Ban gambling adverts?

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.

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........

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.

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 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.

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


Any tips?

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.

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 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 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)

kippy wrote: »

Those technicues are used in a myriad of advertising though. I don't thik the techniques themselves are the issue as such plus the practicalities of "outlawing" them would be difficult.

The part I'm taking about is nothing to do with advertising. It's game and product development.
But you are right, there is no chance of being able to legislate fir it, which is why they can only look towards blunt tools like restricting advertising and cutting them off a bit from that angle.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Would agree with a ban on gambling advertising and I say that as someone who likes the odd punt myself.

I dont think many people realise just how big online gambling has gotten over the last decade mainly because how secretive it is. But I know myself because I made nice sums of money owning shares in Paddy Power at the start of the last decade. Their share price doubled and then doubled again all in the space of about three years. Nowadays they are merged with Betfair and the pair of them are lobbying hard to get gambling restrictions overturned in many US states. These are giants of companies and as another poster said they are using consumer psychology to find out new ways to get people addicted. Just like the tobacco companies they need to be constantly recruiting the next generation to sustain their growth.

Gambling is generally only a problem for about 5% of people who gamble. In Ireland its estimated there are around 40,000 problem gamblers which would be far less than the amount of alcoholics. However the damage these 40,000 people can do to their families is huge and ultimately when they lose their job, house, etc it is the taxpayer and society at large who ends up footing the bill through social welfare.

So I wouldnt have any problems with advertising on it being banned. The UK is already looking at similar and theres a recognition over there now that gambling companies have been allowed to grow out of control over the last 10 years. They're putting a new gambling bill through parliament at the moment to counter act that.

yeah - this is the thing - its the depth of damage caused and left unchecked, the companies will suck the absolute life out of anyone who ends up with a problem. Also looks ate the trouble around FOB machines, particularly in the UK from ~2006 until they brought in some level of restriction.

Areas with very few amenities, generally run down but they would have a Hills, Ladbrokes, PP and a Coral and an independent all within 200 years of each other.
I absolutely don't think gambling should be banned at all (besides, prohibition would just bring back illegal bookies - wouldn't work at all), but its a market that left entirely to its own devices would completely run amok.

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Can’t see any reason to ban it. The problem isn’t gambling, it’s problem gamblers. Hit them instead.

125 posts and not a single reason to ban or restrict advertising? How would you tackle/assist/punish people with a gambling problem out of interest?

Lashes28 wrote: »

This all of this.. it destroys families. I have recently been on the recieving end of a secret gambling addiction with my ex. We were saving for a mortgage. He spent and lost the best part of €40 grand over 6 months through gambling. A hell of alot of it online. Constantly chasing the loss waiting for the big win but dwindled everything.

If he'd have won 1k his account would have been closed by the bookies. They allow reckless gamblers to keep gambling their money away. They are watching every account closely. They'd have loved seeing a mug losing thousands. Probably gave him refunds and free bets galore. They really are scum.

km991148 wrote: »

yeah - this is the thing - its the depth of damage caused and left unchecked, the companies will suck the absolute life out of anyone who ends up with a problem. Also looks ate the trouble around FOB machines, particularly in the UK from ~2006 until they brought in some level of restriction.

The case of the Co.Carlow postman who stole 1.7 million from An Post and gambled it all away with Paddy Power really showed how low the big gambling companies will stoop. His account manager in Paddy Power knew well he was a postman yet they were allowing him place a 40k bet on womens football match in Norway. The account manager was piling him with free tickets to go see Man United play, free tickets for Paddy Powers corporate box in Chelenham, etc because they were making so much money out of him.

But at the end of the day Paddy Power sails off into the sunset with 1.7m in profit despite knowing well this chap couldnt afford it. And as An Post is owned by the taxpayer ultimately we are all on the hook for that 1.7m. Then the chap loses his job so we're on the hook for his dole too. No one is going to employ someone who stole 1.7m so he may never work again. And if he lost his house we'll be on the hook for his rent allowance too. Us taxpayers are treated like mugs while Paddy Power faced no consequences whatsoever and got to keep the 1.7 million.

Lashes28 wrote: »

This all of this.. it destroys families. I have recently been on the recieving end of a secret gambling addiction with my ex. We were saving for a mortgage. He spent and lost the best part of €40 grand over 6 months through gambling. A hell of alot of it online. Constantly chasing the loss waiting for the big win but dwindled everything.

Sorry to hear that. I know of a similar situation through my sister of a couple saving up a target of 100k to put two kids through university and the husband gambled 35k of it. He got caught, said he would never do it again and she forgave him. 2 months later she notices he always brings his phone to the toilet at home. She got suspicious and found out that he had burnt another 12k of their savings. That was the end of the marriage so now shes bringing up the kids on her own and has no idea of how she will be able to put them through university.

Like I said in the previous post its only about 5% of gamblers who ever develop into problem gamblers. But the damage they can cause to their families and children is huge and its all done silently behind their partners back. The wife in the above example is now sh1tting either of her kids getting enough points for UCD or Trinity because she just cant afford to pay four years of rent in Dubln for them. If they get the points they cant go so the fathers gambling now effects their education and ultimately their outcome in life. All because of what their father did. Its a horrible situation and now the kids will suffer from the fall out from it.

kippy wrote: »

You gotta start somewhere. A bit like the plastic bags....
Domestic add revenue is an issue alright but unfortunately there is a greater good that sometimes overshadows these kinds of things.

I am sure Virgin Media TV's green room breaks every BAI rule on this type of advertising

A pox on society, you know a place is going downhill by the proliferation of betting shops and lads with crutches hanging around outside.

Fcukin amoral parasitic organisations. No wonder the Mob loved them in the States.

How is woke RTE still allowing the childrens movie on a Saturday night to be interupted by the Lotto, it's as absolute crooked and corrupt as it gets, it's like a brewery sponsoring PE equipment at the local primary school. Those taking this cash should be in jail.

Fully agree with banning advertising, not gambling.

If people want to gamble their lives away more power to them but the ads, particularly online, are specifically designed to press certain buttons and target vulnerable audience.

There is a reason the layouts, the graphics, sound...everything is always the same. They have it down to a science and it is relentless. Ad after ad.

I just totally disagree with it.

I tend to agree but I would go further and look to more heavily regulate the industry.

Limits on things like the number of shops in an areas (or tighter limits if any) and when it comes to online - way tighter controls on the types of games and the time between playing games etc. The amount that can be spent on R&D/UX should also be heavily restricted (although its already a bit late on that one).

Still missing the point. Spectacularly.

Probably deliberately.