Analysis: Whose responsibility is it to stem the flow of gambling ads?

An article published by Guardian reporter Rob Davies in August has re-opened a Pandora’s Box of discussion in the UK’s gambling industry, this time looking at the amount of gambling advertising screened before 9pm and how under-18 are often exposed to this type of marketing. This topic reached fever pitch after the World Cup, where research by The Guardian suggested that UK terrestrial channel ITV1 broadcast approximately 90 minutes of gambling advertising during the tournament – the equivalent of an entire football match.

The Premier League has also returned this August, and with all televised matches on either Sky Sports or BT Sport, and betting adverts shown before, during and after each broadcast, the conversation regarding exposure to children is only likely to intensify rather than disappear. The industry is happy to acknowledge the level of TV advertising reaching under-18s and admits there is a problem to address. William Hill CEO Philip Bowcock has previously said he is “sympathetic to some sort of curb or review around the level of advertising” and told The Guardian: “Some sort of change is needed, but that has to be led by the government. It’s incumbent on them to step up to the plate and have a serious discussion about it.”

Paddy Power Betfair (PPB) CEO Peter Jackson concurred, adding he was open to tougher limits on the volume of advertising, but that it was “difficult for the industry to do this on its own”. The operator has previously said it is “supportive of further regulation to reduce the volume of pre-watershed TV advertising to protect young children”. Fairer Gambling’s Matt Zarb-Cousin tells EGR Intel: “There is a normalisation of the association between gambling and sport because lots of children are watching football on TV and they assume that gambling is just another part of the game and that it is synonymous with football simply because of the sheer volume of ads. It feels like you can’t enjoy football without placing a bet.”

Duty of care

Some, including UK sports minister and Conservative MP Tracy Crouch, have asked why betting and gaming operators are continuing to advertise at such volume if they admit there’s an ongoing problem of over-exposure to under-18s. During an interaction Twitter, Crouch said: “If industry leaders think that there are too many advertisements then don’t commission them. Government need not be involved.” But it isn’t quite that simple – not for PPB boss Jackson anyway, who says: “Even if progressive operators agree to restrict ads, unless there’s legislation passed, less responsible operators will step in and continue advertising.”

Speaking exclusively to sister magazine EGR Compliance, a spokesperson for William Hill also questioned the effectiveness of self-policing. “If we stopped all advertising tomorrow there are hundreds of websites that would step in to fill these slots, so this is an area where there needs to be someone setting the rules – a voluntary move by a few operators would simply not work.” The spokesperson continued: “At one time, broadcasters limited advertising to one betting ad per break but that has now become two and often the broadcast is sponsored by an operator as well. Then you add in shirt sponsorship and pitch surrounds and you can understand why people, many of whom don’t gamble, feel it is too much.”

Zarb-Cousin believes this attitude is one factor preventing the industry from implementing its own effective measures on responsible gambling. Competition will always win out, and it is easy to see why operators are reluctant to relinquish advertising space when the void would likely be filled by a competitor, meaning the volume of betting ads remains the same. He says: “It is an arms race; if one of them advertises, then they feel like they all have to. The competition argument can be applied to every social responsibility initiative the industry has come up with. It is very difficult to produce effective social measures that aren’t going to put you at a competitive disadvantage. This is why regulation is necessary.”

PPB is “supportive of further regulation to reduce the volume of pre-watershed TV advertising to protect young children”

Crouch seemingly overlooked this with her original tweet. The major players in the industry cannot sanction a cutback in advertising because they are profit-led companies, whereas the government could step in on the issue as an independent adjudicator, applying the same rules across the board. “Betting companies are conflicted as they have a duty to their shareholders and their customers,” Zarb-Cousin says. “If a reduction in harm is going to lead to a reduction in profits, or hit the share price, they cannot reconcile that, so government intervention is the only way to really resolve it.”

But is the government independent? The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is responsible for television broadcasters and media outlets in the UK, as well as the country’s gambling market. Commercial broadcasters have demonstrated a stronger pushback than operators with regards to curbing the volume of pre-watershed gambling adverts, because they rely so heavily on the betting industry for ad revenues.

Following its lengthy triennial review into the UK’s betting industry, the DCMS said it would not move to restrict TV advertising because there was “a lack of evidence that it was causing harm to adults or children”. “The DCMS oversees gambling and the media, so there is a difficult conflict of interest because they have to look out for both industries,” says Zarb-Cousin. “On this issue, those two things converge so they were very reluctant to take any action.”

Down under

In Australia, the federal government implemented new legislation to limit children’s exposure to betting by banning betting adverts during live sporting events. The new laws were written up by the Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (ASTRA) and came into force in March, with no gambling ads to be shown during matches televised between 5am and 8.30pm. The ban applies from five minutes before the start of play to five minutes after the final whistle. The blackout was backed by Australia’s online bookmakers through lobby group Responsible Wagering Australia, which said it recognised the public’s concern about the levels of gambling advertising and particularly the volume of advertising viewed by minors.

Zarb-Cousin argues that the current impasse on this issue between operators and the government, with neither willing to step in and enforce new rules, stems from a lack of research. For legislation to be imposed by DCMS, there has to be written and compelling evidence on the topic. “There hasn’t been a similar of calibre of research commissioned here as there was in Australia,” he insists. “In Victoria and through Responsible Wagering Australia, they looked rigorously into how much children could name gambling ads and recall specific campaigns on TV. Over here, we just haven’t had that level of insight.”

Responsible Wagering Australia studied how children could recall specific TV ad campaigns

He continues: “To make substantial change, government policy requires a study or a report that is evidence-based. Unfortunately, in this country we have left the commissioning of research to the Responsible Gambling Trust. This is an historical problem, where they simply haven’t commissioned work that might benefit the industry in any way – that is my view.”

With the government reluctant to sanction new advertising guidelines, the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has begun to widen the scope of its advertising powers to include the option to not only punish operators who use misleading advertising, but to instead punish any operator in breach of the BCAP and CAP advertising codes. Before, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) was solely responsible for the governance of advertising in the sector and its harshest punishment would be to prevent the advert from being shown again in the same form.

Better late than never

The UKGC can now dish out unlimited fines for advertising offences, although as of yet there are no rules or regulations on the volume of advertising in the licensing conditions, despite a shared fear with the industry of reaching a young audience. “We share concerns that gambling advertising and marketing, including sponsorship, could lead to gambling-related harm for children and other vulnerable people, but the current evidence is not clear on this matter,” said the regulator.

It is important to make clear that the government is at least doing something to tackle the negative ramifications of gambling advertising. A result of the triennial review, which focused primarily on the retail environment and fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs), the DCMS ordered a two-year responsible gambling marketing initiative. The department will work alongside the RGA and GambleAware to draw up the campaign which will cover TV adverts, including around live sport, as well as radio, cinema, online and print.

The broadcasters relying so heavily on revenue from gambling advertising will have to devote advertising space to new safer gambling initiatives, while operators will be expected to stump up the cost of the campaign to the tune of £7m a year. The Industry Group for Responsible Gambling (IGRG) will also strengthen the code on responsible gambling advertising to require operators to ensure that gambling content and channels cannot be accessed by under-18s on social media. “The government may have been able to act on a precautionary basis, but instead they decided to do the responsible gambling ad campaign to square the circle,” says Zarb-Cousin. “It was another positive outcome of the review, with the broadcasters and operators working together.”

The fear for Fairer Gambling is that the DCMS-ordered campaign might be a case of too little too late. Digital media consumption is at an all-time high in 2018, especially among under-18s who have access to mobile and tablet devices earlier than ever before. Zarb-Cousin concedes: “Things are slowly changing now that GambleAware is involved, which obviously is a good thing as they are commissioning research into advertising, but this should have happened long before 2018.”