The long debate over gambling advertising in the UK continues, with a voluntary whistle-to-whistle ban on gambling advertising during live sporting events going into effect this summer, and the Bishop of St Albans just yesterday calling for the Premier League to ban all gaming sponsorships from league players’ kits.
In light of this, Tuesday’s ICE London panel about a potential expansion of the ad ban opened up a number of avenues of conversation. The debate featured a strong set of panelists: Head of Regulator Affairs for Belgium Roland Lowsky, Secretary General of the European Association for the Study of Gambling Peter Remmers, BestBet360 CEO Dolan Bethuin and Sense 4 Gaming Principal Consultant Robert Brassai.
Lowsky’s introductory comments indicated that he views gambling advertising as a soft target for politicians and suggested that Belgium’s actions to restrict advertising may unfortunately end up serving as a panacea which absolves the industry from solving some of the more intractable challenges related to problem gambling. Riskier games are restricted further under the Belgian system, according to Lowsky, indicating a degree of finesse. More independent research is needed and welcome, he said, since, amongst other things, player spend needs to be better understood and monitored.
Remmers maintained that while problem gambling prevalence rates are slightly higher in some countries, on average the problem has not significantly grown over the years.
There are those who would dispute this with reference to particular age groups; in the UK, the 18-25 age range has been found to be particularly inclined towards problem gambling. Remmers suggested that advertising influence on most gamblers is small, except for people who already have existing problems.
In context, this seems intended as a statement of support for gambling advertising, but it could be read both ways. If ad influence is negligible except for its impact on problem gamers, it’s worth considering whether or not it should be used at all.
Remmers also suggested that as AI continues to develop, marketing that uses that technology should be able to aid the industry in identifying problem gamblers and, at least online, avoid targeting them with ads. He pointed out that fewer than 10% of problem gamblers use a professional treatment outlet and reiterated that the industry needs a more proactive focused on prevention.
Beuthin hails from heavily regulated South Africa, which has 100 years of betting and 25 years of casinos behind them. He stated that, in his view a ban on advertising would have little effect.
“Addictive traits are minimal in the total population, and operators need to put more funds towards treatment,” he said. “Banning ads isn’t going to solve problem gambling.” Big operators going after VIPs, high rollers, and whales is, however, a significant problem, he said, especially “when you see that player is starting to hurt… it’s wrong (to then) start pushing him more.”
Brassai echoed Lowry’s opening statement in saying that politicians like topics like this for gaining votes. He advocated for focusing on the Swiss model, which mandates an on-site counselor to help problem gamblers. Swiss casinos also have strict requirements to identify problem gamblers. Brassai went on to argue that land-based operators in a mature business should not be spending money on advertising, anyway – operational optimization shows that companies waste huge amounts of funds on advertising due to a failure to use big data and analysis to better relate to users.
On a side note, the Counsel area at ExCel London, which houses the debates for ICEVOX, is set up in a sort of “silent disco” approach this year, with audience members wearing headphones that tapped directly into panelists’ mics. This works well to minimize the noise of the debate for other areas in the new open plan ICEVOX layout, as well as minimizing distraction for participants
