Ban gambling adverts?

Granadino

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, yes, yes, ban the exploitive gambling adverts.

And ban car adverts, or at least require them to be realistic - instead of cruising on wide open roads, they should show the driver stuck at the arse end of Pearse St at 4pm on a wet Thursday afternoon, with the kids dribbling their snacks on the back seat.

What if you live in rural Ireland ? That ad would have no relevance to most of the country

Ban alcohol and fast food company ads too

newmember2

square ball wrote: »

I say someone else's fault as people look to blame someone else for their problems. Plenty of alcoholics, drug users and gamblers who will blame everyone else but themselves for their addiction. Gambling companies are not innocent but they aren't holding guns to peoples heard forcing them to spend money.

If R&D and advertising is so successful how come I'm not addicted to gambling? Every company in the world selling anything, pump money into R&D to ensure consumers spend more money. They try to learn more about human behaviour and exploit areas where people can be influenced. That's the point of it.

My girlfriend spends more money on clothes she will never wear than I spend on gambling. She also loves 'buy 2 get one free deals' and will buy more if items are on 'offer' she thinks even when she is only needs one item. Should we ban advertising on online shopping if she spends too much?

It doesn't affect me too much, it's the principle that bothers me. Banning gambling ads is not really regulation it's censorship.

Classic...you gamble but spend half your post on how you're not as bad as your addicted to shopping/consuming girlfriend...

km991148

osarusan wrote: »

Sure was well done.

Damn, I was hoping this was real!

kippy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, yes, yes, ban the exploitive gambling adverts.

And ban car adverts, or at least require them to be realistic - instead of cruising on wide open roads, they should show the driver stuck at the arse end of Pearse St at 4pm on a wet Thursday afternoon, with the kids dribbling their snacks on the back seat.

I don't think that is the point.
Normalising gambling as an everyday thing to do is the issue. Kids are getting exposed to more and more direct advertising that is gambling related. It's almost part of watching football now (or you would think it is)

newmember2

kippy wrote: »

I don't think that is the point.
Normalising gambling as an everyday thing to do is the issue. Kids are getting exposed to more and more direct advertising that is gambling related. It's almost part of watching football now (or you would think it is)

Indeed...a lot of it seems aimed at young men, new to adulthood, - betting and soccer is the most natural thing in the world! and sure everyone is doing it because they've found out how convenient and what great fun it is! Get involved!!

Annasopra

eggy81 wrote: »

Nope. Shouldn’t be banned.

Why

Ri_Nollaig

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you weren’t playing devils advocate, what would you think?

Well I don't gamble, bar maybe the odd time buying a lotto ticket when getting petrol and see its some massive amount (like that makes a difference on winning) while waiting to pay.

But thats an ad and has just worked on me!
So if they want to go full hog on banning gambling ads, it should include that, should it not?
Likewise, they have that big roll of scratch cards by the till and that stupid game show. Those scratch cards are very colourful, could argue they are 'targeting' children.

Personally I hate banning anything, I hate the nanny state mentality where "the state knows best". So while don't really have much time for the gaming industry, I would not be in favour of any attempt to ban their ads.

Some people will always do things to excess, but should the entire population be restricted due to that?

El_Duderino 09

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

Well I don't gamble, bar maybe the odd time buying a lotto ticket when getting petrol and see its some massive amount (like that makes a difference on winning) while waiting to pay.

But thats an ad and has just worked on me!
So if they want to go full hog on banning gambling ads, it should include that, should it not?
Likewise, they have that big roll of scratch cards by the till and that stupid game show. Those scratch cards are very colourful, could argue they are 'targeting' children.

Personally I hate banning anything, I hate the nanny state mentality where "the state knows best". So while don't really have much time for the gaming industry, I would not be in favour of any attempt to ban their ads.

Some people will always do things to excess, but should the entire population be restricted due to that?

I get what you’re saying but you cut the answer to your question from my last post. Are they legislating for a purpose (to reduce harm) or are they legislating for the sake of legislating? If the lotto causes harm comparable to the other gambling businesses, then they should be treated the same. If not then, no.

Do you think the lotto causes harm comparable to the other online betting sites?

But I get what you’re doing by playing devils advocate. You’re trying to make a pigs breakfast of the idea behind the legislation to make it sound foolish. Broaden it out from legislating to reduce harm to legislating for the sake of legislating.

If you hate banning everything, why would you advocate for banning something relatively harmless like the lotto?

km991148

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

Personally I hate banning anything, I hate the nanny state mentality where "the state knows best". So while don't really have much time for the gaming industry, I would not be in favour of any attempt to ban their ads.

Ok, asking the question the other way round - If restricting certain types of advertising is bad (nanny state etc), would you be in favour of lifting all current restrictions on advertising? Let companies decide alone? Gambling ads already have to follow some standards. What about cigarette advertising and reversal of the alcohol ad restrictions?

EDIT: I guess this is testing the point made by El_Duderino 09, above - i.e. why is an advertising ban being discussed.

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

Some people will always do things to excess, but should the entire population be restricted due to that?

I don't think this is necessarily about stopping the population from doing anything (gambling will still be legal, and for many reasons I believe it always should). But its really about reigning in companies that have massive budgets that are used to manipulate the population.


tbh - If harm reduction is the goal, I don't think banning advertising is enough (or at least doesn't cover the real issues) - as this is not where the real manipulation happens. Its in game and website design, persuasive design techniques on steroids that are literally designed to encourage addiction to dopamine and other chemicals.

Ri_Nollaig

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you hate banning everything, why would you advocate for banning something relatively harmless like the lotto?

Sorry, I should have answered that.
But the answer is short, I don't know!

I suppose its easy to assume that the lotto is just 'harmless fun' while this law is (probably) trying to target those endless ads that are now always playing during sports events etc, linked to gambling apps.

But, is the lotto harmless?
I have no doubt in its long history there has been some one who has played it to excess.

kippy

km991148 wrote: »

Ok, asking the question the other way round - If restricting certain types of advertising is bad (nanny state etc), would you be in favour of lifting all current restrictions on advertising? Let companies decide alone? Gambling ads already have to follow some standards. What about cigarette advertising and reversal of the alcohol ad restrictions?

EDIT: I guess this is testing the point made by El_Duderino 09, above - i.e. why is an advertising ban being discussed.



I don't think this is necessarily about stopping the population from doing anything (gambling will still be legal, and for many reasons I believe it always should). But its really about reigning in companies that have massive budgets that are used to manipulate the population.


tbh - If harm reduction is the goal, I don't think banning advertising is enough (or at least doesn't cover the real issues) - as this is not where the real manipulation happens. Its in game and website design, persuasive design techniques on steroids that are literally designed to encourage addiction to dopamine and other chemicals.

This nanny state arguement is foolish (in this instance at least).
Kids have to be protected from certain things, parents can do so much in this regard however their minds are easily shapped by the amount of advertising around the sports they watch.
While, as I mentioned above, the lotto and lottos in general, are a side point here, the main aim, I believe, is to reduce the proliferation of gambling advertising into mainstream sports coverage, which is primarly directed at teenagers/young adults.

km991148

kippy wrote: »

This nanny state arguement is foolish (in this instance at least).
Kids have to be protected from certain things, parents can do so much in this regard however their minds are easily shapped by the amount of advertising around the sports they watch.
While, as I mentioned above, the lotto and lottos in general, are a side point here, the main aim, I believe, is to reduce the proliferation of gambling advertising into mainstream sports coverage, which is primarly directed at teenagers/young adults.

Yeah, I don't think this has much to do with kids really (or shouldn't) other than general denormalisation for some that may get overexposed to gambling.

I was just asking the question as the poster mentioned nanny state and I'm wondering if we can apply that in the other direction (i.e. deregulation). I don't think we can. We can't have 100%rampant capitalism, neither can we have full state intervention. Life is about balance and I think this is one area where the balance is in favour of the gambling industry.

The industry heavily targets the available population (i.em those actually able to gamble) through a variety of techniques rooted in psychology and brain chemistry. It invests an absolute fortune in doing so and it's mostly unknown by your average person. This isn't just some flashy ad campaign or cute billboards about stuffing it to the English during Cheltenham.

blackbox

How about banning it until after 9pm?

kippy

km991148 wrote: »

Yeah, I don't think this has much to do with kids really (or shouldn't) other than general denormalisation for some that may get overexposed to gambling.

The industry heavily targets the available population (i.em those actually able to gamble) through a variety of techniques rooted in psychology and brain chemistry. It invests an absolute fortune in doing so and it's mostly unknown by your average person. This isn't just some flashy ad campaign or cute billboards about stuffing it to the English during Cheltenham.

Kids/teens should be the primary concern in any of this. But yes - of course overexposure in general is the problem.
This is actually the market that these organisations are really targeting........

km991148

blackbox wrote: »

How about banning it until after 9pm?

Guess it depends on the premise: is it "to protect the kids" or is it to make gambling less accessible/appealing.

If it's not just about 'think of the children' then I guess you could argue that putting ads on after 9 actually makes it more seductive as you are making it sound a little bit dangerous (ok, a little bit if strong terminology there, but subconsciously more seductive?).
It certainly doesn't make it less appealing and may actually increase its effectiveness if entire ad budgets can be spent in targeting a more specific demographic (particularly targeting those that have had a couple of pints, for example!).

I don't know if that's true of course, just a theory, I guess all I'm saying is restrictions like this could turn out to have unintended consequences.

ArmaniJeanss

It doesn't really seem something that can be done just in Ireland - would probably have to be a UK thing and I doubt its something that'll be banned there anytime soon (maybe regulated, maybe limited to certain times, but not banned).

But if Ireland tried to ban it alone, then there's a whole lot of problems in that a huge percentage of the ads we get come through UK television. Now Sky might be willing to do opt-outs (they already use this so we get some different ads than the UK during some of the bigger sports events) but I can't see any chance of Eurosport or ITV4 being willing to do the same.

And as long as events are sponsored by the likes William Hill Darts or Bet365 Snooker then we would continue to get this advertising. Our ban would be meaningless. Could TV3 continue to take the ITV4 racing feed for Saturdays and the big meetings, which is one long name drop of betting partners?

So it really seems to be a 'we want the UK to do the banning' idea, which is a bit cheeky really.

kippy

blackbox wrote: »

How about banning it until after 9pm?

That would be a start but wouldn't go far enough for a few reasons.
-Website advertising.
-Jersey advertising.
-Billboard advertising.
Just off the top of my head.

Elmo

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Could TV3 continue to take the ITV4 racing feed for Saturdays and the big meetings, which is one long name drop of betting partners?

If Virgin Media TV can remove ITV logos from their broadcasts (though they have stopped doing this lately) they can remove the sponsor from their feed.

Elmo

20. Gambling
20.1 Commercial communications for gambling shall comply with all relevant Irish and European legislation and with rules, regulations and codes of practice issued from time to time by a relevant competent authority.

20.2 Commercial communications are not permitted for remote bookmaking operations carried on by a person who does not hold a bookmaker’s licence.

20.3 Commercial communications are permitted for the National Lottery and other lotteries granted licenses by the relevant competent authority (e.g. charity bingo). These commercial communications shall comply with the Marketing Communications, Advertising, Promotions and PR Code of Practice approved by the regulator of the National Lottery, where applicable, and with rules 20.5 and 20.6 of this section of the Code. Commercial communications for any other lotteries are not permitted.

20.4 Commercial communications that seek to promote services to those who want to gamble may contain the address of the service provider and factual descriptions of services available but shall not contain anything which could be deemed to be a direct encouragement to gamble. This includes providing information detailing special offers, free bets as prizes in competitions, discounts, inducements to visit any gambling establishment (including on-line) or any promotional offer intended to encourage the use of services of this nature.

20.5 Portrayals of gambling in commercial communications shall not:
a. Encourage behaviour that is socially irresponsible or could lead to financial, social, psychological or emotional harm;
b. Suggest that gambling can be a solution to personal or professional problems or financial concerns;
c. Suggest that gambling can enhance personal qualities or contribute toward sexual attraction and success or social success; or
d. Depict or feature children gambling.

20.6 Commercial communications for gambling shall not contain material which is directed exclusively or principally at children
and shall not be broadcast in or around children’s programmes.


More info https://www.bai.ie/en/download/131870/

ArmaniJeanss

Elmo wrote: »

If Virgin Media TV can remove ITV logos from their broadcasts (though they have stopped doing this lately) they can remove the sponsor from their feed.

Its beyond logo's or idents.

Its often a couple of hours of 'A quick work from Johnny Bull from Ladbrokes about the latest market moves', 'and next it's the William Hill BetOnThePhone Sprint Handicap from Newmarket', repeated in full every time the race is mentioned, then someone from Betfred talking about how the fav winning cost them half a mill.

Elmo

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Its beyond logo's or idents.

Its often a couple of hours of 'A quick work from Johnny Bull from Ladbrokes about the latest market moves', 'and next it's the William Hill BetOnThePhone Sprint Handicap from Newmarket', repeated in full every time the race is mentioned, then someone from Betfred talking about how the fav winning cost them half a mill.

They could use their own presenters ! :eek:

km991148

'William Hill BetOnThePhone Sprint Handicap from Newmarket' - lol brilliant.


Any tips?

ArmaniJeanss

Elmo wrote: »

They could use their own presenters ! :eek:

Meh, you are turning a bargain basement operation where they take a feed from another broadcaster for likely peanuts, into a more expensive operation where they have to provide their own people.
Fair enough, its technically doable as is everything, though no particular reason why they would go down this route rather than just show a film instead.

The overall point still stands, it's not something that's feasible for Ireland to do on its own as it opens a whole load of problems.

Elmo

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Meh, you are turning a bargain basement operation where they take a feed from another broadcaster for likely peanuts, into a more expensive operation where they have to provide their own people.
Fair enough, its technically doable as is everything, though no particular reason why they would go down this route rather than just show a film instead.

The overall point still stands, it's not something that's feasible for Ireland to do on its own as it opens a whole load of problems.

It was always easier for TV3 to take a feed than make its on TV.

They could easily drop Ireland AM at the Weekend or Elaine in favour of presenters (not those presenters) for Racing.

It opens the problem of work. That is all.

km991148

This is all implementation details. If a law were to be passed broadcasters would need to figure it out and work out of it's still viable/profitable to broadcast with whatever restrictions are necessary.

It shouldn't impact the law too much, maybe some provision gets made to phase some parts in (buy not a decider on whether or not there should be a law). Like for a while some countries still had tobacco advertising and it was shown on F1, then they started blackouts then eventually gone as all countries moved in the same direction.

El_Duderino 09

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

Sorry, I should have answered that.
But the answer is short, I don't know!

I suppose its easy to assume that the lotto is just 'harmless fun' while this law is (probably) trying to target those endless ads that are now always playing during sports events etc, linked to gambling apps.

But, is the lotto harmless?
I have no doubt in its long history there has been some one who has played it to excess.

Ah yeah but you're changing the issue here. You're lowing the bar from the kind of harm that online betting sites cause, to the lotto where there must be "someone who has played it to excess". If the worst thing that could be said of gambling sites is that someone, somewhere has probably played to excess, then there wouldn't be any push to ban the advertising.

If the goal is harm reduction, the question is whether harm caused by the lotto is comparable to harm caused by betting sites. Do you think they're comparable?

Fr Tod Umptious

km991148 wrote: »

Yeah, I don't think this has much to do with kids really (or shouldn't) other than general denormalisation for some that may get overexposed to gambling.

I was just asking the question as the poster mentioned nanny state and I'm wondering if we can apply that in the other direction (i.e. deregulation). I don't think we can. We can't have 100%rampant capitalism, neither can we have full state intervention. Life is about balance and I think this is one area where the balance is in favour of the gambling industry.

The industry heavily targets the available population (i.em those actually able to gamble) through a variety of techniques rooted in psychology and brain chemistry. It invests an absolute fortune in doing so and it's mostly unknown by your average person. This isn't just some flashy ad campaign or cute billboards about stuffing it to the English during Cheltenham.

I think for the betting companies it's very much about the kids.

As I said earlier Ladbrokes ads contained a spaceman and a giant, Betway used to have one about guys in a spaceship.

Spacemen, spaceships and giants, all of these appeal to young boys.

Then you have the other ads that portray "the lads" and "the bantz" and the normalization of sport and betting.
The young boys see these ads and think that that's the fun they will have when they get bigger.

So it's matching in the mind of the child the company, the sport and the betting at an early age.

It's not targeting the kids in a away to get 10 year old's to open online betting accounts or to walk into the nearest bookie shop, but it's making sure they associate it all when they get a little older.

km991148

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I think for the betting companies it's very much about the kids.

As I said earlier Ladbrokes ads contained a spaceman and a giant, Betway used to have one about guys in a spaceship.

Spacemen, spaceships and giants, all of these appeal to young boys.

Then you have the other ads that portray "the lads" and "the bantz" and the normalization of sport and betting.
The young boys see these ads and think that that's the fun they will have when they get bigger.

So it's matching in the mind of the child the company, the sport and the betting at an early age.

It's not targeting the kids in a away to get 10 year old's to open online betting accounts or to walk into the nearest bookie shop, but it's making sure they associate it all when they get a little older.

Ye, I guess I meant the law shouldn't *just* be solely about think of the kids. It will be effective by not contributing to the normalisation of gambling to the under 18s but there should be other benefits (like reducing the mass appeal to young adults). Additionally I think it should go further with measures in play to counteract the very aggressive persuasive design techniques employed in game, product and website design. But most people probably don't even have a notion of what goes on there (I don't mean that in a know it all way, just that it's very specialised work that few people get - including a significant percentage of people in technology building the platforms).

kippy

km991148 wrote: »

Ye, I guess I meant the law shouldn't *just* be solely about think of the kids. It will be effective by not contributing to the normalisation of gambling to the under 18s but there should be other benefits (like reducing the mass appeal to young adults). Additionally I think it should go further with measures in play to counteract the very aggressive persuasive design techniques employed in game, product and website design. But most people probably don't even have a notion of what goes on there (I don't mean that in a know it all way, just that it's very specialised work that few people get - including a significant percentage of people in technology building the platforms).

Focusing on protecting the kids will protect the young adults too....
I'd also say that, reducing exposure to it, is just part of the solution - a decent education around the pitfalls of problem gambling and what to look out for in people who are at risk also helps.

km991148

kippy wrote: »

Focusing on protecting the kids will protect the young adults too....
I'd also say that, reducing exposure to it, is just part of the solution - a decent education around the pitfalls of problem gambling and what to look out for in people who are at risk also helps.

Yes but I mean specific rules around what addictive features and persuasive design techniques that are put into games/products and websites.

But we are a million years away from anything like that.

(Also what you said too of course)