Letter to 11 clubs (including Forest) about gambling ads

[Calvin Plummer]

The real question is would eliminating sponsorship from gambling impact on the issue of problem gamblers?

The answer is obviously, marginal at best, as well as being difficult to measure and demonstrate an effect.

Tobacco has had all sorts of disincentives but people still smoke.

The only way to protect problem gamblers, like smokers, would be to ban it. Noboady supports that because it is unfair to stop millions who have no problems fun with the hundreds who have an issue.

Sounds like a good idea when you first hear it but when you think a bit deeper about how a ban would work (or not), i think the policy is less useful. Tbf atm, all of the betting and drink ads all have those stop if it is going wrong for you. Perhaps a better policy is to make betting firms pay more for support services for those addicted?

So you think the many gambling ads have no impact? What a waste of marketing spend.

 

[Calvin Plummer]

There are a lot of things wrong with the Gambling Industry; they way they advertise does not come close to being in the top 10.

You obviously accept the premise that gambling addicts, if it is actually an addiction, are heavily influenced by advertising campaigns; I dont.

There is just as much of a chance that they are influenced by the game being televised in the first place, or by programmes like Football Focus which promote the game; people with gambling issues look for ANY opportunity to bet, they do not need a half time advert.

Then there is the laughable accusation that the advertising attracts and influences new custom in the form of the young and impressionable; the vast majority of people who start to gamble do so under the "guidance" of relatives, people from their own families, who, in many instances, get kids hooked on gambling by placing bets for them when they are not old enough to do so themselves.

The people who started this campaign would be better served by addressing the real root causes and cease with the bogus "it wasnt me guv, it was those bastards who made me do it" routine.

And if that sounds unsympathetic its because I do not believe in papering over the cracks.

How many drug addicts are there in the Country, and how many of those were influenced or persuaded to start main lining by an advertising campaign?

Again I'll ask if gambling adverts have no impact why are there so many?

 

[mao tse tung]

They don't start off with the bet. They start off by thinking the bet would be fun and /or beneficial and then seeing how and where that bet can be placed.

It's almost as if they might have been better off not making that bet in the first place.

"It's almost as if they might have been better off not making that bet in the first place."

Exactly

Do you think that when the Grandparent or Father introduces that child to gambling they consider that?

No, instead you have a group of people in denial pointing the finger of blame elsewhere

 

[weejockmcplop]

"It's almost as if they might have been better off not making that bet in the first place."

Exactly

Do you think that when the Grandparent or Father introduces that child to gambling they consider that?

No, instead you have a group of people in denial pointing the finger of blame elsewhere

And how do you change this?

Well, according to the following study, banning advertising is the best way to change long term societal attitudes to an issue.

https://www.begambleaware.org/media...ng-and-advertising-synthesis-report_final.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/society...me-gamblers-due-to-high-volume-of-betting-ads

“Regular exposure to gambling promotions can change perceptions and associations of gambling over time and impact the likelihood they will gamble in the future”

 

[in_the_top_one]

"It's almost as if they might have been better off not making that bet in the first place."

Exactly

Do you think that when the Grandparent or Father introduces that child to gambling they consider that?

No, instead you have a group of people in denial pointing the finger of blame elsewhere

I don't deny that's how a lot of people get started but you are ignoring all the others. I didn't say it would stop everyone from placing their first bet. But banning gambling advertising would reduce R.

 

[in_the_top_one]

Out of interest, Mao, are you in the business?

 

[mao tse tung]

So you think the many gambling ads have no impact? What a waste of marketing spend.

Only 50% of advertising works, the problem being that they do not know which 50% works.

Who quoted that; was it Lord Levershulme?

Blaming advertising is failing to understand the problem because the damage has already been done - it completely misses the point.

Do you honestly think a problem gambler sits at home and then suddenly springs to life after listening to Ray Winstone before a game?

Do you think that if they did take any notice of Ray that they would feel inclined to tootle off to Bet365?

If that is what you seriously think then you have a seriously misguided view of how these people work.

Dont get me wrong, there is plenty more that the Gambling Industry can and should be doing; and the government are only paying lip service to the problem.

Why do you think the recent restrictions on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals were introduced?

Do you think it was because problem gamblers were blowing money in them or because drug dealers were rinsing their illicit gains through them?

I will give you a clue; it was not because of the problem gamblers.

 

[weejockmcplop]

Why do you think the recent restrictions on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals were introduced?

Do you think it was because problem gamblers were blowing money in them or because drug dealers were rinsing their illicit gains through them?

I will give you a clue; it was not because of the problem gamblers.

This is wrong again.
The regulations were forced through after Tracey Crouch MP, someone who had spent months researching the effects of gambling addiction on communities, resigned, and in doing so embarrassed the tories who were in the pockets of the bookies.
She campaigned on the human cost of gambling addiction, the suicides etc.

At some level, I'm sure money laundering was one of the reasons the legislation was introduced, but it got made when it did because of the human cost.

Interestingly, all the talking points you are bringing up are the same ones the bookies used to argue against the FOBT regulation (which has since saved lives).

 

[mao tse tung]

Again I'll ask if gambling adverts have no impact why are there so many?

I can't follow your logic here, mao.
If you think advertising doesn't tempt people into gambling then, a) why do they advertise, and, b) what difference would it make if the adverts were banned?

To take your drug addict point, let's consider smoking. The data suggest that many current smokers (those old enough) were tempted into smoking by the cool lifestyle offered by advertising. When advertising stopped, fewer people got into the addictive drug. Why do you think this would be different for gambling?
There is currently no widespread national advertising for harder drugs and also they are illegal. lf there were adverts in every break about the fun of cocaine or spice then usage might increase. That's what advertising does.

Smoking was on the decline way before the advertising ban came in.

It felt like everyone smoked in the 70s; that started to decline during the 80s and 90s.

There were two major events that impacted on smoking; during the 70s the true health effects of smoking became known, that had a huge impact; and the ban on smoking in public places.

Once people realised how bad smoking was they soon started to give them up; I knew loads of people who gave them up during the late 70s and early 80s.

In the 70s it was difficult to find a family where at least one member did not smoke or anyone in your social circle who did not partake.

Move forward ten years and you have the start of smoke free, health conscientious families, the benefits of which were clearly evident before any advertising ban came in.

It was very nice of the government to come forward and take all of the credit for actions they resisted for so long.

 

[mao tse tung]

Fucking deluded? This topic really seems to have touched a nerve.

Are you seriously making an equivalence at the user end between savers investing in a pension with those with a gambling problem?

No, I am saying that the holier than thou who sneer at gamblers, are also gamblers themselves.

 

[weejockmcplop]

Smoking was on the decline way before the advertising ban came in.

It felt like everyone smoked in the 70s; that started to decline during the 80s and 90s.

There were two major events that impacted on smoking; during the 70s the true health effects of smoking became known, that had a huge impact; and the ban on smoking in public places.

Once people realised how bad smoking was they soon started to give them up; I knew loads of people who gave them up during the late 70s and early 80s.

In the 70s it was difficult to find a family where at least one member did not smoke or anyone in your social circle who did not partake.

Move forward ten years and you have the start of smoke free, health conscientious families, the benefits of which were clearly evident before any advertising ban came in.

It was very nice of the government to come forward and take all of the credit for actions they resisted for so long.

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/15/suppl_3/iii26

Background: In February 2003, a comprehensive ban on tobacco promotion came into effect in the United Kingdom, which prohibited tobacco marketing through print and broadcast media, billboards, the internet, direct mail, product placement, promotions, free gifts, coupons and sponsorships.

Objective: To investigate the impact of the UK’s comprehensive ban on tobacco promotion on adult smokers’ awareness of tobacco marketing in the UK relative to Canada, the United States and Australia.

Design: A total of 6762 adult smokers participated in two waves of a random digit dialled telephone survey across the four countries. Wave 1 was conducted before the UK ban (October–December 2002) and Wave 2 was conducted after the UK ban (May–September 2003).

Key measures: Awareness of a range of forms of tobacco marketing.

Results: Levels of tobacco promotion awareness declined significantly among smokers in the UK after implementation of the advertising ban. Declines in awareness were greater in those channels regulated by the new law and change in awareness of tobacco promotions was much greater in the UK than the other three countries not affected by the ban. At least in the short term, there was no evidence that the law resulted in greater exposure to tobacco promotions in the few media channels not covered by the law. Notwithstanding the apparent success of the UK advertising ban and the controls in other countries, 9–22% of smokers in the four countries still reported noticing things that promoted smoking “often or very often” at Wave 2.

Conclusions: The UK policy to ban tobacco advertising and promotion has significantly reduced exposure to pro-tobacco marketing influences. These findings support the effectiveness of comprehensive bans on advertising and promotion, as included in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

---------------

I feel like this is a bit pointless though because mao is either consciously ignoring all my posts or he has me on ignore for some reason.

 

[Calvin Plummer]

No, I am saying that the holier than thou who sneer at gamblers, are also gamblers themselves.

I gamble, I don't sneer at those who do. I just think it appropriate to protect those already addicted and minimise the likelihood of others joining them. Obviously it won't stop new gamblers, or solve problem gamblers but it will mitigate the problem to some extent.

You're projecting an awful lot in this thread...

 

[radfordinlondon]

I disagree with this completely tbh.
Gambling addicts are triggered by the simple act of being advertised to. That's the whole point of the advertising, why its so in your face and extreme all the time. That's why having 4 bookies on a high street is better than one. Because the addict can walk past one shop probably, but by the time they get to the fourth all they are thinking about is gambling so they go spend all their money. It works the same way with advertising.
Social media makes this much, much worse.

How is a problem gambler supposed to watch the footy on Sky without gambling? It can't be done.

All I would ask for is limits on advertising (as well as limits on the amount of bookies per square foot but that's a different issue). I don't think anyone would ask for gambling to be banned - or at least most people wouldn't.

The question i raised involves knowing where to draw the line between protecting people and preventing them.

Depending on where you stand you can go about it in different ways. Personally i like to solve problems at source. As we know that advertising triggers some people and not others then one of the talking therapies could reduce or even eliminate that trigger for the individuals affected.

Banning adverts would not eliminate the issue, only reduce the frequency (no bad thing). However, as i said, where do you draw the line. The gambling industry, however distasteful, provides jobs.

 

[radfordinlondon]

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/15/suppl_3/iii26

Background: In February 2003, a comprehensive ban on tobacco promotion came into effect in the United Kingdom, which prohibited tobacco marketing through print and broadcast media, billboards, the internet, direct mail, product placement, promotions, free gifts, coupons and sponsorships.

Objective: To investigate the impact of the UK’s comprehensive ban on tobacco promotion on adult smokers’ awareness of tobacco marketing in the UK relative to Canada, the United States and Australia.

Design: A total of 6762 adult smokers participated in two waves of a random digit dialled telephone survey across the four countries. Wave 1 was conducted before the UK ban (October–December 2002) and Wave 2 was conducted after the UK ban (May–September 2003).

Key measures: Awareness of a range of forms of tobacco marketing.

Results: Levels of tobacco promotion awareness declined significantly among smokers in the UK after implementation of the advertising ban. Declines in awareness were greater in those channels regulated by the new law and change in awareness of tobacco promotions was much greater in the UK than the other three countries not affected by the ban. At least in the short term, there was no evidence that the law resulted in greater exposure to tobacco promotions in the few media channels not covered by the law. Notwithstanding the apparent success of the UK advertising ban and the controls in other countries, 9–22% of smokers in the four countries still reported noticing things that promoted smoking “often or very often” at Wave 2.

Conclusions: The UK policy to ban tobacco advertising and promotion has significantly reduced exposure to pro-tobacco marketing influences. These findings support the effectiveness of comprehensive bans on advertising and promotion, as included in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

---------------

I feel like this is a bit pointless though because mao is either consciously ignoring all my posts or he has me on ignore for some reason.

And yet people still smoke.

What the report doesnt talk about is what actually happens in real life. Would be interesting to cross reference this report with the amount of illegal tobacco seizures?

Not foolproof given that enforcement levels are low but over a 40 year period be surprised if it wasnt up or wasnt reported.

 

[radfordinlondon]

I gamble, I don't sneer at those who do. I just think it appropriate to protect those already addicted and minimise the likelihood of others joining them. Obviously it won't stop new gamblers, or solve problem gamblers but it will mitigate the problem to some extent.

You're projecting an awful lot in this thread...

Perhaps but it is a valid question to ask how much mitigation and is the cost worth the result. Moreover, can the objective be achieved in other more efficient means. In this case, it might imo

 

[radfordinlondon]

So you think the many gambling ads have no impact? What a waste of marketing spend.

No not at all, i am questioning the most effective way to support problem gamblers. Providing them with the skills to manage their triggers by themselves, imo, is more effective than banning ads and leads to better long term outcomes.

 

[in_the_top_one]

No not at all, i am questioning the most effective way to support problem gamblers. Providing them with the skills to manage their triggers by themselves, imo, is more effective than banning ads and leads to better long term outcomes.

Do you think the same re smoking?

 

[in_the_top_one]

And yet people still smoke.

But only a fraction.

 

[Calvin Plummer]

Perhaps but it is a valid question to ask how much mitigation and is the cost worth the result. Moreover, can the objective be achieved in other more efficient means. In this case, it might imo

One strategy doesn't negate another.

If I post research papers will you actually read them? Their conclusions are unequivocal.

 

[radfordinlondon]

But only a fraction.

Less people smoke this is broadly true but young people have taken up smoking despite the ban.