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

The Government is Under Pressure to Ban Gambling Ads: History Shows Half-Measures Don’t Work

The federal government is due to respond to a parliamentary inquiry into online gambling, which has made a series of recommendations to phase out gambling advertising over three years leading to a total ban. However, reports suggest the government may only implement a partial ban, stopping short of a complete ban on gambling ads.

Advertising Normalises Gambling

- Advertisement -

Advertising is a key way in which industries normalise harmful commodities like gambling. They use marketing tactics such as sponsorships, celebrity endorsements, and charitable donations to promote their products. These same tactics have been employed by alcohol, tobacco, and gambling businesses to entice young people to use their products.

Numerous studies have linked tobacco advertising with young people’s uptake of smoking. Similar research has shown that young people exposed to gambling marketing are also more likely to take up gambling and experience harm from it. Most parents are aware of this, which is why at least 70% of Australians oppose gambling advertising.

The Inquiry

The online gambling inquiry was launched by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy in September 2022. The committee expressed concern about the "increasing reach of online gambling platforms into Australians’ lives", and especially the impact on children and young people. When the report was published in June 2023, the committee made 31 recommendations, including four steps to phase out gambling advertising altogether.

Could a Partial Ban Work? Lessons from Tobacco

History shows that wherever there is an opportunity to promote their product, harmful commodity industries will exploit it. Tobacco companies employed this strategy until the government torpedoed it by introducing comprehensive bans on advertising, sponsorship, and marketing.

Australia’s initial response to the recognition of tobacco’s harms 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 incidental advertising – such as advertisements at sports grounds and on player’s uniforms.

Denormalisation was key to successful campaigns to reduce harm from tobacco. This involved restricting and then banning advertising, sponsorship, and other marketing – along with restricting where tobacco could be consumed. The lessons of tobacco make it clear that if the Murphy recommendations are only partially adopted, gambling businesses will increase spending on anything still allowed.

Do Sporting Codes Need the Money?

The pushback from sporting codes and broadcasters recalls the time when tobacco advertising was restricted. Sporting codes, including the AFL and NRL – alongside some media companies – argue that the sky will fall in if gambling revenue declines. Broadcasters sell premium advertising slots during popular sports coverage and pay a premium to sporting codes for the rights to do so.

However, sporting codes and broadcasters didn’t collapse when tobacco advertising was restricted. They are unlikely to do so because of a gambling ad ban. And Murphy’s recommendations address these concerns through the proposed phase-in. Advertising bans have been effective in other countries. In Spain, the gambling regulator reported no dire consequences for broadcasters and sports teams when ads were banned.

Where to from Here

It’s possible that reports of the government’s intentions are incorrect. The government says it is still consulting and will make an announcement in the coming weeks. Certainly, the Murphy report recommendations require serious consideration. It’s not yet clear how the government proposes to deal with the 30 other recommendations contained in the report, which argue for a national online gambling regulator, more research funding and access to de-identified gambling data, and international agreements to regulate online gambling.

Action to reduce the "gamblification" of video games is also recommended. Adopting only some of the recommendations doesn’t do enough to stop the promotion of gambling and will continue to expose young people to its life-destroying harms.

Conclusion

The government is under pressure to ban gambling ads. History shows half-measures don’t work. A total ban is necessary to protect young people and vulnerable adults from the harms of gambling.

FAQs

Q: What are the recommended steps to phase out gambling advertising?

A: The Murphy report recommends four steps to phase out gambling advertising altogether, including restrictions on ads, sponsorship, and other marketing.

Q: Why is it important to ban gambling ads?

A: Banning gambling ads is important because it will help to reduce the promotion of gambling and protect young people and vulnerable adults from the harms of gambling.

Q: What is the impact of gambling on young people?

A: Research has shown that young people exposed to gambling marketing are more likely to take up gambling and experience harm from it.

Q: What are the consequences of a partial ban on gambling ads?

A: A partial ban on gambling ads will not do enough to stop the promotion of gambling and will continue to expose young people to its life-destroying harms.