Dr. Carran contends that gaming corporations must prioritize safeguarding youth from gambling-associated risks comprehensively. This extends beyond mere compliance with promotional guidelines.
The gaming sector has a longstanding practice of leveraging advertising to stimulate consumption, influencing both perception and expenditure. Considering the substantial economic benefits derived from commercially promoting gambling products, it is unsurprising that the industry continues to allocate significant resources to this facet of its operations. Nevertheless, gambling advertising has attracted persistent criticism, particularly concerning its potential to lure minors into premature gambling and its effects on individuals already grappling with problem gambling.
Although the Gambling Act 2005, as modified by the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014, affords advertising liberties to the gambling sector, it includes a clear caution regarding the protection of children and vulnerable demographics. Deliberately targeting minors is a criminal offense. More broadly, however, ensuring that gambling advertising does not contribute to gambling-related harm among young people is fundamentally the obligation and responsibility of the gambling industry.
All trustworthy gaming firms ensure their promotional departments are well-versed in the advertising regulations – including the CAP Code, the BCAP Code, and all Gambling Commission guidelines on ethical advertising.
These regulations are in place to maintain transparency, so I won’t delve into the specifics. The main point is that gaming promotions shouldn’t target young individuals or present gambling as enticing to them. This requires being particularly cautious not to exploit any weaknesses – such as innocence or inexperience – that might make young people, particularly children, susceptible targets.
However, the crucial question is: are these regulations, established by advertising authorities and the industry itself, truly effective? Are they genuinely safeguarding young individuals from gambling-related harm?
The reality is, further investigation is needed. Currently, there’s insufficient data on how gaming advertising impacts young people specifically within the UK. We can examine research on alcohol and cigarettes, or the practices of other nations, but that’s not enough. Gambling is distinct, as is each country’s culture and regulatory approach.
The existing rules merit commendation for the considerable work both the sector and governing bodies have invested in guaranteeing ethical conduct. Nevertheless, although the present guidelines have mostly limited many of the industry’s most detrimental tendencies to take advantage of those prone to illogical thought, my personal UK-based investigation, centered on wagering and adolescents, indicates an intrinsic defect in the foundational premises supporting the current regulatory structure. This defect rests in the supposition that a distinct separation can be made between material attractive to grown-ups and that which holds no appeal for minors, or that contact can be adequately restricted through time-sensitive constraints.
Data implies these hypotheses are largely baseless, excluding perhaps for very young, prepubescent children, and ultimately seem unsustainable. Time-related and geographical regulations are, practically speaking, inadequate in protecting minors from exposure. Time restrictions apply solely to broadcast promotions, and even then, allowances made for athletic events weaken this, as a substantial proportion of teenagers view sports, frequently with their relatives. Equally unrealistic is the concept that teenagers’ viewing patterns are limited to pre-9 pm programming, particularly given clear proof that those aged 19…
A considerable portion of youngsters, roughly 8% of those aged 4 to 15, continue to engage with television broadcasts after 9 pm, with a subset remaining tuned in even later. This practice of late-night viewing diminishes the efficacy of television program classifications, especially concerning wagering promotions that frequently air during these hours. Consequently, young viewers who should not be exposed to mature material but are nonetheless, encounter a heightened risk from these potentially detrimental advertisements.
Although watershed periods, which limit specific content after a designated hour, are vital for safeguarding younger audiences, their effectiveness wanes when it comes to adolescents. The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) employs a method to ascertain which content holds appeal for children and where gambling promotions should be restricted. Nevertheless, this method fails to consider the substantial convergence of interests between adults and teenagers.
Numerous programs and online platforms intended for grown-ups also draw in teenage viewers. Some adolescents even actively pursue information and promotions for goods and services deemed inappropriate for their age group. This shared interest directly impacts the potency of targeted advertising based on presumed audience preference. In essence, what resonates with adults often resonates similarly with teenagers, sometimes even more profoundly, making it challenging to differentiate between the two demographics.
Present gambling advertisement control measures are falling short. These regulations depend too much on adult perceptions of what’s suitable for young audiences, neglecting how children genuinely interpret these promotions. While youngsters may be captivated by vibrant visuals and enticing claims, they lack a complete understanding of the dangers and potential consequences associated with gambling. Research indicates they often view these advertisements as entertaining, trendy, and even somewhat alluring, particularly when featuring famous personalities or connections to sports.
Furthermore, the regulations don’t adequately tackle the overwhelming quantity of gambling advertisements saturating television, the internet, and printed media. It’s akin to using a small bandage for a significant injury – entirely insufficient for the issue at hand.
Although gaming promotions technically adhere to guidelines by featuring responsible gaming notices and age limits, their sheer quantity is saturating young demographics. Certain minors even state they are inundated with such a high number of gaming promotions that they are entirely put off and exit the site.
The gaming sector must go beyond simply meeting advertising standards and truly comprehend the wider consequences of their activities. Shielding young individuals from gaming-related detriment should be a paramount concern. This ethical strategy could even be advantageous to the sector itself. Envision if everyone, players and non-players alike, trusted that societal accountability was genuinely significant to the industry, not merely a requirement to be fulfilled. This change in perception could considerably enhance the public image of gaming. That’s a worthwhile result to pursue.
Dr. Małgorzata (Margaret) Karan, a Senior Lecturer in Law at City, University of London, recently presented her doctoral dissertation on “Youth and Gaming: Perspectives, Actions, Harm Mitigation, and Regulatory Reactions.” Her research on gaming continues, with a focus on promotional regulations, social gaming, and age confirmation. Dr. Karan is available at: [email protected]