative of the population as a whole. The company argued that any extrapolations about the behaviour and attitudes of the wider population based on research carried out solely with this group would be skewed, misleading and far from impartial.The company then explained that in terms of the overall impression of the product, there was no evidence of confusion about the offering, its marketing, or the can artwork amongst its target audience. The company reiterated that despite selling over 3 million cans of Dragon Soop Venom since its launch in October 2018, it had not received any complaints regarding the Venom name or branding, or any concerns that the brand was associated with bravado or was linked to boldness that was intended to impress or intimidate. The Panel considered that this also contributed to the overall impression that the product was inherently linked to poison, danger and intimidation, and that it therefore created an association with bravado. The muted colour scheme, the font and the imagery were not considered to have a particular appeal to under 18s (3.2(h) – particular appeal to under-18s); The panel also found that while the product’s alcoholic strength was clearly communicated there was no undue emphasis of the strength or intoxicating nature.