Mango Loco, Sour Patch Kids, Cotton Candy, Sparkling Orange, Peach Vibe, and Arctic Vibe.
Ranging from 80 milligrams of caffeine to over 300 milligrams in a can, easily accessible, appealing to the eye and tastebuds, energy drinks have become a crutch that students rely on, a crutch with lifelong repercussions.
With the uprising in consumption of popular energy drinks like Monster, Celsius, Red Bull and Rockstar, it begs the question: Who is the real consumer and targeted demographic of these drinks? While each specific energy drink is marketed differently, the consumer remains adolescents.
From the jump, beverage companies didn’t simply sell energy drinks, but instead sold identity. One of the companies that sells identity well is Red Bull. According to their history page, it originally launched 1987 in Austria. Here they held and sponsored their first ever sports event, Dolomitenmann, known as a tough extreme sport relay. The relay involves a mountain runner, a paraglider, a mountain biker and a whitewater kayaker. As you scroll through the history page you see even more events and athletes that Red Bull has sponsored, from F1 drivers to E-sports athletes.
While the problem does not lay in how the product is being advertised it is the lack of prominent warning labels across all energy drinks. Energy drinks, in this case Red Bull, have marketed themselves as a necessity to keep up in an adrenaline-heavy athletic space, both physically and virtually. Marketing energy drinks as essential to high performance and endurance while failing to market the safety rather than a highly caffeinated beverage.
By selling identity, a marketing tactic that is extremely effective on adolescents, it led to an uprise in consumption. According to Ahmed Abdulrahman Alsunni in, “Energy Drink Consumption: Beneficial and Adverse Health Effects,” energy drinks in the U.S are, “the second most common dietary supplement used by young people; about 30% consume energy drinks on a regular basis.” Demonstrating that youth are not simply accidental consumers, but rather a targeted demographic.
Celsius also markets itself as a means to keep up in an adrenaline-heavy lifestyle. One key point in their marketing is “clean energy.” A term that describes beverages formulated with natural ingredients, without artificial sweeteners, colors and preservatives to provide a sustainable and crash-free energy boost. Energy drinks like this market themselves as a cleaner, healthier alternative and use color psychology in order to create a healthy connection.
The company-funded study often cited in its marketing materials reports that consuming a Celsius drink before workouts enhanced exercise adaptations, metabolism and endurance performance in sedentary adults, but this is based on a controlled, 10-week exercise. That doesn’t translate to everyday student consumption or safety in adolescents, yet that message is often missing in brand messaging.
Flavors also play a critical role in this marketing campaign. Energy drinks are typically branded with names that resemble candy or desserts, which is appealing to youth. “Mango Loco, Cotton Candy, Sour Patch Kids,” are flavor profiles that soften the reality that these are beverages that are stimulant-heavy products. This flavor focused marketing campaign is similar to what vapes used. The flavors are simply a smokescreen meant to hide the detrimental effects of concentrated caffeine.
Contrast that with research that was done by Alsunni, energy drinks pose a real threat long-term. The article explains how in the moment the beverage can have, “beneficial effects on physical performance,” it also emphasizes that, “these products also have possible detrimental health consequences.” Some of the long term detrimental health consequences include, but are not limited to, increase in heart rate, arterial blood pressure, anxiety, insomnia, gastrointestinal upset, muscle twitching, restlessness and periods of inexhaustibility. While short-term stimulation may appear helpful, the physiological cost accumulates.
Further supported by, “The Dark Side of Energy Drinks: A Comprehensive Review of Their Impact on the Human Body,” also highlights and explains how adolescents are only recommended 61mg of caffeine daily, however many energy drinks can range from 50 to 505mg per can or bottle. When students consume multiple cans daily, they are not just slightly surpassing the recommended limit, they are multiplying their exposure to a stimulant overload.
This is where marketing becomes ethically concerning. Adolescents are neurologically more vulnerable to stimulant dependency due to ongoing brain development, particularly in areas related to impulse control and reward processings. Energy drink branding specifically capitalizes on exhaustions, productivity pressure, athletic ambition, and social belonging. Whether it’s Red Bull that sells adrenaline, Monster that sells rebellion, or Celsius that sells “clean” performance, the product still remains a high-dose caffeine delivery system.
The normalization of these drinks is not simply coincidental. When caffeine is delivered through candy-inspired flavors, promoted through athletic prestige, or frames as “clean” wellness fuel, the stimulant becomes secondary to the image. The branding diminishes the intensity and markets itself as harmless fun. Adolescents, whose brains are still developing and are more susceptible and particularly vulnerable to this framing.
The real consumer then becomes a sleep-deprived student studying past midnight, the teenager balancing extracurriculars, and the young adult attempting to meet escalating academic expectations, instead of the adult athlete portrayed in the commercials. Energy drinks are marketed as empowerment, yet they often function as dependency masked by flavor and branding.
Energy drinks are not inherently malicious products and are a convenient alternative to coffee, when your adult body can handle it. The point of the article is to explain the true consumer of energy drinks, how their bodies are not equipped to handle this type of caffeine and sugar.
