The recent scrapping of a ban on TV and radio adverts for gambling has sparked a lively debate on the dangers that such a move could present. Restrictions on broadcast advertising for casinos, betting shops and online gambling sites will be lifted from September, as changes to the 2005 Gambling Act come into force.
The move comes hot on the heels of the announcement that Britain’s first supercasino will open in Manchester, and has angered many anti-gambling campaigners who already believe that more Britons are getting into difficulties with gambling.
However, government ministers insist that the new legislation will not increase problem gambling, as “strict new rules”, aimed at preventing such a danger from arising, will accompany the lifting of the ban. Minister for Sport Richard Caborn also warned that the government would be prepared to step in if and when any problems surface.
Adverts for gambling are currently limited to billboards, sponsorship and online advertising, though some exceptions – most notably the National Lottery – already enjoy the benefits of mainstream advertising.
When the new laws come into force, gambling operators will have to ensure that their adverts are “socially responsible”, and that they comply with a number of newly created rules similar to those which presently govern alcohol advertising.
The adverts must refrain from linking the activity to seduction, enhanced attractiveness and sexual success, while they also must not suggest that gambling is the solution to financial difficulties. All gambling ads will also be banned during shows aimed at under-18s, and anyone appearing in the adverts must seem to be over the age of 25, according to the rules.
Finally, the adverts must not show gamblers behaving irresponsibly or in a way that “could lead to financial, social or emotional harm”. In the event that any of these rules are breached, the advertisers could face severe regulatory sanctions.
Nevertheless, these rules do little to satisfy the demands of anti-gambling campaigners. Matt Spencer of the Salvation Army claimed that gambling should not be seen as a “normal leisure activity” and that people would inevitably still be vulnerable despite the strict new laws.
In response to such claims, Mr Caborn insists that the new restrictions “set out clearly what is and isn’t acceptable advertising practice for all gambling operators, while making sure that the protection of children and vulnerable people is a central consideration of all advertising campaigns”.
Yet, despite such government confidence, it should be remembered that the purpose of advertising is to encourage new customers. As a result it is inevitable that these new adverts will lead to an increase in the number of gamblers, and consequently in the number of those who become addicted to it; if they do not, they will clearly have been unsuccessful adverts.
It should be remembered that tobacco advertising was banned because of the health risks that smoking represents. The question arises as to whether alcohol promotion should also be taken off the airwaves, considering that alcoholism can present problems as serious as smoking and perhaps more so than excessive gambling?
There would surely be an outcry if Britain were to follow the lead of France and ban all televised alcohol-related references. The Wales rugby shirts would bare the word Brawn as opposed to Brains for the duration of the Six Nations campaign year in year out, while Premiership clubs such as Liverpool and Everton would have to renegotiate sponsorship deals.
And perhaps worst of all, British television would lose the award-winning adverts produced by the likes of Guinness and John Smith’s.
Yet the fact is that the nature of the dangers posed by gambling and alcohol are different to those posed by smoking. While smoking always poses a health risk, the problems associated with drinking and gambling only occur when the activities are carried out excessively, and while it is true that the advertising of these activities should be heavily monitored and strictly regulated, any further action is surely unnecessary.
