The Guardian bans all gambling advertising(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
The Guardian bans all gambling advertising
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/15/guardian-bans-all-gambling-advertising
151 comments
Went to the UK for a visit few years ago and the amount of gambling/betting adverts in public places in the UK was flabbergasting. The fact that every ad featured a macho dude with a buzz cut half-threateningly peddling his betting venue of choice didn't help much either. "Like an addict to addict, here's the brand I prefer" type of thing. This left a really bizarre and lasting impression for some reason.
It wasn't always like this. Until 2005 betting and gambling was heavily regulated, advertising was basically prohibited (even in bookmakers windows), and the types of gambling that could occur at betting shops and racegrounds was fairly limited.
Then the whole industry was deregulated by the 2005 Gambling Act, and some extremely predatory companies moved in to exploit the new space. The 2008 GFC resulted in a lot of high street shops suddenly becoming empty, particularly in socio-economically poorer areas, and many were converted into betting shops. I understand it used to be the case that banks and bookmakers premises had the same planning designation and so, as banks unloaded their high street premises, they could be converted to betting shops without requiring planning permission.
The present UK government doesn't seem interested in effective regulation, and the legal review they announced in 2021 appears to be stalled. Meanwhile the industry continues to create endless misery.
Then the whole industry was deregulated by the 2005 Gambling Act, and some extremely predatory companies moved in to exploit the new space. The 2008 GFC resulted in a lot of high street shops suddenly becoming empty, particularly in socio-economically poorer areas, and many were converted into betting shops. I understand it used to be the case that banks and bookmakers premises had the same planning designation and so, as banks unloaded their high street premises, they could be converted to betting shops without requiring planning permission.
The present UK government doesn't seem interested in effective regulation, and the legal review they announced in 2021 appears to be stalled. Meanwhile the industry continues to create endless misery.
Is there a bit of a plague of gambling addicts? I kind of see it here in the US with sports gambling and people buying hundreds of dollars in lotto tickets. Not quite epidemic proportions but it is bad, especially with men.
This is one of the negative legacies of the Blair era, the expansion of gambling. On behalf of party donors.
(They nearly got away with taking a bribe from Ecclestone to liberalize cigarette advertising, but people spotted that)
(They nearly got away with taking a bribe from Ecclestone to liberalize cigarette advertising, but people spotted that)
Yes, it's extremely popular here.
The US has a similar 'WTF' when it comes to pharmaceutical ads.
The US has a similar 'WTF' when it comes to pharmaceutical ads.
Not to mention political ads.
It's the most dystopian wtf moment I've experienced in my life. Dramatic music, documentary-like-voice as if about how someone will murder everyone you know, and the whole point is "don't vote for this person based on the feelings I just made you feel".
It's the most dystopian wtf moment I've experienced in my life. Dramatic music, documentary-like-voice as if about how someone will murder everyone you know, and the whole point is "don't vote for this person based on the feelings I just made you feel".
Pharmaceutical ads are much more dystopian I think.
Politically influencing people through advertisements regarding who to vote for is plenty democratic and civilized. Those ads are actually very well curtailed by slander and libel laws. Any/everything said about another candidate is almost definitely true, albeit sensationalized.
Politically influencing people through advertisements regarding who to vote for is plenty democratic and civilized. Those ads are actually very well curtailed by slander and libel laws. Any/everything said about another candidate is almost definitely true, albeit sensationalized.
I wont argue at what takes the dystopian price. However, I did not find those types of advertisements democratic or civilized. In fact, I would argue that the type of advertisement almost fits the definition of terrorism. A veiled threat of violence for political gain. Just not the straight up obvious kind of violence. Just legal, and common place in the US. Absolutely horrifying for someone visiting during a primary/general election.
And, whether or not something is covered by slander and libel laws is absolutely meaningless. You can convey the same emotional message without actually making statements, if what you want is just to scare people.
"Do you reaaally want to find out if your kids will be safe to walk home from school if X is elected for office? Imagine the phone call you receive from the police department when they ask you to identify the body. Don't wait for that phone call. Vote for Y, tough on crime...."
No statements here, no slander. Just a perversion of a democratic process.
And, whether or not something is covered by slander and libel laws is absolutely meaningless. You can convey the same emotional message without actually making statements, if what you want is just to scare people.
"Do you reaaally want to find out if your kids will be safe to walk home from school if X is elected for office? Imagine the phone call you receive from the police department when they ask you to identify the body. Don't wait for that phone call. Vote for Y, tough on crime...."
No statements here, no slander. Just a perversion of a democratic process.
Hmmm, I’ve never heard seen ads like that. I wouldn’t have thought your example was legal, actually. Maybe other states? If that was your experience I can see why you feel that way.
There are some examples given here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_ad
The US has a similar 'WTF' when it comes to pharmaceutical ads.
The US is heading in a similar direction with gambling, if we aren't there already. Sports betting it feels like makes up half of the advertising and sponsorships you see when you watch professional sports these days.
The US is heading in a similar direction with gambling, if we aren't there already. Sports betting it feels like makes up half of the advertising and sponsorships you see when you watch professional sports these days.
I'm waiting for people to realize watching sports are a negative externality.
>Environmental damage(transportation)
>Addiction
>Opportunity cost
>Celeb worship
and only partially related:
>Sports betting(and addiction to betting)
Its a hard pill to take, I habitually watch my university's football team. It is depressing since they lose and their expectations are high. Even the year they won, I can't help to think how many hours I wasted on useless feeder teams and previous seasons. There is a community aspect, but this is overblown because nearly every hobby has a community.
Nothing wrong with playing sports, but there is a reason for the phrase 'bread and circuses'.
>Environmental damage(transportation)
>Addiction
>Opportunity cost
>Celeb worship
and only partially related:
>Sports betting(and addiction to betting)
Its a hard pill to take, I habitually watch my university's football team. It is depressing since they lose and their expectations are high. Even the year they won, I can't help to think how many hours I wasted on useless feeder teams and previous seasons. There is a community aspect, but this is overblown because nearly every hobby has a community.
Nothing wrong with playing sports, but there is a reason for the phrase 'bread and circuses'.
In addition, an often overlooked aspect of watching sports is the emasculation of men and the channeling of their physical energy into something pointless and profitable, rather than towards social unrest or displeasure with the ruling class.
It also provides an artificial sense of community where people celebrate the success of something in which they have no part. It's a vicarious form of community achievement which takes effort and money from real communities, like your neighbors and the city around you.
It also provides an artificial sense of community where people celebrate the success of something in which they have no part. It's a vicarious form of community achievement which takes effort and money from real communities, like your neighbors and the city around you.
People have been shitting on sports for all those reasons since I was in Kindergarten. But you know, I think it makes people happy in a unique way.
The way I like to understand it: Sports shows are just soap operas for men.
More like simulated warfare designed to tap into that primal urge to hurt tribal enemies. Politics has now moved in that direction.
I thought that was "professional wrestling" ?
>I think it makes people happy in a unique way.
Artificially and without any input from the user.
Just because the masses of population do something, doesnt make it good.
Artificially and without any input from the user.
Just because the masses of population do something, doesnt make it good.
I hadn't watched sports in my 20's thinking it a waste of time. I starting watching in my 40's when my son had an interest and it's been a fun bonding experience. And in the US corporate world, it's one of the few things (besides the weather) you can discuss with folks that won't potentially get everyone all angry and worked up.
>won't potentially get everyone all angry and worked up.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
But also, those are plenty of things to bond over. Watching sports to bond must be one of the most shallow types of bonding.
Anyway, I have yet to have a coworker get worked up about casual conversation and I don't watch sports anymore. Seems like a non issue.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
But also, those are plenty of things to bond over. Watching sports to bond must be one of the most shallow types of bonding.
Anyway, I have yet to have a coworker get worked up about casual conversation and I don't watch sports anymore. Seems like a non issue.
> But also, those are plenty of things to bond over. Watching sports to bond must be one of the most shallow types of bonding.
Honestly, that's all many people are looking for in an office setting. They aren't looking to get into deep discussions about their dreams and fears, they just want to know the people they're working with are friendly and talk about something other than work for a bit.
Honestly, that's all many people are looking for in an office setting. They aren't looking to get into deep discussions about their dreams and fears, they just want to know the people they're working with are friendly and talk about something other than work for a bit.
I had a similar WTF when a local hospital (in the US) had a marketing "thank you for choosing our hospital" after I called to schedule a test. Get that BS out of the medical system.
And, increasingly, gambling ads.
Our anti-gambling slogan is: when the fun stops, stop.
If you're addicted there is no fun. And to stop, you can't stop. Kind of an ridiculous slogan don't you think?
If you're addicted there is no fun. And to stop, you can't stop. Kind of an ridiculous slogan don't you think?
Well, it's like the booze industry's Drink Responsibly shtick.
They don't really have an interest for their best customers to drink responsibly.
Same as the gambling industry is not interested that their best clients stop. Regardless if the fun stopped or not.
They don't really have an interest for their best customers to drink responsibly.
Same as the gambling industry is not interested that their best clients stop. Regardless if the fun stopped or not.
Which actually works for me, I go weeks without having so much as a hard cider. However I don't think slick slogans work with addicts.
It is like that in France too, and it’s especially disturbing since it’s aimed at young people.
I'm all for the legalization of cannabis/gambling/alcohol/prostitution/etc. but I do believe that advertising for these industries are a net negative for society. We're all used to alcohol advertising by now but it's objectively just as bad as the rest.
'We're all used to alcohol advertising' - I can not stand to see alcohol advertising in certain places where I know it should be trivial to block it - like ads in google news..
There are some regulations or standard applied to alcohol ads though right? And not allowed for in content / showing people drink it TV shows as well?
I am for free speech.. so I hate to say ban ads.. but I can see 'no sexy models pushing alcohol / gamblin' - perhaps they should be words only and no imagery allowed.. still want optout option for google news and similar.. nice if can be opted out at an ip level - seeing those ads on chromecast and other devices, meh!
There are some regulations or standard applied to alcohol ads though right? And not allowed for in content / showing people drink it TV shows as well?
I am for free speech.. so I hate to say ban ads.. but I can see 'no sexy models pushing alcohol / gamblin' - perhaps they should be words only and no imagery allowed.. still want optout option for google news and similar.. nice if can be opted out at an ip level - seeing those ads on chromecast and other devices, meh!
I think most advertising is a net negative for society. I'm all for legalizing the things you mentioned, but every one of them needs to be heavily regulated and a part of that should mean limits on ads along with where/when those products can be bought and enjoyed.
I'm interested in this line "Many media outlets are increasingly reliant on money from betting companies" as I'd be interested to know how reliant the Guardian was on this revenue. Is stopping this type of advertising a big impact on their top line?
I applaud the move either way, but stopping doing something that's 0.1% of your revenue vs something that is 25% are two very different things.
I applaud the move either way, but stopping doing something that's 0.1% of your revenue vs something that is 25% are two very different things.
I doubt Guardian is as reliant as say Sky is. Betting is pretty much the primary driver of revenue for their sports coverage, and indeed football as a whole. It seems half of premier teams have some form of betting company on their shirt -- often aimed at those in the far east
Although I see that's on the way out
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65260002
And good riddance too
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/65601190
Although I see that's on the way out
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65260002
And good riddance too
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/65601190
Sky as in Sky Bet?
https://skybet.com/
https://skybet.com/
Sky Bet is a different company to Sky, they set it up and sold it along with the branding rights.
But obviously it does create a perception of conflict of interest...
But obviously it does create a perception of conflict of interest...
I don't know about Guardian specifically, but marketing spend is a big part of what the gambling companies do: e.g. GVC spent about £500million on marketing in 2019 https://entaingroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/GVC-2019-...
Judging people and companies on motivations rather than actions is kind of a losing game. You can never really know for sure, and it’s easy to speculate in every direction.
It seems inevitable since even when actions are the same, intent really does matter. An adult inviting a child into their home is an action that happens every day, but intent is pretty important.
We should speculate in every direction while considering the motivations of a person or company, and we should weigh the likelihood and potential costs of being right or wrong about our suspicions when choosing how to react to events. Blinding ourselves to motivations (actual or possible) is a losing game which will only make us easier to manipulate.
We should speculate in every direction while considering the motivations of a person or company, and we should weigh the likelihood and potential costs of being right or wrong about our suspicions when choosing how to react to events. Blinding ourselves to motivations (actual or possible) is a losing game which will only make us easier to manipulate.
> We should speculate in every direction while considering the motivations of a person or company, and we should weigh the likelihood and potential costs of being right or wrong about our suspicions when choosing how to react to events. Blinding ourselves to motivations (actual or possible) is a losing game which will only make us easier to manipulate.
Totally disagree, especially for companies. Companies are usually thousands of people. Any action was probably hotly debated, and some agreed and some opposed. It's just silly to treat a company like an individual person who has good motivations and bad motivations.
You do you, but I don't think making up motivations and then acting like they're true makes anyone less easy to manipulate.
Totally disagree, especially for companies. Companies are usually thousands of people. Any action was probably hotly debated, and some agreed and some opposed. It's just silly to treat a company like an individual person who has good motivations and bad motivations.
You do you, but I don't think making up motivations and then acting like they're true makes anyone less easy to manipulate.
If you run a successful blog or similar, you will start getting offers from gambling companies wanting to purchase advertising and articles. These are legitimate offers and they pay well - even if your content is very local or narrow, such as citizen journalism. Gambling is an extremely profitable business, and they want as many customers as possible. Expect their advertising to only grow.
The Telegraph seems to get quite a bit of revenue from their gambling content.
An example is https://www.telegraph.co.uk/betting/casino-guides/blackjack/
It's just odd to have this on a trusted national newspaper. Feels very out of place.
An example is https://www.telegraph.co.uk/betting/casino-guides/blackjack/
It's just odd to have this on a trusted national newspaper. Feels very out of place.
Depravity.
Gambling is depravity? What? Has HN suddenly become a puritanical news site or something?
Nay, you are wrong to think that I am a Puritan. It is just that the website is horrible and I used 'depravity' in a humorous sense.
They won't tell you, or give an exact figure, other than this nonsense:
> Guardian Media Group increasingly relies on contributions directly from readers, rather than advertising, for its income.
Which is no wonder they 'seem' to be continuously begging their readers to pay. Now after this, I should expect them to be begging even more aggressively, unless someone is funding them grants or what not, since they are still not telling us something or giving an exact figure.
Either way, one-sided publications like the Guardian is hardly worth paying for regardless.
> Guardian Media Group increasingly relies on contributions directly from readers, rather than advertising, for its income.
Which is no wonder they 'seem' to be continuously begging their readers to pay. Now after this, I should expect them to be begging even more aggressively, unless someone is funding them grants or what not, since they are still not telling us something or giving an exact figure.
Either way, one-sided publications like the Guardian is hardly worth paying for regardless.
The Australian operation of the Guardian has said recently that donations from readers are now more than 50% of the revenue. And they’re trying to increase that percentage further. Not sure about their UK or US operations.
That is quite phenomenal really - I don't think any other widely-used service (other than actual charities) operates on that basis. Though I don't really see my monthly payment (a whole $10, mind you) as a donation. But their spiel that convinces readers to do so is well-written, and hooked me in. Well that, and just a look at how bad the quality of most other online news sources was, seemingly particularly the ones operated by profitable companies.
> Either way, one-sided publications like the Guardian is hardly worth paying for regardless.
There is hardly anything better left though and the Guardian is one of the very few independent major publications left which is something.
> begging even more aggressively
So you prefer a paywall or them being reliant on gambling ads, maybe a rich owner who definitely has no agenda buying it would be the best option?
There is hardly anything better left though and the Guardian is one of the very few independent major publications left which is something.
> begging even more aggressively
So you prefer a paywall or them being reliant on gambling ads, maybe a rich owner who definitely has no agenda buying it would be the best option?
also The Guardian's sports coverage is second to none, including The Athletic
All UK newspapers are partisan, mostly to the right wing.
"When you wake up to the fact /
That your paper is Tory /
Just remember: /
There are two sides to every story"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riMTjJMytpc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riMTjJMytpc
I was watching the NBA playoffs and I found that the numbers of ads from betting apps was higher than any other category. I don't think this is a healthy trend. Also unlike last year, this year we did not see any crypto ads.. so that's a good thing.
I was in Boston last week and DraftKings sportsbook was plastered all over the place. I've also gotten mailings at home.
They recently legalized sports betting in MA. My SO lives in the North End and even I didn’t realize until I noticed Boston go from normal ads to sports betting ads being everywhere in the city.
https://www.wcvb.com/amp/article/massachusetts-sports-bettin...
https://www.wcvb.com/amp/article/massachusetts-sports-bettin...
I didn't know either until I saw the ads everywhere. I don't live in the city and don't really pay a huge amount of attention to the local news.
The Daily has a good episode on how online sports betting moves into one state at a time: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/10/podcasts/the-daily/sports...
I work on advertising and draw a hard line for myself: no promoting gambling or mobile apps that are mostly gambling. I think it should be legal to gamble but illegal to advertise it.
Yup, with you. I've run my own wee concern for about 14 years and the only Gambling-related job I took on was helping a fairly desperate friend out with a very small something that utimately didn't come to pass, for promoting 'PaddyPower'.
It kind of amuses me thinking of all the contracts I might consider whereas jobs for Gambling companies are an immediate 'Nope'.
Such a nasty industry.
It kind of amuses me thinking of all the contracts I might consider whereas jobs for Gambling companies are an immediate 'Nope'.
Such a nasty industry.
I was(and might still be) a libertarian that believes in legalization of everything... But you get older and you see the effects of drugs, gambling, etc...
Humans have almost no control over the reptilian part of the brain, this is the part that keeps people coming back to drugs and gambling. (There is a book Power of Habit, my number 1 book ever, that talks about how that reptile brain works, I'd pay $100k for that book)
If humans have no control over something, maybe there is a case for big brother stepping in. But not if having a black market actually improves the condition.
Humans have almost no control over the reptilian part of the brain, this is the part that keeps people coming back to drugs and gambling. (There is a book Power of Habit, my number 1 book ever, that talks about how that reptile brain works, I'd pay $100k for that book)
If humans have no control over something, maybe there is a case for big brother stepping in. But not if having a black market actually improves the condition.
Here in California, the state government itself advertises gambling, promoting the California Lottery. I find this extra frustrating - my tax dollars are being spent to encourage dumb behavior by other citizens.
It’s not your tax dollars at work, it’s the opposite. The CA lottery generates about $2B, 1% of total funds that go to public schools.
It encourages dumb behavior but brings in money for the state. Is it a net win or net loss… depends on how much the negative externality is valued—is lotto a gateway to more gambling or a substitute for other, costlier gambling?
There are plenty of people who argue that lotteries should be banned, which is fine, but that will result in fewer services or higher taxes.
It encourages dumb behavior but brings in money for the state. Is it a net win or net loss… depends on how much the negative externality is valued—is lotto a gateway to more gambling or a substitute for other, costlier gambling?
There are plenty of people who argue that lotteries should be banned, which is fine, but that will result in fewer services or higher taxes.
The way I see it, California extracts plenty of money from its citizens via taxes. When they decide to extract this money via a lottery instead, all the overhead of the lottery is just a complete waste. That includes advertising the lottery and implementing the lottery.
Except it extract $ from the poorest in the state. People who need the money the most.
You don't see lottery signs in the rich neighborhoods of Los Angeles. You only see them in the poor ones.
So that money that it generates? We're still paying for that, as those people now need more help to get around.
And I say 'we', but I'm out.
You don't see lottery signs in the rich neighborhoods of Los Angeles. You only see them in the poor ones.
So that money that it generates? We're still paying for that, as those people now need more help to get around.
And I say 'we', but I'm out.
I guarantee your lottery makes many times over what it costs to advertise, so not a dime of your tax dollars goes into it. If you're buying lottery tickets then yeah a portion of that goes into it. think, Mark, think.
man it's crazy to me that some people have so little self control, that the only caring option is the nuclear one, to simply never risk exposing ANYONE to the thing that these people are addicted to or compulsive about.
Like I can see a gambling ad without wanting to gamble, but other people have it SO BAD that the Guardian is avoiding showing me gambling ads, just to be on the safe side. it's shocking.
Like I can see a gambling ad without wanting to gamble, but other people have it SO BAD that the Guardian is avoiding showing me gambling ads, just to be on the safe side. it's shocking.
Addiction is hard to understand unless you're yourself an addict. Especially on an emotional level.
UK bookies are evil. It’s rather easy to win money from them, but they are extremely good at spotting smart money and will immediately limit your account.
If you have a long term account with a bookie, you are a loser. (in monetary terms. :))
If you have a long term account with a bookie, you are a loser. (in monetary terms. :))
Where I am, there has been talk of banning these ads statewide, but of course, that may be just a fund-raiser for the upcomming election. :(
The is significant. Gambling and football betting ads make up a significant percentage of TV, radio, and newspaper ads in Western Europe.
Canada needs to do this, it’s out of control on every media avenue.
amelius(1)
zirgs(3)
Laudable I guess. But it does seem relevant to note that The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust, which is sitting on £1bn+ assets.
Weird that they should call it a “ban”, as though there’s a legal aspect to it, or as if it applies to entities beyond the company’s direct control. Aren’t they just stopping it?
Not sure if it’s related to the fact thay they’re excluding state-sponsored gambling from the “ban”.
Not sure if it’s related to the fact thay they’re excluding state-sponsored gambling from the “ban”.
It is common in journalism to write total nonsense into headlines.
Nothing about the word "ban" requires a legal aspect.
Apart from the vast majority of its definitions?
But the minority definitions are exactly why I added the “or” part.
But the minority definitions are exactly why I added the “or” part.
There's those who view the insurance industry as a form of gambling...
for the sellers of insurance: it is
but as a purchaser of insurance you're giving up a risk in exchange for a fixed loss, which is the exact opposite of gambling
but as a purchaser of insurance you're giving up a risk in exchange for a fixed loss, which is the exact opposite of gambling
Assuming the insurance company doesn't deny your claim.