Q&A: Guy Parker, ASA chief exec, talks gambling advertising

Gambling-related adverts are under the spotlight. None more so than those in the UK, particularly in relation to their frequency and fairness when marketing free bets and bonuses.

While the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS), the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the Gambling Commission undertake reviews, the Advertising Standards Authority is the organisation responsible for the day-to-day regulation of advertisements.

EGR Intel caught up with ASA chief executive Guy Parker, to discuss how the regulator handles gambling-related complaints and why there could be a heavy price to pay for those that breach the advertising code.

EGR Intel: The gambling industry has come under scrutiny for the number of complaints upheld by the ASA. Why do you think so many complaints are upheld? Are some failing to learn lessons?

Guy Parker (GP): Since 2007, the sector has had a generally good track record of sticking to the rules, but we do have concerns about gambling ads including promotional offers, such as free bet offers, and unfair contract terms. Our upheld rulings frequently pick-up on those points and tackling that broader issue is a work in progress.

Last year, we received 1,804 complaints about 730 gambling ads. We published 43 formally investigated rulings. Of those, 38 ads were banned. That’s 5% of the gambling ads about which we received complaints, which doesn’t sound too high, but it’s also 9% of the total number of formal rulings – upheld and not upheld – that we published last year against ads in any sector.  That’s too high.

Where we do uphold complaints our rulings serve as a clear reminder to the advertiser, as well as its competitors across the sector, of where we draw the line and what to avoid doing in future campaigns.

EGR Intel: Is it possible the ASA adopts a tougher stance when adjudicating gambling adverts? How does gambling stack up against other ‘sin’ industries such as alcohol?

GP: It’s important to dispel the myth that the ASA is ‘out to get’ the gambling industry. We don’t have a hidden agenda.  We’re not treating the industry unfairly.  But we will take action when an ad is irresponsible, harmful or inappropriate.

Last year, we received 229 complaints about 209 alcohol ads. Of those, 13 were formally investigated and seven were subject to an upheld ruling. So 3.5% of alcohol ads we received complaints about were banned.  But those seven rulings comprised fewer than 2% of the total against ads in any sector.

Both gambling and alcohol are high profile and sensitive sectors where there is a significant degree of societal concern and political scrutiny. Reflecting this and the potential harms or risks associated with these products, the advertising rules are deliberately strict.

EGR Intel:  Only one complaint is needed for the ASA to investigate. Doesn’t this encourage rival operators to lodge complaints? 

GP: One complaint can lead to an investigation, but that doesn’t mean one complaint will automatically lead to an investigation. A total of 730 gambling ads prompted complaints last year, but we didn’t launch an investigation in well over 600 of those cases.

We don’t play a numbers game. An ad may prompt 1,000 complaints but if there doesn’t appear to be grounds to ban the ad, we won’t. But if, on the strength of one complaint, we consider that an ad might break the rules, we’ll look into it.

Competitors can and do monitor each other’s ads and lodge complaints with us. But again, that doesn’t guarantee we’ll launch an investigation. Firstly, they have to have shown that they’ve tried to resolve the dispute direct with their competitor. If they can’t, then we’ll assess the complaint. But we’ll only launch an investigation where there are grounds to do so.

EGR Intel: Do you think there is enough of a disincentive to stop operators from breaching the code?  

GP: I’ve yet to meet an advertiser who enjoys having their ad banned. An ASA investigation is time consuming and, ultimately, if an ad is banned it costs time and money having it removed. It can also put the brakes on planned activity if a campaign was scheduled to continue down the creative route that was found to break the rules.

Then there’s the negative publicity for the brand, through media coverage, as well as the broader opprobrium in the court of public opinion. That’s not something I’m aware that any responsible betting or gaming company actively seeks. All of that is incentive enough for operators to avoid breaking the rules.

EGR Intel: In some instances the ‘banned’ advert has already run its marketing course. What’s the course of action in this instance?

GP: Most ads are designed to be distributed, published or aired repeatedly.  Ads whose initial runs are over can’t feature in future promotional activity.  But our rulings also put on the public record when and how an advertiser has got it wrong, sending a clear signal to the advertiser and the wider sector about what to avoid in future.

On the rare occasions where an advertiser is unwilling to work with us and stick to the rules we can and will consider further sanctions.  Those include: prohibiting media space to an advertiser until they bring their ads in line; mandatory pre-vetting before their ads will be accepted; removing their paid-search ads; placing our own ads in and around their search results highlighting their non-compliance; and, ultimately, referral to our legal backstop, Trading Standards, who can and will take statutory action including taking down websites, securing legal undertakings and prosecution leading to fines. Referral to Trading Standards is not our preferred route – we prefer to work with advertisers – but those sanctions are in our locker should the need arise.

EGR Intel: The CMA is currently looking into the ‘fairness’ of the industry, specifically around unclear T&Cs. Do you have any sympathy with gambling operators when it comes to making clear T&Cs in advertisements?

GP: Some betting offers can be relatively complex, particularly to the uninitiated, and ensuring an ad contains all the relevant information a consumer will need to make an informed decision about whether to take advantage of it can be challenging, not least if the ad appears in media where space is limited. But my sympathy only stretches so far. The principles behind the rules are clear: significant conditions should be stated prominently, they can clarify but they shouldn’t contradict primary claims and they should be clear and easily understood. Arguing that your offer is too complex or the medium you’ve chosen to use is too space-limited won’t cut it if the consumer loses out.

If in doubt, get help: there’s a raft of advice available to gambling advertisers to help them stick to the rules. That includes CAP Advice Online entries, an excellent e-learning module and the free, expert service provided by the CAP Copy Advice team.

EGR Intel: There is also a review into advertising by the DCMS taking place. Would you like to be given any greater powers or see regulation/the code change in any way that could possibly benefit consumers, operators and the ASA?

GP: We have no interest in greater powers. Our gambling guidance has been developed and updated over the years in response to emerging trends, new technologies, public policy concerns as well as being based on ASA cases. We’ll continue to review it to make sure it keeps pace with the arguments and evidence.

EGR Intel: Are there too many gambling-related adverts? Should there be a scaling back?

GP: We don’t regulate the amount of advertising that appears. We make sure that the content and targeting of ads is in line with the rules.

EGR Intel: With the volume of gambling reviews and investigations taking place, some have suggested there’s a joined-up effort to introduce tighter gambling regulation. What are your thoughts on that?    

GP: It’s nonsense. We’re interested in regulating gambling ads through the Advertising Codes, to make sure they’re responsible.  We’re not interested in plotting to justify tighter regulation.

But the gambling industry is under the spotlight and the ASA is involved in discussions with DCMS, the CMA and the Gambling Commission around the Gambling Review. There’s nothing sinister in that. It’s important that as the advertising regulator we have a voice at the table.