Energy drink marketing heavily targets student audiences

Cans of V’s are a constant sight on UC’s campus. Source: Jordan Smith / Canta.  

A young consumer base is one of the pillars energy drink companies market towards, and as a result have placed themselves firmly within the cultural landscape of the demographic. 

However, the combination of high sugar and caffeine levels in the drinks cannot be ignored. Aotearoa’s energy drink regulations state energy drinks can have no more than 80 mg of caffeine per 250 mL. A 250mL Red Bull can has 27 g of sugar and 80mg of caffeine, with its counterpart V contains 34 g of sugar and 77.5 mg of caffeine, respectively.   

These statistics open discussion as to if there should be more responsibility for those who market them.  

UC Marketing Professor Ekant Veer represented this view. He commented on how UCSA’s partnership with the energy drink V and its parent company Frucor Suntory are normalising the use of a potentially dangerous product, even if it’s not intended. 

“They wouldn't normalise smoking, they wouldn't normalise vaping... energy drinks are a lower sin, but it is still something that could be impactful,” Veer said.  

In response, UCSA President Luc MacKay said the partnership markets multiple options from the Suntory range, including sugar-free energy drinks. In terms of caffeinated beverages, MacKay outlines how the UCSA strives to promote and encourage “moderation and responsible choices”.  

“We believe it’s important to offer variety while trusting that students, as adults, can make their own informed decisions about what’s best for them,” MacKay said. 

The physical and mental wellbeing effects energy drinks spark further conversation as to the moral of their marketing. Puāwai-Kai’s nutritionist Wendy Scanlon described to Canta the adverse effects an excessive consumption of energy drinks can have on a young person’s body. 

“If you “need” a couple a day and you’re grabbing 500ml cans from the dairy, it’s going to push that sugar/caffeine intake up very quickly. You could be looking at 28 teaspoons of sugar,” Scanlon said. 

“If you’re having the odd one it’s not going to be a problem. [However], if they become your go-to… you’re probably missing out on vital nutrients from whole foods that support wellbeing and mental health. This puts you at risk of being malnourished.”  

Even with these perceived negatives, energy drinks continue to be a staple in many student’s diets, which leads to a burning question; how does the marketing work so well? 

Veer provided an answer, as he said the demographic’s actions marry up with the energy drink sector’s values. 

“Young people tend to be far more adventurous, tend to enjoy experimentation, tend to enjoy partying,” Veer said. 

“When you're looking for a quick hit and you're about to hit the town for another four hours, that sort of high energy, high adventure risk taking aligns with a younger audience." 

V’s heavy involvement with UCSA via sponsorship and implementations such as the V-Plate in the Undercroft was also referenced by Veer as a prime advertising strategy that creates a connection between the drink and the student’s subconscious. 

“The way advertising typically works is 'I'm going to show you my product and I hope you like it',” Veer said. 

“I'm going to show you it again and again until when you feel like getting an energy drink, you'll go 'what are the energy drinks I have a positive affiliation with." 

While regulations by the Government could be put in place to limit the potential harm excessive energy drink consumption creates, Scanlon and Veer both point to how change lies with the consumer. 

“I doubt restricting the marketing of energy drinks is a high priority for our Government…  it’s up to us as consumers to be aware and savvy around food marketing,” Scanlon said. 

According to Veer, reducing the social status of energy drinks within the culture would be the optimal strategy to diminish the grip they have, referencing smoking as a prime example. 

"What really killed smoking for example was when people said, 'that's not cool anymore, I don't like it’… [it’s] more about culture than it is regulation and policy.”