Dragon Soop Venom New Flavour - 500ml can (8 pack) 8%

Product Information

The company explained that, taken in conjunction with the well-known flavour of the product, it was reasonable to use the image of a snake, albeit one that took up a small part of the overall area of the can. The company stated that it was natural for a brand to make such a pictorial association when creating the can design. The company pointed out that contrary to the Panel’s assessment, the use of a snake image should not be assumed to be indicative of aggression or evil. The company explained that a Google search of the term ‘snake symbolism in literature’ showed that it was a complex symbol and was one of the oldest and most widespread symbols used in mythology. The company further explained that snakes were a symbol of fertility, healing, guardianship, rebirth or renewal, alongside more negative symbolism. Offshore Island deliveries will take longer than two days including Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Scottish Highlands and Islands and Scilly Isles. Heavy - Active for much of the day, walking non-stop and carrying objects. Typical jobs: hospital/ward nurse, waitressing in a busy restaurant, cleaner, porter, labourer/construction worker, gardener, farm worker. Leisure Activity Level

The company noted that there were specific cues which had been defined by the Panel as possibly having a particular appeal to under-18s. ‘Bright, high contrast colours’ were an example and the company highlighted that many alcoholic brands featured colour schemes which could be described in this way. In contrast, the company explained that Dragon Soop was specifically designed not to be garish or particularly bright and that the different colours used throughout the range were to denote the various flavours within the range, as was common practice for flavoured alcoholic beverages. A spokesperson from the NIADA said the organisation was “delighted” with the result and “satisfied” with the response from the panel.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. The Panel considered the name Venom would be recognised by the majority of UK consumers to mean ‘poison’ in its day-to-day usage and noted this in the context of a beverage which had a relatively high alcohol and caffeine content. 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. The company explained that Dragon Soop Venom was responsibly marketed, well understood by its target market and that ‘venom’ was a known flavour to its young adult target market. The company asserted that the Panel’s provisional decision was subjective and based on mistaken assumptions. 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 stated that it had respect for the work of specialist organisations like the Northern Ireland Alcohol and Drugs Alliance (NIADA) and supported the work it did to aid and educate the often vulnerable, under-privileged young people who were addicted to immoderate and dangerous behaviour with regard to substances and alcohol. However, the company stated that NIADA’s focus was narrow and specialised and its evidence that had been taken solely from its work with this particular group was not impartial. 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); NIADA is the alliance which facilitates co-operation among voluntary and community sector organisations supporting those affected by alcohol and drug use, and their families. We as a collective membership group wish to submit a complaint about caffeinated alcoholic drinks. 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.A complaint against Corinthian Brand’s Dragon Soop Venom was upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel, which found that the product’s name and imagery suggested it “required bravado to drink it”.

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. A factual statement that a product contains a particular ingredient, for example high caffeine content, is unlikely in itself to be problematic under the Code.” 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: A previous complaint made by the NIADA against Dragon Soop in September 2022 was not upheld by the Independent Complaints Panel about its products being mistaken for an energy drink. My diary is currently full until mid-August, I have festivals in the diary such as ButeFest 2022 and hopefully get to play both EH6 and Vibration Festivals for the second time. I also obviously have my ‘Subtle As Dynamite’ album launch tour in April and May so for now the main focus is on that. Then I’ll just see what the rest of the year brings. What do your career highlights look like so far?

Contact Info

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);