Dr. Carran stresses that the accountability of the gaming sector extends beyond mere compliance with promotional guidelines. It hinges on a profound dedication to shielding children and adolescents from the possible detrimental effects of wagering.
Marketing for gambling has existed for many years. Its efficacy in boosting consumption – whether actual or perceived – and the overall financial worth it provides to the promotion of gaming products, means the sector continues to invest significantly in this domain. This is not unexpected. Nevertheless, gambling promotion continues to ignite controversy and disagreement, especially regarding its potential to sway young individuals and those grappling with problem gambling.
The 2005 Gambling Act, as modified by the 2014 Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act, affords the industry latitude in advertising but with a clear caveat: safeguard minors and susceptible demographics. Directing gambling advertisements at children and youth is a criminal transgression. More generally, however, it is ultimately the obligation of the gaming sector to guarantee that its advertising does not result in gambling-related harm for underage individuals.
All trustworthy gaming providers should know the UK’s promotional codes of conduct, like the CAP and BCAP rules, along with the ethical duties for gambling promotions. Needless to say, these regulations aim to guarantee that all marketing activities are socially conscientious. This specifically entails not focusing on or attracting young people and susceptible persons who might be more vulnerable to gambling’s appeal.
Yet, the crucial inquiry is whether the Advertising Practices Committee and the industry’s regulations genuinely protect youth from gambling-related harm. A major hurdle is the absence of extensive research on the effects of gambling advertising specifically on UK minors. While knowledge from alcohol and tobacco advertising or studies from other nations can be useful, they shouldn’t be directly transferred due to the distinct character of gambling and the cultural and regulatory variations between areas.
The existing guidelines are commendable for the considerable work both the sector and governing bodies have invested in cultivating a responsible landscape. Nevertheless, although the current precepts have significantly reduced the industry’s exploitation of at-risk individuals prone to impulsive choices, my own investigations into gaming and adolescents in Britain uncover inherent weaknesses in the core premises underpinning the regulatory structure.
This structure incorrectly presumes a distinct division exists between material that attracts adults and content that holds no appeal for minors, or that exposure can be effectively managed through scheduling limitations.
Data, excluding a very limited subset of very young, prepubescent children, simply does not validate these suppositions. Temporal and geographical regulations are, in practice, inadequate at preventing underage access to restricted material. The watershed concept, for instance, solely pertains to televised promotions, and even then, exemptions for athletic competitions diminish its effect, as a significant proportion of teenagers watch sports, with or without parental oversight. Likewise, it’s unrealistic to assume adolescents’ viewing patterns are restricted to pre-9 pm programming, particularly with clear data suggesting the contrary…
A considerable portion of young viewers, potentially reaching up to 8%, encounter late-evening television programming, with a subset intentionally staying awake to view it. This practice entirely negates efforts to safeguard them through watershed scheduling, as it permits a concentrated barrage of wagering promotions to air when they are most susceptible. This is particularly worrisome for adolescents already pursuing content intended for mature audiences, possibly exposing them to heightened risk.
Although watershed regulations are vital for shielding younger children, they prove regrettably insufficient when addressing teenagers. The existing framework employed by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to ascertain what attracts children, and consequently where gambling advertisements cannot be displayed, depends on a flawed audience categorization method that disregards the substantial and well-established convergence of interests between adults and young individuals.
Numerous programs and online platforms targeting adults or broad audiences are also accessed by teenagers, some of whom actively seek out information and promotions for age-inappropriate products and services. This shared interest directly undermines any attempt to utilize potential appeal as a means to differentiate advertising. Adults and children are not homogenous groups, and what attracts adults frequently appeals to teenagers in a comparable, and occasionally even more potent, manner.
Present methods for determining the acceptability of gambling promotions are inherently flawed. We depend on adults to predict what appeals to children, but grown-ups frequently misjudge. Youngsters are attracted to things that appear mature, and their information processing differs from ours. They perceive gambling advertisements and interpret them as purely entertainment, oblivious to the inherent dangers. They are captivated by the humor, the thrill, and even subtle suggestions of allure, despite such content being theoretically prohibited.
And let’s not even discuss celebrities! We permit renowned athletes and performers to peddle gambling as if it were insignificant. When children witness their idols endorsing it, they assume it must be desirable. The same principle applies to the association of gambling with sports franchises – it’s ubiquitous, particularly in sponsorships.
Ultimately, we are inundated with gambling advertisements, be it on television, the internet, or in print media. Until we confront this issue head-on, meaningful change remains elusive.
Although all marketing aimed at consumers must incorporate ethical messaging and maturity warnings, wagering promotions appear to significantly influence adolescents. Certain underage individuals even indicate feeling so inundated with these advertisements that they experience sensory overload and abandon the website.
The gaming sector must acknowledge that its conduct has extensive ramifications. Merely adhering to promotional guidelines superficially is insufficient. Safeguarding youth from the detrimental effects linked to betting should be paramount. An authentic, anticipatory strategy toward societal accountability could genuinely advantage the industry. Envision a scenario where everyone, not solely those outside the realm of wagering, trusted that the sector genuinely cared about its impact. This transformation in public opinion could enhance the standing of the entire field. That’s a prospective result worth pursuing.
Dr. Malgorzata (Margaret) Karan, a Senior Law Lecturer at City, University of London, recently presented her doctoral dissertation on “Youth and Wagering: Perspectives, Conduct, Harm Mitigation, and Regulatory Measures.” Her research on betting-related topics continues, with a specific focus on the oversight of wagering promotions, simulated gaming, and age confirmation. She can be contacted at [email protected]