Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Coalition Against Gambling Ads

Saw this on twitter, the numbers and the end of the video were astonishing really.




«1345

Comments

  • I agree wholeheartedly. I bet (pardon the pun) there’s a lot more gambling through FIFA Ultimate Team too.
  • 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.
  • Wow, just read this report some of it is a real eye opener




  • 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.
  • 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 18.
  • Fast food is probably more harmful, and accessible, to kids - should ban those feckin “Just Eat” ads too.
  • 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. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Off_it 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. 

  • Off_it 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. 
  • 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. 
  • 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?
  • Off_it 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 
  • Off_it 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 
    Yeah, but generally speaking; do you think it can now be seen as a good thing? 
  • I blame Labour who opened up more avenues around 2006...
    Empty shops became betting shops with social club machines but cost more to gamble.  On line gambling everywhere.  Bet sensibly slogans. Best not to gamble in the first place.

    What happened to the pools ?
  • 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
  • From my personal knowledge i am aware of major gambling companies who would love to see advertising on tv banned. They see it as only tempting revenue from competitors, not inducing non gamblers to gamble. Increasing market share, not increasing the market.Yes the adverts at racecourses and football grounds are aimed at bringing people who already gamble to place their bets with them but with most of the big gambling companies there are opt outs for online and at betting shops. One company i know sought to use facial recogntion technology in their stores to prevent people who had opted out from betting from lapsing by moving to another store and to prevent money laundering but were prevented by data protection laws.
    They are by no means angels but Tesco promote 2 for 1 offfers on sugary drinks, McDonalds and KFC  slug out to increase the market and brewers  and distillers use the supermarkets and advertising to sell products that cause problems. 
    Prohibition on alcohol in the US drove the market underground and into the hands of criminals, banning gambling would do the same.
  • Sponsored links:


  • MrOneLung said:
    Off_it 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.
  • edited December 2020
    MrOneLung said:
    Off_it 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. 
  • edited December 2020
    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?



  • What makes one cigarette brand more attractive to smokers without there being adverts ? 
  • 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 
    Chart showing pupil smoking status by year ever smoked current smokers regular smokers

    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. 
  • 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. 
  • Chizz said:
    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 
    Chart showing pupil smoking status by year ever smoked current smokers regular smokers

    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. 
    There is little evidence because advertising gambling has not been banned. It would be interesting to see how much gambling has grown since advertising 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!