Coalition Against Gambling Ads

The gambling industry has bought off football's governing bodies. If any change is going to happen it'll have to come from outside the game.

I understand gambling is probably impossible to stop but allowing big companies to steal money from people who are gullible or suffering from addiction is unconscionable.
The gambling companies should be liable for any costs incurred in dealing with the effects of what they do.

Alcohol, food, drugs, gambling, etc there are many things in life to which addiction can occur. However, as some one who has gambled for 47 years, I don’t see that banning its advertising will in anyway prevent that. If you have an addictive nature, you will go there with or without adverts. 

Off_it said:

RaplhMilne said:

Alcohol, food, drugs, gambling, etc there are many things in life to which addiction can occur. However, as some one who has gambled for 47 years, I don’t see that banning its advertising will in anyway prevent that. If you have an addictive nature, you will go there with or without adverts. 

So you reckon the gambling companies are wasting their money advertising then?

Of course not, but I don’t believe they are appealing to small  children either. As for an addicted gambler, they re not going to stop, because the halftime interval on TV does not have a gambling ad. Yes, those adverts are promoting that you can add to the enjoyment of the game, by having a punt. But, millions watching can put their £5 an enjoy that, that’s the target of the adds. 

blame culture strikes again - i bet, smoke and drink because i want to, beer and smokes haven't been advertised on telly for years yet I still do both. 

Off_it said:

palarsehater said:

blame culture strikes again - i bet, smoke and drink because i want to, beer and smokes haven't been advertised on telly for years yet I still do both. 

Out of interest, and with the hindsight we now have, do you think the ban on advertising fags was a good thing?

I’m 30 and smoked since I was 14 because it was cool so didn’t affect me, so I can’t really answer 

Oh Eddie Youds... said:

The report states that the problem is getting progressively better every year and that the main types of gambling amongst under 18s are....

1. Kids having a friendly bet with eachother i.e. I'll bet you a fiver that my team beat yours this weekend.

2. Playing fruit machines (in fast food outlets, bowling alleys etc).

Stopping gambling ads is unlikely to solve the 2 points above. Online betting companies already do various checks at the point when an account is opened to ensure customers are over

MrOneLung said:

Off_it said:

RaplhMilne said:

Alcohol, food, drugs, gambling, etc there are many things in life to which addiction can occur. However, as some one who has gambled for 47 years, I don’t see that banning its advertising will in anyway prevent that. If you have an addictive nature, you will go there with or without adverts. 

So you reckon the gambling companies are wasting their money advertising then?

No because a lot of the purpose is to get you to use them rather than a rival when you do bet. 

Rather than convert people into gamblers. 

Just like a car advert is not there to get non drivers to spend 25k on a car they don’t need. It is to get their brand awareness out for the people who are buying cars. 

Sorry mate, this is the basically dishonest line peddled by the tobacco companies for years. It pretends that one of the most basic understandings of the effect of advertising miraculously doesn't apply to tobacco - and now gambling. The effect of active advertising by several players in a market sector increases interest - and sales - in that sector. The whole sector. Who remembers advertising for pipe tobacco, and what's the current market share of pipe tobacco?

Everybody in consumer goods marketing knew this was proven, beyond doubt, and years ago, and the tobacco mob were excellent at consumer goods marketing. Their denial of one of the most basic strategic rules of advertising  made them pariahs among their peers. I reckon about 35% of the young marketeers I interviewed said up front "I don't want to work for tobacco" (to which I said, neither do I)

However the existence of this rule points to a solution that avoids an advertising ban. It's easy to track expenditure on advertising (well not so easy on FB and Google, but it can be done). So govt. imposes a 100% levy on gambling advertising, and puts all that money into a national anti gambling ad campaign. Some of the best agencies in the country would love to work on such a campaign. And frankly, with the honourable exception of Paddy Power's online stuff, it would not be hard for the anti-campaign to be more effective than the twaddle the gambling companies turn out.

Scratchingvalleycat said:

PragueAddick said:

MrOneLung said:

Off_it said:

RaplhMilne said:

Alcohol, food, drugs, gambling, etc there are many things in life to which addiction can occur. However, as some one who has gambled for 47 years, I don’t see that banning its advertising will in anyway prevent that. If you have an addictive nature, you will go there with or without adverts. 

So you reckon the gambling companies are wasting their money advertising then?

No because a lot of the purpose is to get you to use them rather than a rival when you do bet. 

Rather than convert people into gamblers. 

Just like a car advert is not there to get non drivers to spend 25k on a car they don’t need. It is to get their brand awareness out for the people who are buying cars. 

Sorry mate, this is the basically dishonest line peddled by the tobacco companies for years. It pretends that one of the most basic understandings of the effect of advertising miraculously doesn't apply to tobacco - and now gambling. The effect of active advertising by several players in a market sector increases interest - and sales - in that sector. The whole sector. Who remembers advertising for pipe tobacco, and what's the current market share of pipe tobacco?

Everybody in consumer goods marketing knew this was proven, beyond doubt, and years ago, and the tobacco mob were excellent at consumer goods marketing. Their denial of one of the most basic strategic rules of advertising  made them pariahs among their peers. I reckon about 35% of the young marketeers I interviewed said up front "I don't want to work for tobacco" (to which I said, neither do I)

However the existence of this rule points to a solution that avoids an advertising ban. It's easy to track expenditure on advertising (well not so easy on FB and Google, but it can be done). So govt. imposes a 100% levy on gambling advertising, and puts all that money into a national anti gambling ad campaign. Some of the best agencies in the country would love to work on such a campaign. And frankly, with the honourable exception of Paddy Power's online stuff, it would not be hard for the anti-campaign to be more effective than the twaddle the gambling companies turn out.

Gambling companies are commercial operations like any other business and measure the effect that their advertising has. It is is successful in bring customers from their competitors but not really successful at  converting non gamblers to gamblers. On that basis alone they would rub their hands together at the chance if being banned from tv advertising. However the cost of a Sky, BT or other sports channel would rocket throgh lack of advertising revenue.

Would the cost rocket though? Sports channels are already under huge pressure from illegal streaming services, if they jacked up the prices lots more people would vote with their feet. 

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?          

MuttleyCAFC said:

Gambling is a bit like drinking. For many people, including myself, it is a fun  past time. If you gamble what you can afford to lose and drink within moderation, neither are a problem.

Some people are unable to do this and the question is, if you banned drinking and gambling, would you solve the problem? I suspect the only people you would restrict are the ones that get harmless fun out of them. Sadly, I don't think there is a solution in terms of restricting the industries. The question is, can people who can't control their addiction be helped to do so?

Banning drinking or gambling won't solve the problem of alcoholism or gambling addiction. But I think very few people are suggesting that.  I certainly wouldn't support it. 

How are the profits that bookies make taxed? There are huge duties imposed on drinking and smoking which I assume goes towards offsetting the social and healthcare costs they create. Is there something similar for gambling?