The government is under pressure to ban gambling ads. History shows that half measures don’t work

The federal government must respond to a parliamentary inquiry into online gambling.

Last year an inquiry, chaired by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy, recommended a three-year freeze on gambling advertising leading to a total ban.

But there are reports that the government will stop with some ban. This would remove gambling from social media and prevent ads from being broadcast during the hour (before and after) sports games.

How effective would a partial ban be? History shows that it may not be enough.

Advertising is common in gambling

Marketing is one way industries normalize dangerous activities like gambling. They also use advertising, such as sponsorships, celebrity endorsements and charitable donations.

These same tactics have been used by the alcohol, tobacco and gambling industries.

The impact on young people can be profound. Many studies have linked tobacco advertising to the way young people like to smoke. Similar research has shown that young people who are exposed to gambling are also more likely to gamble and get hurt from it.

Most parents know this, which is why most Australians – at least 70% – oppose gambling ads.

Question

Murphy launched an inquiry into online gambling in September 2022. The committee expressed concern about the “proliferation of online gambling platforms in the lives of Australians”, particularly the impact on children and young people.

When the report was published in June 2023, the committee – whose members represented each and every party – made 31 recommendations.

These included four steps to eliminate gambling advertising altogether.

Ad limits will increase over a period of three years, starting immediately. Bans on online advertising would be introduced, as well as rules on radio and stadiums. For example, a division may block commercials on commercial radio during school drop-off and pick-up times. Another feature can prevent ads from being shown for an hour on the other side of the game.

Murphy’s changes would also ban gambling symbols on the field and logos on sports uniforms.

There will be restrictions on incentives, such as “free money” offers to encourage account holders to gamble.

The last part is general: it prohibits all advertising and financial support by gambling organizations.

It is not yet clear which aspects of the advertising committee’s recommendations the government will support. But if it chooses to accept only a part of the incentive categories, it leaves big gaps for further gambling promotion.

Would a certain restriction work? Tobacco studies

History shows that wherever there is an opportunity to promote their products, dangerous commodity industries will exploit it.

Tobacco companies used this strategy until the government put an end to it by creating a complete ban on advertising, financing and marketing.

Australia’s first response to awareness of the dangers of tobacco focused on a concerted campaign to ban broadcast advertising. Between 1973 and 1976, tobacco advertising was phased out.

However, the tobacco industry continued to pursue flash advertising – such as advertisements in stadiums and on players’ uniforms.

Denormalisation was key to successful tobacco harm reduction campaigns. This included banning and restricting advertising, sponsorship and other advertising – as well as restricting where tobacco could be consumed.

Tobacco studies make it clear that if Murphy’s recommendations are adopted, gambling businesses will increase spending on whatever is allowed.

Do game codes cost money?

The influence from sports codes and broadcasters recalls a time when tobacco advertising was banned.

Sports authorities including the AFL and NRL – as well as other media companies – argue that the sky will fall if gambling revenue is reduced.

Broadcasters sell premium advertising spots during popular sports broadcasts and pay large sums of money to sports codes for the rights to do so.

But sports and broadcasting codes did not fall when tobacco advertising was banned. They are unlikely to do so because of the ban on gambling advertising. And Murphy’s recommendations address these concerns in part.

Propaganda bans have been successful in some countries. In Spain, the gambling regulator reported that there were no negative consequences for broadcasters and sports teams when advertisements were banned.

Gambling advertising is also banned in Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands. And broadcast ads are banned in Germany. Celebrity endorsements are banned in the Netherlands and Canada.

From here

It is possible that the reports of government projects are wrong. The government says it is consulting and will make an announcement in the coming weeks. Indeed, the recommendations of the Murphy report need serious consideration.

It is not yet clear how the government proposes to deal with the other 30 recommendations in the report. These argue for:

• the national regulator of online gambling
• additional funding and access to anonymized gambling data
• international agreements to regulate gambling on the Internet.

Action to reduce the “gambling” of video games is also recommended.

Accepting only some of the recommendations does not do enough to stop the promotion of gambling and will continue to expose young people to its life-threatening dangers.

If this article has caused you problems, or if you are concerned about someone you know, visit https://gamblershelp.com.au/get-help/ or call 1800 858 858.