Epidemic of gambling ads in day-time TV is irresponsible
A view from Grant Feller

Epidemic of gambling ads in day-time TV is irresponsible

The media industry's willingness to promote gambling during day-time TV is harmful to children and society, Grant Feller argues.

Lack of transparency is one of the most troubling traits of today’s media. It’s why that no matter how good the product, levels of trust among the public are lower than ever.

It’s something I considered a few days ago when The Times ran the latest in an occasional and excellent series highlighting Britain’s gambling epidemic. Here is the introduction to its story about the dangers posed to children:

"Figures show that the industry has spent £1.4bn on advertising since 2012, with online casinos doubling their marketing budgets over the past five years. Britain’s biggest charity to help addicts is so concerned about the increasing volume of advertising that it is urging ministers to introduce stricter rules.

"Kate Lampard, the chairwoman of gambling watchdog GambleAware, says: 'With the average age at which children start to watch post-watershed TV unsupervised being 11¾, restrictions based on a 9pm watershed may offer little protection.'"

Except that there is an advertising issue more troubling than either the watershed or online casinos, as GambleAware and The Times know.

It is daytime television, particularly during live sports events, where children are targeted by an astonishing array of advertisements persuading them to use phones, tablets and PCs to gamble away their (and their parents’) money.

Just a few days ago, the Local Government Association issued an alarming report which revealed that one in 10 children aged 11-15 follow gambling companies on social media, having been heavily influenced by TV ads during sports broadcasts.

I conducted a small experiment myself on a Saturday afternoon and watched Sky Sports – whose major shareholder Rupert Murdoch also controls News UK, the publisher of The Times.

During Sky’s live football coverage between noon and 5pm, I counted 64 ads that sought to part the consumer from their cash (I ignored plugs for Sky TV).

Thirty-seven of these were for consumer goods and the other 27 urged people to "bet now", "cash out" and, inevitably, "win". So more than 42% of ads selling me a product before the watershed were encouraging me to gamble.

The companies that paid Sky a hefty sum to run these ads – money that will no doubt contribute to the financial health of all of Mr Murdoch’s companies – were: Paddy Power (whose ad is pictured, above), Betfair, Coral, Ladbrokes, Betway, 365, Betstars, William Hill, Sky Bet and Lotto.

There was also a 10-minute interview with a footballer wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with BetVictor, together with the inevitable in-programme logos on clothes, billboards and studio walls.

I didn’t time the length of the ads but if we assume each was about 30 seconds, then there was close to a quarter of an hour of gambling adverts that went out in the middle of Saturday afternoon, at a time when children are most likely to be watching television.

Other countries have woken up to the problem and earlier this year the Australian government pledged to end gambling advertising during live sports events before 8.30pm.

Instead, the UK’s media industry (which is heavily dependent upon gambling advertising) is focusing on equally-destructive aspects such as fixed-odds betting terminals. Pre-watershed advertising is, largely, ignored.

GambleAware’s argument which The Times publicised – that the advertising industry must do more to protect society’s most vulnerable when they watch TV in the evening – represents only a small part of the story.

Presumably, the watchdog, whose trustees include the bosses of Ladbrokes Coral and Rank  – two of Britain’s most powerful gambling organisations – has its own interests to protect as well as the consumers’.

Likewise, The Times omits to mention the Sun Bets gambling website and app, a heavily-publicised off-shoot of its sister paper, The Sun.

Media must be transparent in reporting the effects of gambling

Excessive gambling is as great a danger to people’s lives as excessive drinking and smoking.

When I was growing up in the 1970s and 80s, cigarette companies like Benson & Hedges, Dunhill and Silk Cut were being eased out of sponsoring live events because their glossy products hastened death.

I don’t know whether I bought cigarettes because of such highly visible daytime advertising but I’m sure it was a contributory factor. I don’t know whether my son and his friends think betting is a laugh because people like "I-gamble-responsibly" Ray Winstone advocate it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if watching TV on a Saturday afternoon was also a contributory factor.

Recent figures compiled by Nielsen indicate the gambling industry spent £312m in 2016 on ads, a 63 per cent rise on the comparable figure for 2012. Roughly half of this was for television.

Ever since 2005’s gambling act, the British gambling industry has been growing at a frightening rate. Gross gambling yield was £8.36bn in the year beginning April 2008. In the year to September 2016, it reached a record £13.8bn.

No wonder the Gambling Commission recently revealed that 69% of people think betting is dangerous for family life and that there are now more than 400,000 ‘problem’ gamblers, one in five of whom attempt to kill themselves.

The media has an enormous role to play in reporting how gambling affects the fabric of society and real people’s lives. But it must do so in a transparent way and look to itself if it wants to uncover the truth.

It’s not just The Times – on a recent Friday, I counted 14 ads on the sports pages of London’s Evening Standard, 13 of which promoted gambling.

As for the gambling companies, since they have purloined the word "responsible" to reshape their consumer narratives, I wonder what would happen if one of the brands took the moral high ground by pledging not to advertise on television before 6pm.

Yes, it would lose some penetration in the teenage market but it might also win some respect from the media, politicians and the general public.

And, in taking a stand, persuade us that the brand represents something more important than profit. Societal responsibility, for instance.

It would be a gamble but perhaps one worth taking.

Grant Feller is a director of G-F Media. He is a former executive at the Daily Express, Daily Mail and the Evening Standard