Ban gambling adverts?

Montage of Feck

Cigarette advertising, as I remember it, was aesthetically really well done whatever about the morals.
Gambling advertising on the other hand is universally crass and should be banned if only for that reason.

El_Duderino 09

Montage of Feck wrote: »

Cigarette advertising, as I remember it, was aesthetically really well done whatever about the morals.
Gambling advertising on the other hand is universally crass and should be banned if only for that reason.

It might be crass but it’s effective.

They’re interesting ads to see how they target their audience. The bingo ads with people looking super excited, playing bingo while sitting on the sofa - aimed at bored housewives. And the ads where groups of any-lads are having the big lols betting in groups - presumably aimed at socially isolated young lads. And the ads where the modern yuppie in his suit is running to catch the bus and everyone around him admiring how clever he is for gambling on the bus

If they weren’t effective they wouldn’t be everywhere.

square ball

km991148 wrote: »

You say "someone else's fault" as if it's the innocent ol' gambling company that is just trying to ply their trade in peace while conveniently ignoring the fact that they spend millions on R&D to make sure they get people hooked. Crazy amounts of money is spent on building the most addictive games possible. Money is spent understanding how the brain works and how it can be exploited.

Siphoning off a percentage for education.. it's not going to cut it really. That's why a little bit of regulation is being suggested to tip the scales back into balance.

It doesn't mean that gambling is next to be banned or any such nonsense (which of course won't work anyway as prohibition rarely does).

Besides if you are putting a few quid on with a pint or two them you are probably not the target audience for this legislation, so why would it bother you?

I say someone else's fault as people look to blame someone else for their problems. Plenty of alcoholics, drug users and gamblers who will blame everyone else but themselves for their addiction. Gambling companies are not innocent but they aren't holding guns to peoples heard forcing them to spend money.

If R&D and advertising is so successful how come I'm not addicted to gambling? Every company in the world selling anything, pump money into R&D to ensure consumers spend more money. They try to learn more about human behaviour and exploit areas where people can be influenced. That's the point of it.

My girlfriend spends more money on clothes she will never wear than I spend on gambling. She also loves 'buy 2 get one free deals' and will buy more if items are on 'offer' she thinks even when she is only needs one item. Should we ban advertising on online shopping if she spends too much?

It doesn't affect me too much, it's the principle that bothers me. Banning gambling ads is not really regulation it's censorship.

El_Duderino 09

square ball wrote: »

I say someone else's fault as people look to blame someone else for their problems. Plenty of alcoholics, drug users and gamblers who will blame everyone else but themselves for their addiction. Gambling companies are not innocent but they aren't holding guns to peoples heard forcing them to spend money.

If R&D and advertising is so successful how come I'm not addicted to gambling? Every company in the world selling anything, pump money into R&D to ensure consumers spend more money. They try to learn more about human behaviour and exploit areas where people can be influenced. That's the point of it.

My girlfriend spends more money on clothes she will never wear than I spend on gambling. She also loves 'buy 2 get one free deals' and will buy more if items are on 'offer' she thinks even when she is only needs one item. Should we ban advertising on online shopping if she spends too much?

It doesn't affect me too much, it's the principle that bothers me. Banning gambling ads is not really regulation it's censorship.

Re the bit in bold: do you think that in order for advertising to be deemed effective it would need everyone will be equally effective to everyone who views it?

Montage of Feck

Advertising is basically physiological manipulation. Adam Curtis's did a very good series on it, "the century of the self".

El_Duderino 09

Montage of Feck wrote: »

Advertising is basically physiological manipulation. Adam Curtis's did a very good series on it, "the century of the self".

Of course it is. But some products are more addictive than others and some addictions are more detrimental than others. Gambling is both highly addictive and highly detrimental and it should have a different set of regulation to ads for a local plumber.

km991148

square ball wrote: »

I say someone else's fault as people look to blame someone else for their problems. Plenty of alcoholics, drug users and gamblers who will blame everyone else but themselves for their addiction. Gambling companies are not innocent but they aren't holding guns to peoples heard forcing them to spend money.

If R&D and advertising is so successful how come I'm not addicted to gambling? Every company in the world selling anything, pump money into R&D to ensure consumers spend more money. They try to learn more about human behaviour and exploit areas where people can be influenced. That's the point of it.

My girlfriend spends more money on clothes she will never wear than I spend on gambling. She also loves 'buy 2 get one free deals' and will buy more if items are on 'offer' she thinks even when she is only needs one item. Should we ban advertising on online shopping if she spends too much?

It doesn't affect me too much, it's the principle that bothers me. Banning gambling ads is not really regulation it's censorship.

You are probably not the target audience.
The r&d money isn't on advertising. It's on all the other games and gambling features built into the apps that are designed to maximise the dopamine hit. It really is based on psychology and brain chemistry. Tbh banning advertising AND putting limit on game types and promotions is probably what is required to make it more fair. 'normal' gambling is one thing (bet on the horses, an accumulator or whatever), but the new stuff is like crack to some people and once you are hooked into it, it is very difficult to get back out and not just a case of taking responsibility for your actions (although that ALSO has to happen), growing a pair, being an adult or any other thought talking thing.

This is a proposal to find some balance in an industry that invests heavily in finding new ways to target, exploit and manipulate specific demographics. I don't actually see why anyone would be against some control around it if it is shown to have a positive effect on society. Just for absolutely clarification I don't believe in banning gambling, nor do I think this is an inroad to that outcome.

km991148

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course it is. But some products are more addictive than others and some addictions are more detrimental than others. Gambling is both highly addictive and highly detrimental and it should have a different set of regulation to ads for a local plumber.

I just love seeing the washers replaced on my taps. I pay a fortune to see someone do it. But that's a whole other story :pac:

kippy

realdanbreen wrote: »

We also know families that have no heating because of a husband who drank every euro he could lay his hands on. Does that mean we should introduce alcohol prohibition? Fact is the vast majority who gamble enjoy it and bet sensibly.

That doesn't really mean that advertising is shouldn't be banned though - does it?

Kids are exposed to it as a "past time/hobby" (some one described it as such above) and it's now more prevalent in professional football coverage than the football itself, be it on the jerseys, hoardings, advertisments at half time/during the match or elsewhere.

People still have their heads in the sand about how much of an issue gambling is in every town and village in this country.
Sure - let the "sensible" gamblers do what they want but lets make advertising it illegal and teach our kids about its' dangers rather than glorifying it.

kippy

square ball wrote: »

I say someone else's fault as people look to blame someone else for their problems. Plenty of alcoholics, drug users and gamblers who will blame everyone else but themselves for their addiction. Gambling companies are not innocent but they aren't holding guns to peoples heard forcing them to spend money.

If R&D and advertising is so successful how come I'm not addicted to gambling? Every company in the world selling anything, pump money into R&D to ensure consumers spend more money. They try to learn more about human behaviour and exploit areas where people can be influenced. That's the point of it.

My girlfriend spends more money on clothes she will never wear than I spend on gambling. She also loves 'buy 2 get one free deals' and will buy more if items are on 'offer' she thinks even when she is only needs one item. Should we ban advertising on online shopping if she spends too much?

It doesn't affect me too much, it's the principle that bothers me. Banning gambling ads is not really regulation it's censorship.

Kids are exposed to gambling much younger - it's "normal" behaviour almost - you can see it even in your post. Gambling on certain sports is a complete "must" nowadays to enjoy the sport - according to some advertising.


No doubt there is a bit of "It's someone elses fault if I am addicted to anything" but we should not let gambling come across as a "normal" every day behavior.

You're attempt to "look over there at this other issue that has nothing to do with gambling but also costs money" isn't really relevant.
I am sure there are families and people struggling as a result of spending too much money on shopping or something else, but you only have to read a few posts on this site from recovering gamblers to see the damage it did them and their families.
Normalising Gambling, as has been happening the past few decades eventually gets more and more people gambling, a significant percentage of these people will get addicted and it will ruin their lives. The more people gamble, the more people this will happen to - simple percentages.

Granted there are a number of vested interested and some mental gymnastics that go on all the time around this topic but less advertising isn't a bad thing.

Fr Tod Umptious

CrazyFather1 wrote: »

If people can show banning alcohol ad actually worked then yes I would say ban gambling. Yet to see anything to say it has

What it has hurt is the sports organisations,

When exactly was alcohol advertising banned ?

I think I missed that one.

km991148

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

When exactly was alcohol advertising banned ?

I think I missed that one.

Not banned, but some restrictions. Probably not enough really. I'm not really sure why alcohol needs to be advertised. Every one who drinks knows what they like really. It's rare that you see new products on the market.


Fu(k it ban those ads too.

Elmo

Ramasun wrote: »

The Labour party is drafting proposals to ban gambling advertising. It seems like this has been an annoyance or cause for concern for years. I'm surprised no political party has taken it on before. Too many vested interests?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40228859.html

Strange Rabbitte was Minister for Communications for years, as was Alex White.

I would point out that the BAI have rules around broadcast adverts.

Cienciano

Mike Murdock wrote: »

Should we ban booze advertising too then?

After all, booze causes untold misery to families all over the country

Would anyone have a problem with alcohol ads banned? I doubt it. I drink and gamble, I'd be happy enough to see advertising for both of them banned, same as was done for smoking.

One positive re online gambling is the banning of using credit cards.

Fr Tod Umptious

Cienciano wrote: »

Would anyone have a problem with alcohol ads banned? I doubt it. I drink and gamble, I'd be happy enough to see advertising for both of them banned, same as was done for smoking.

I think the ban on tobacco advertising has had a real effect on cutting the numbers of people starting to smoke in this county.

In the 1980s when I grew you had tobacco advertising on billboards, newspapers, magazines (The RTE Guide, the best selling magazine in the country had the full back over as a cig. ad), shop fronts, sports sponsorship etc
The only place it was not was TV and radio.

Every smoker has to start somewhere so as a 14 year old from a non-smoking house I had no bother plucking up the courage to go into a shop and ask for "10 Major" because I knew well what I was asking for, what "10 Major" looked like, what "10 Major" cost etc.
And all my friends, both smokers and non smokers did too.

Now fast forward that to 2021.
I really doubt that a14 year old would have to courage to go into a shop and ask for "20 Major" (they don't sell 10s anymore) the way I did.
Because very few parents or friends smoke, tobacco is not visible, nor is it visible in advertising.
So they do not know what "20 Major" (or SilkCut, or Players, or Woodbines) look like.
They do not know how much they cost.
They can't even point to them behind the counter.
They know nothing about them, unlike we did in the '80s
And thus they are less likely to go looking for them and take up smoking

Elmo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Now fast forward that to 2021.
I really doubt that a14 year old would have to courage to go into a shop and ask for "20 Major" (they don't sell 10s anymore) the way I did.
Because very few parents or friends smoke, tobacco is not visible, nor is it visible in advertising.
So they do not know what "20 Major" (or SilkCut, or Players, or Woodbines) look like.
They do not know how much they cost.
They can't even point to them behind the counter.
They know nothing about them, unlike we did in the '80s
And thus they are less likely to go looking for them and take up smoking

Well the number of young people still smoking is always surprising. I knew smoking was bad and I was from a non-smoking family, but 2 of my sisters smoked, never understood.

Gambling on the other hand, I will take a bet on who mentions the Nazi in this thread. 5 euros it will be about 20 post after this.

El_Duderino 09

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I think the ban on tobacco advertising has had a real effect on cutting the numbers of people starting to smoke in this county.

In the 1980s when I grew you had tobacco advertising on billboards, newspapers, magazines (The RTE Guide, the best selling magazine in the country had the full back over as a cig. ad), shop fronts, sports sponsorship etc
The only place it was not was TV and radio.

Every smoker has to start somewhere so as a 14 year old from a non-smoking house I had no bother plucking up the courage to go into a shop and ask for "10 Major" because I knew well what I was asking for, what "10 Major" looked like, what "10 Major" cost etc.
And all my friends, both smokers and non smokers did too.

Now fast forward that to 2021.
I really doubt that a14 year old would have to courage to go into a shop and ask for "20 Major" (they don't sell 10s anymore) the way I did.
Because very few parents or friends smoke, tobacco is not visible, nor is it visible in advertising.
So they do not know what "20 Major" (or SilkCut, or Players, or Woodbines) look like.
They do not know how much they cost.
They can't even point to them behind the counter.
They know nothing about them, unlike we did in the '80s
And thus they are less likely to go looking for them and take up smoking

About 25% of the population smoked in 2003. About 17% smoked in 2019. I wouldn't claim how much of is due to advertising and how much due to other measures, but between them they have certainly worked.

Ri_Nollaig

would lotto ads be included in this?

El_Duderino 09

Elmo wrote: »

Well the number of young people still smoking is always surprising. I knew smoking was bad and I was from a non-smoking family, but 2 of my sisters smoked, never understood.

Gambling on the other hand, I will take a bet on who mentions the Nazi in this thread. 5 euros it will be about 20 post after this.

Young people have always smoked at a higher rate but young people have been the group who moved away from cigarettes since 2003, your sisters notwithstanding.
"The greatest decline in smoking rates was among young adults aged 18-24 years: decreasing from 32% in 2003 to 18% in 2019 (-14 percentage points). There has also been a marked decrease amongst those aged 15-17 years (-8 percentage points) and 25-34 years (-13 percentage points)"

https://publicpolicy.ie/papers/trends-in-smoking-prevalence-and-tobacco-consumption/#:~:text=It%20should%20be%20noted%20that,Department%20of%20Health%2C%202019).

El_Duderino 09

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

would lotto ads be included in this?

I don't know. Whether it should be included should depend on whether the lotto is a big problem. Is the lotto a big problem?

km991148

Elmo wrote: »

who mentions the Nazi in this thread. 5 euros it will be about 20 post after this.

I'll take that. You're a Nazi and you owe me a fiver!

Ri_Nollaig

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know. Whether it should be included should depend on whether the lotto is a big problem. Is the lotto a big problem?

dunno, playing devils advocate here

but it is gambling and bit unfair to include the stereotypical ones like paddy power and not the national lotto.
It has just as many games with sketch cards etc

Cienciano

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I think the ban on tobacco advertising has had a real effect on cutting the numbers of people starting to smoke in this county.

In the 1980s when I grew you had tobacco advertising on billboards, newspapers, magazines (The RTE Guide, the best selling magazine in the country had the full back over as a cig. ad), shop fronts, sports sponsorship etc
The only place it was not was TV and radio.

Every smoker has to start somewhere so as a 14 year old from a non-smoking house I had no bother plucking up the courage to go into a shop and ask for "10 Major" because I knew well what I was asking for, what "10 Major" looked like, what "10 Major" cost etc.
And all my friends, both smokers and non smokers did too.

Now fast forward that to 2021.
I really doubt that a14 year old would have to courage to go into a shop and ask for "20 Major" (they don't sell 10s anymore) the way I did.
Because very few parents or friends smoke, tobacco is not visible, nor is it visible in advertising.
So they do not know what "20 Major" (or SilkCut, or Players, or Woodbines) look like.
They do not know how much they cost.
They can't even point to them behind the counter.
They know nothing about them, unlike we did in the '80s
And thus they are less likely to go looking for them and take up smoking

Definitely, the benefits won't be seen for a few years. But it should be done sooner rather than later.

kippy

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

would lotto ads be included in this?

This is where things get "interesting".
"Gambling" is a fairly loose term when you look into it.
Outside of the national lotto, there are hundreds if not thousands of local lotto draws ran as fundraisers for GAA Clubs, Soccer Clubs, Old folks Homes and various other "good causes". Are these groups permitted to advertise - if so where?
With the major links between addictive gambling and high performing (GAA mostly) and the fact that a lot of the GAA are now turning against "Gambling" there are some things to be answered here.

I know the national lottery has some controls in place on it's online platforms but not so feasible for shop bought tickets and national lottery advertising is EVERYWHERE you look due to them funding a lot of community and local initiatives.

El_Duderino 09

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

dunno, playing devils advocate here

but it is gambling and bit unfair to include the stereotypical ones like paddy power and not the national lotto.
It has just as many games with sketch cards etc

Ah yeah, but are they legislating for a reason (to reduce harm) or just legislating for the sake of legislating?

If the lotto causes harm comparable to other gambling sites, then I would support inclusion. If not then I wouldn’t.

If you weren’t playing devils advocate, what would you think?

happyoutscan

National Lottery Scratch Cards are another scam. I'd ban them before I'd ban traditional gambling.

AndrewJRenko

Yes, yes, yes, ban the exploitive gambling adverts.

And ban car adverts, or at least require them to be realistic - instead of cruising on wide open roads, they should show the driver stuck at the arse end of Pearse St at 4pm on a wet Thursday afternoon, with the kids dribbling their snacks on the back seat.

mikeym

Would that apply to Winning Streak?

That is some outdated Sh*tshow.

osarusan

Montage of Feck wrote: »

Cigarette advertising, as I remember it, was aesthetically really well done whatever about the morals.

Sure was well done.