With regards to smoking and the effects of advertising. A 30 year old in the UK would have seen:
Tobacco advertising on billboards until the age of 12
Direct marketing of tobacco products until the age of 12
Tobacco sponsorship starting to be phased out from the age of 13
Tobacco advertising on F1 Grand Prix events until the age of 13
Tobacco products sold through vending machines until the age of 21 (note: of the 11-15 year olds who smoke regularly, 11% said they bought their cigarettes from vending machines)
Large shops displaying tobacco products until the age of 22
Smaller shops displaying tobacco products until the age of 25
A 30 year old taking up smoking at the age of 14 would have been influenced, significantly, by advertising, sponsorship and promotion that is now banned. Since then, and following the introduction of significant limitations to advertising, sponsorship and promotion of tobacco and cigarette brands, the proportion of people that have 'ever smoked' has better than halved.
Banning cigarette ads results in fewer people becoming addicted to smoking. There's little evidence that the same would not happen with gambling.
Parents smoking, peer pressure to be part of the culture, much less information on health risks - these were the main reasons why people smoked back in the day and advertising was more about which brand to choose rather than encouraging people to smoke.
Now, less people smoke (including parents), it is seen more and more as an anti-social behaviour and if anything peer pressure has been reversed, and unless you live under a stone the very serious health risks are in people's faces all of the time. Not convinced that a ban on advertising has done much to reduce smoking.
Gambling advertising is designed for brand recognition and market share - the market in the UK is actually shrinking.
Gambling is one of the most regulated industries, and bookmakers (particularly online bookmakers where an account is required) have armies of staff verifying customers, both in terms of age and also in terms of affordability. Millions are spent on systems aimed at identifying gamblers at risk, and measures are implemented to remove that risk. The strategy amongst regulators AND operators is to minimise harm whilst allowing genuinely leisure based punters with money that is a discretionary and affordable spend to enjoy a flutter. Underage gambling online is almost impossible, and at long last the lottery has been forced to raise the age to participate from 16 to 18. Nobody forces anyone to gamble, or drink, or smoke - but systems are and must be in place to protect those vulnerable to obsessive and addictive behaviour. Getting the whole industry on board is the biggest challenge, and in particular the PLCs where the senior management are loathe to give away profit at the expense of share price (and thereby personal remuneration). We are getting there, though - and whether or not you believe me (couldn't give a toss either way) bet365 are leading the way, and in particular a man called Robert Munro (yes my eldest).
Ban advertising that could be seen by under 18s? No objections from me. Further regulation to enforce it? No problem from me. Operators tasked with implementing meaningful and effective processes and systems to identify those at risk? No problem from me.
I have read this thread twice. It is very clear that the question is about banning gambling advertising. Not banning gambling. Why have people slipped this into the mix when it is not the debate we are having? Talk of prohibition is a massive red herring.
Kids used to smoke because they thought it was a cool adult thing to do - like they saw in the adverts - don't you think that when they see the gambling adverts they feel the same, which is why they have the £5 bet with their mate or play the slot machines at the bowling alley? Do you think they will not carry that behaviour into the betting shops as soon as they are old enough?
Exactly. I dont think anyone is talking about banning gambling, certainly not on here, just having a serious look at some of the advertising.
Am surprised at some of the comments really, like some believe a freedom is being eroded by not being sold to.
Like any transaction, the customer wishes to have the best value, and the best range of choice and options available. The majority of the gambling adverts are , I believe trying to advertise those options and value. I have about 12 betting accounts, and advertising would, and does draw me to one or an other depending on, their offers.
Banning advertising would not bother me, just mean I have to find other ways of seeking out the offers. However, do not believe that Advertising, encourages gambling. Anymore than. Magnum advert, makes me rush out for ice cream.
With regards to smoking and the effects of advertising. A 30 year old in the UK would have seen:
Tobacco advertising on billboards until the age of 12
Direct marketing of tobacco products until the age of 12
Tobacco sponsorship starting to be phased out from the age of 13
Tobacco advertising on F1 Grand Prix events until the age of 13
Tobacco products sold through vending machines until the age of 21 (note: of the 11-15 year olds who smoke regularly, 11% said they bought their cigarettes from vending machines)
Large shops displaying tobacco products until the age of 22
Smaller shops displaying tobacco products until the age of 25
A 30 year old taking up smoking at the age of 14 would have been influenced, significantly, by advertising, sponsorship and promotion that is now banned. Since then, and following the introduction of significant limitations to advertising, sponsorship and promotion of tobacco and cigarette brands, the proportion of people that have 'ever smoked' has better than halved.
Banning cigarette ads results in fewer people becoming addicted to smoking. There's little evidence that the same would not happen with gambling.
Parents smoking, peer pressure to be part of the culture, much less information on health risks - these were the main reasons why people smoked back in the day and advertising was more about which brand to choose rather than encouraging people to smoke.
Now, less people smoke (including parents), it is seen more and more as an anti-social behaviour and if anything peer pressure has been reversed, and unless you live under a stone the very serious health risks are in people's faces all of the time. Not convinced that a ban on advertising has done much to reduce smoking.
Gambling advertising is designed for brand recognition and market share - the market in the UK is actually shrinking.
Gambling is one of the most regulated industries, and bookmakers (particularly online bookmakers where an account is required) have armies of staff verifying customers, both in terms of age and also in terms of affordability. Millions are spent on systems aimed at identifying gamblers at risk, and measures are implemented to remove that risk. The strategy amongst regulators AND operators is to minimise harm whilst allowing genuinely leisure based punters with money that is a discretionary and affordable spend to enjoy a flutter. Underage gambling online is almost impossible, and at long last the lottery has been forced to raise the age to participate from 16 to 18. Nobody forces anyone to gamble, or drink, or smoke - but systems are and must be in place to protect those vulnerable to obsessive and addictive behaviour. Getting the whole industry on board is the biggest challenge, and in particular the PLCs where the senior management are loathe to give away profit at the expense of share price (and thereby personal remuneration). We are getting there, though - and whether or not you believe me (couldn't give a toss either way) bet365 are leading the way, and in particular a man called Robert Munro (yes my eldest).
Ban advertising that could be seen by under 18s? No objections from me. Further regulation to enforce it? No problem from me. Operators tasked with implementing meaningful and effective processes and systems to identify those at risk? No problem from me.
I don't work in the gambling industry, but I am sure that the sector puts a lot of effort into ensuring its customers have some protection from addiction - much more than many other industries. After all, it's not to the gambling industry's benefit to have large numbers of customers being harmed by their use of the product.
Banning advertising that could be seen by under 18s would be an enormous shift, given the proliferation of advertising for betting companies. Every Premier League club has sponsorship deals this year from one or more betting companies.
@PragueAddick were you aware of this - 'Gambling advertising is designed for brand recognition and market share'?
With regards to smoking and the effects of advertising. A 30 year old in the UK would have seen:
Tobacco advertising on billboards until the age of 12
Direct marketing of tobacco products until the age of 12
Tobacco sponsorship starting to be phased out from the age of 13
Tobacco advertising on F1 Grand Prix events until the age of 13
Tobacco products sold through vending machines until the age of 21 (note: of the 11-15 year olds who smoke regularly, 11% said they bought their cigarettes from vending machines)
Large shops displaying tobacco products until the age of 22
Smaller shops displaying tobacco products until the age of 25
A 30 year old taking up smoking at the age of 14 would have been influenced, significantly, by advertising, sponsorship and promotion that is now banned. Since then, and following the introduction of significant limitations to advertising, sponsorship and promotion of tobacco and cigarette brands, the proportion of people that have 'ever smoked' has better than halved.
Banning cigarette ads results in fewer people becoming addicted to smoking. There's little evidence that the same would not happen with gambling.
Parents smoking, peer pressure to be part of the culture, much less information on health risks - these were the main reasons why people smoked back in the day and advertising was more about which brand to choose rather than encouraging people to smoke.
Now, less people smoke (including parents), it is seen more and more as an anti-social behaviour and if anything peer pressure has been reversed, and unless you live under a stone the very serious health risks are in people's faces all of the time. Not convinced that a ban on advertising has done much to reduce smoking.
Gambling advertising is designed for brand recognition and market share - the market in the UK is actually shrinking.
Gambling is one of the most regulated industries, and bookmakers (particularly online bookmakers where an account is required) have armies of staff verifying customers, both in terms of age and also in terms of affordability. Millions are spent on systems aimed at identifying gamblers at risk, and measures are implemented to remove that risk. The strategy amongst regulators AND operators is to minimise harm whilst allowing genuinely leisure based punters with money that is a discretionary and affordable spend to enjoy a flutter. Underage gambling online is almost impossible, and at long last the lottery has been forced to raise the age to participate from 16 to 18. Nobody forces anyone to gamble, or drink, or smoke - but systems are and must be in place to protect those vulnerable to obsessive and addictive behaviour. Getting the whole industry on board is the biggest challenge, and in particular the PLCs where the senior management are loathe to give away profit at the expense of share price (and thereby personal remuneration). We are getting there, though - and whether or not you believe me (couldn't give a toss either way) bet365 are leading the way, and in particular a man called Robert Munro (yes my eldest).
Ban advertising that could be seen by under 18s? No objections from me. Further regulation to enforce it? No problem from me. Operators tasked with implementing meaningful and effective processes and systems to identify those at risk? No problem from me.
I don't work in the gambling industry, but I am sure that the sector puts a lot of effort into ensuring its customers have some protection from addiction - much more than many other industries. After all, it's not to the gambling industry's benefit to have large numbers of customers being harmed by their use of the product.
Banning advertising that could be seen by under 18s would be an enormous shift, given the proliferation of advertising for betting companies. Every Premier League club has sponsorship deals this year from one or more betting companies.
@PragueAddickwere you aware of this - 'Gambling advertising is designed for brand recognition and market share'?
Oh sure, mate, like I tried to explain last night, the tobacco companies peddled the same fiction for years, until they saw the weight of public opinion in Western markets was turning against them. I can understand why people who do not work in global advertising would not readily understand the argument that advertising supports a sector as well as brands in it; however its a bit disappointing when some of them just flatly contradict you. But advertising is one of those professions where every Joe hardly thinks of it as a profession, and thinks he could do it just as well if he wasnt doing something more useful, like, I dunno, being a lawyer...
Like any transaction, the customer wishes to have the best value, and the best range of choice and options available. The majority of the gambling adverts are , I believe trying to advertise those options and value. I have about 12 betting accounts, and advertising would, and does draw me to one or an other depending on, their offers.
Banning advertising would not bother me, just mean I have to find other ways of seeking out the offers. However, do not believe that Advertising, encourages gambling. Anymore than. Magnum advert, makes me rush out for ice cream.
Ralph, you don't think advertising encourages gambling, yet you admit advertising draws you in and you have twelve betting accounts?
So let me get this right. We cant bet with a credit card , I can however see an advert for a holiday then proceed to book a holiday for £6000 on a credit card.
What would be interesting to know is whether gambling ads persuade people who gamble to use one company over another or whether they encourage people to gamble who wouldn't otherwise. If it is the former, there isn't a problem with them for me. if the latter, they need banning.
Does the retail industry identify problem shoppers who spend hundreds maybe thousands every month with money they haven't got?
False equivalence. Some degree of retail is absolutely necessary, for food, clothing, essentials. No amount of gambling is necessary at all. It's purely choice. These are not the same thing.
Does the retail industry identify problem shoppers who spend hundreds maybe thousands every month with money they haven't got?
False equivalence. Some degree of retail is absolutely necessary, for food, clothing, essentials. No amount of gambling is necessary at all. It's purely choice. These are not the same thing.
Like toys and computers. Mum , dad why cant I have that £800 computer.
Does the Tui advert say at the end if you cant afford it , dont book it. That 2 week holiday that we are all entitled to every year whether we can afford it or not.
Does the retail industry identify problem shoppers who spend hundreds maybe thousands every month with money they haven't got?
False equivalence. Some degree of retail is absolutely necessary, for food, clothing, essentials. No amount of gambling is necessary at all. It's purely choice. These are not the same thing.
Like the £350 worth of shoes my wife came home with purchased on credit card
Interesting that the ad is about children’s potential addiction to gambling, yet most people are commenting (one way or the other) about their experience of gambling as an adult.
Interesting that the ad is about children’s potential addiction to gambling, yet most people are commenting (one way or the other) about their experience of gambling as an adult.
All sufferers of gambling addiction were, at one stage, children.
Does the retail industry identify problem shoppers who spend hundreds maybe thousands every month with money they haven't got?
False equivalence. Some degree of retail is absolutely necessary, for food, clothing, essentials. No amount of gambling is necessary at all. It's purely choice. These are not the same thing.
Neither are drinking, smoking, holidays, the latest smart phone, a £100k car, Rolex watches .......... I could go on. Once I’ve paid my taxes my money is mine to do whatever I want to with, as long as by doing so is not breaking any law.
It is not a false equivalence at all, just another example of the nanny state telling me how to live my life and making decisions on my behalf that are my responsibility to make.
Interesting that the ad is about children’s potential addiction to gambling, yet most people are commenting (one way or the other) about their experience of gambling as an adult.
All sufferers of gambling addiction were, at one stage, children.
Yes but most adults weren’t exposed to the level of encouragement/pressure/advertising that today’s children will have been, by the time they reach adulthood. That’s the point of the campaign.
Does the retail industry identify problem shoppers who spend hundreds maybe thousands every month with money they haven't got?
False equivalence. Some degree of retail is absolutely necessary, for food, clothing, essentials. No amount of gambling is necessary at all. It's purely choice. These are not the same thing.
Like the £350 worth of shoes my wife came home with purchased on credit card
True, but those 6" red stilettos go so well with your shorts.
Interesting that the ad is about children’s potential addiction to gambling, yet most people are commenting (one way or the other) about their experience of gambling as an adult.
All sufferers of gambling addiction were, at one stage, children.
Yes but most adults weren’t exposed to the level of encouragement/pressure/advertising that today’s children will have been, by the time they reach adulthood. That’s the point of the campaign.
I am highlighting why I think it's a pertinent and suitable campaign.
Is there anyone out there who has a betting account and is a regular winner or up with the same company that isn’t betfair ?
My skybet account has a positive P&L, so yes I do have an account that is up.
I've only won about 15% of my bets but if you're only putting a fiver / tenner on long odds accumulator bets every now & then, you only need 2-3 to come in each season to put you in the black.
If you ask a regular punter if they thought they are "up", "down" or "about level" on all the bets they've ever placed then you'd be amazed how many of them said "up" or "about level".
And yet the bookies, betting companies and casinos make billions each year.
There must be one bloke somewhere losing an absolute fortune every day.
Comments
Am surprised at some of the comments really, like some believe a freedom is being eroded by not being sold to.
Banning advertising that could be seen by under 18s would be an enormous shift, given the proliferation of advertising for betting companies. Every Premier League club has sponsorship deals this year from one or more betting companies.
@PragueAddick were you aware of this - 'Gambling advertising is designed for brand recognition and market share'?
We cant bet with a credit card , I can however see an advert for a holiday then proceed to book a holiday for £6000 on a credit card.
Mum , dad why cant I have that £800 computer.
That 2 week holiday that we are all entitled to every year whether we can afford it or not.
Once I’ve paid my taxes my money is mine to do whatever I want to with, as long as by doing so is not breaking any law.
It is not a false equivalence at all, just another example of the nanny state telling me how to live my life and making decisions on my behalf that are my responsibility to make.
I've only won about 15% of my bets but if you're only putting a fiver / tenner on long odds accumulator bets every now & then, you only need 2-3 to come in each season to put you in the black.
And yet the bookies, betting companies and casinos make billions each year.
There must be one bloke somewhere losing an absolute fortune every day.