What is RSS?

Working with the media

Church questions proposals for gambling advertisements

19 September 2006

The Church of England has called for all advertisements promoting gambling to carry health warnings about the danger of gambling addiction. It states that the potential benefits of doing this “should outweigh the disadvantage of extra financial costs for advertisers.”

The Church has questioned whether the Government’s objectives for regulating advertisements for gambling are realistic or achievable. It supports the Government’s objective in the Gambling Act 2005 that “the reduction of harm should take precedence over the maximisation of innovation, consumer choice and economic gains,” but questions how far “any regulatory framework” can achieve this goal, “given the persuasive function and character of advertising.”

The Church also calls on the Gambling Commission to make compliance with advertising rules a condition of gambling operators’ licences.

Responding to the Committee of Advertising Practice’s consultation, the Church restates its long-held concern for the potential damage to individuals and families if more people become problem gamblers. In a submission signed by the Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Revd Tom Butler, the Church acknowledges that the general principles in the proposed rules covering marketing communications and broadcast advertisements are aimed at promoting social responsibility and non-exploitation. But it argues that some of the rules may be difficult to apply effectively. The Church would support effective proposals, but “doubts whether the admirable principles can be guaranteed to be effective in practice.” 

The submission proposes a lower age limit of 25 for all people shown gambling or playing a significant part in advertisements. The submission argues that adolescents should not be led into identifying with or imitating the behaviour of gamblers.

No under-18s should have even a peripheral role in gambling advertisements, the sole exception being where the advertisement is for a venue where families might be expected to be present. The submission also accepts the proposal that no gambling advertisements should be placed around media directed at under-18s.

The full submission appears below. A summary of the consultation document can be read online.

 

THE REGULATION OF NON-BROADCAST AND BROADCAST ADVERTISING OF GAMBLING

 

A Response to the CAP and BCAP Consultation

by the Mission and Public Affairs Council of the Church of England

 

The Mission & Public Affairs Council of the Church of England is the body responsible for overseeing research and comment on social and political issues on behalf of the Church.  The Council comprises a representative group of bishops, clergy and lay people with interest and expertise in the relevant areas, and reports to the General Synod through the Archbishops’ Council.

 

1. We consider the Gambling Act 2005 to be good in parts.  We have supported the updating of legislation to reflect technological and social developments, and have welcomed the objectives of protecting children, young persons and other vulnerable people from harm or exploitation.  However, because of the inherent nature of gambling, we have considerable apprehension about the effects of liberalising the law, and question whether the carefully-devised safeguards will achieve their intended purpose of preventing the growth of problem gambling, with its attendant damage to individuals and families.

 

General Policy Objectives

2. The thrust of this general judgment applies in particular to the question of advertising.  We regret that the current prohibition of betting and gaming advertising in mainstream broadcast media is to be lifted.  If it is to be lifted, then we would support effective proposals to regulate the content and scheduling of broadcast advertisements.  We welcome the Government’s stated intention in the Regulatory Impact Assessment that “reduction of harm should take precedence over the maximisation of innovation, consumer choice and economic gains”.  However, in view of the powerful persuasive function and character of advertising, we question how far any regulatory framework can achieve this goal.

 

Q.1 Regulation of the UK National Lottery

3. We see no objection to the regulation of the National Lottery under the proposed non-broadcast and broadcast gambling advertising rules.  This would simplify the present complex of regulations in the TV and radio codes and bring the Lottery within a consistent set of principles and rules.  We comment on the possible exceptions under Questions 5 and 7 below. 

 

Q.2 Do you agree that the proposed CAP and BCAP gambling rules will secure the objectives set out in the Gambling Act 2005?

4. No.  We accept that the rules represent a serious and thorough attempt to secure those objectives, namely, to prevent gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, to ensure it is conducted in a fair and open way, and to protect children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited.  However, the objectives - especially the third (protection of children and other vulnerable people) - are ambitious, and we doubt whether the admirable principles set out in the rules can be guaranteed to be effective in practice.

 

Q.3 Do you agree that the proposed BCAP rules have regard to the principles and standards objectives set out in s.3 and s.319(2) of the Communications Act 2003?

5. We agree that the rules seek to meet both better regulation principles and standards objectives relating to protection of persons under 18, exclusion of material likely to encourage crime or disorder, and protection of the public from offensive and harmful material.  However, as our other responses indicate, the proposed rules do not have sufficient regard to effective implementation.

 

Q.4 Do you consider that the general principles set out in the proposed gambling rules are suitable?

6. No.  ‘Suitable’ must include likely effectiveness in practice.  We endorse the general principles covering marketing communications and broadcast content relating to social responsibility and non-exploitation of children, young persons and other vulnerable people expressed in CAP Rule 54.2, 54.4 (a) and (b), BCAP Radio Code rules 21.2(a)-(b), and BCAP TV Rules 11.6 Note (1), 11.6.1(a) and 11.6.2(a).  Our problem is not with the adequacy of these principles but with their applicability, in requiring advertisers to refrain from commending their product in particular ways and to seek to prevent effects which may not be within their control. The 20 detailed requirements set out in CAP Rule 54.4 are wide-ranging and carefully formulated, though the application of some of them may be difficult, e.g. “(l) should not be likely to be of particular appeal to children or young persons”, or “(q) should not exploit cultural beliefs or traditions about gambling or luck.”

 

Q.5 Do you consider that the proposed rules on the appeal of the content of gambling advertisements are suitable?  Because their purpose is to raise funds for good causes, should the minimum age of appeal for lotteries be 16?

7. The rules are well-intentioned but their likely impact is unclear.  Despite the expertise of advertisers in targeting particular groups, the concept of “age of appeal” is more elusive than it may seem.  Age-related restrictions are always problematic on account of inequalities in development: how much more when the criterion is as notional as the “appeal” of advertisements. 

8. If the impact of advertising gambling on people under 18 is judged to be potentially undesirable, the purpose of lotteries in raising funds for good causes is irrelevant.  If lotteries are judged to be less harmful than other forms of gambling, their purpose is likewise irrelevant.  We regard this argument, and that for lowering the minimum age of people featured in advertisements (Q.7), as a red herring, and would prefer to retain the minimum age of 18 (subject to the comments in the previous paragraph).

 

Q.6 Should the minimum age limit for people featured incidentally (as opposed to those gambling or playing a significant role) in gambling advertisements be set at 18?  Do you agree that it is proportionate to make exceptions for (a) family entertainment centres and travelling fairs and (b) lottery products?

 

Q.7 Should the minimum age limit for people featured gambling or playing a significant role be 25 for all types of gambling?  Because their purpose is to raise funds for good causes, should the minimum age be lower for advertisements for lottery products?  

9. Yes, we support the minimum age of 25 for people featured gambling or playing a significant role, as this establishes a clear demarcation between adolescents and adults.  It is worth remarking that imitative behaviour may not be confined to exactly-defined peer groups, and the behaviour of young adults may have an aspirational effect on adolescents.  Nevertheless, it makes sense to draw a firm line in the portrayal of gambling behaviour.

10. For the reasons already stated in para. 8, we do not accept the logic of exempting lottery advertisements from this limit on the ground of their purpose of raising funds for good causes.  There may be other arguments, related to the relative harm of participating in lotteries, that would support a reduction in the limit.

11. It seems reasonable to set the limit for incidental appearances at 18.  There is a case for exempting advertisements for venues in which families would be expected to participate, though the choice of the lower limit would require careful consideration.  Again, the rationale for exempting lottery products is unclear.

 

Q.8 Do you agree that the proposed rules on the scheduling of broadcast advertisements and the placing of non-broadcast advertisements are proportionate by giving flexibility to media owners and working with the general principles and content rules to protect all under 18s?

12. Yes, we agree with the proposed rules providing that no gambling advertisement may be scheduled or placed in or around media directed at under 18s.  We see the force of the argument for harmonising the restrictions on placement in the existing CAP Code with the scheduling restrictions in the BCAP Code, noting that the harmonisation has the effect of relaxing current restrictions on non-broadcasting advertisements in respect of lotteries, football pools, family entertainment centres and fairs in contexts directed at 16 year olds and above.  We do not consider that this relaxation is likely to cause additional harm.

 

Q.9 Do you consider that the proposed content rules meet the objective of ensuring that vulnerable persons are not harmed or exploited by gambling advertisements?

13. No.  Although we agree unreservedly with the objective of protecting vulnerable people, we believe that the verb “ensuring” sets a threshold of aspiration which no system of content rules could meet.  We suggest that a more realistic approach would be to require that all reasonable steps be taken to minimise the possibility of vulnerable people being harmed or exploited.

14. We accept the usefulness of the functional definition of vulnerability provided by the Gambling Commission, and quoted in para. 4.18 of the consultation paper, namely that it includes people who gamble more than they want to, those who gamble beyond their means and those who may not be able to make informed or balanced decisions about gambling because of mental impairment, alcohol or drugs.  We appreciate the efforts of CAP and BCAP to draw on research and experience in other jurisdictions in devising content rules to prohibit advertising which is liable to tap into the susceptibilities of vulnerable people.  The proposed rules are laudable in their reference to “the susceptibilities, aspirations, credulity, inexperience or lack of knowledge” of potential gamblers, and in their prohibition of suggestions that gambling may be a means of escape from personal or financial problems, or an avenue to personal fulfilment. 

15. Once again, we see the problems lying not in the principles but in their application.  Any advertising of gambling must present positive reasons or inducements to engage in the activity, or it is pointless to the advertiser.  It is hard to see how vulnerable persons can be protected totally from these desired effects.  Nevertheless, the rules set out a checklist which can be expected to limit the potential for harm, and it is not easy to see what more could be done within this framework.

 

Q.10 Do you agree that the proposed rules address concerns about the effects of gambling advertisements on problem gambling without the need for compulsory educational messages or warnings and that those should not be required in the absence of evidence on the impact of gambling advertising on problem gambling and the effectiveness of compulsory messages or warnings in gambling advertising?

16. No.  The question invites us to agree with the conclusions of BCAP and CAP and the Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill that it is unnecessary to require educational message or warnings in gambling advertisements.  We are aware of research, mainly in other public policy sectors, suggesting that such messages and warnings are at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive in their influence upon behaviour and the perception of risk.  There is some plausibility in the claim that they may have a ‘boomerang’ effect because the motivation to gamble involves impulsiveness, rebellion or risk-taking on the part of people with feelings of powerlessness and low self-esteem.

17. Nevertheless, the soundness of this conclusion is questionable. The consultation document admits that there is little empirical literature on gambling advertising, and there is a difference between absence of evidence that messages or warnings are effective and evidence that they are ineffective.  It is difficult to prove a negative effect in terms of inhibiting or preventing particular forms of behaviour.  In a situation where protection of the vulnerable from exploitation and harm is acknowledged to be a high priority, there is much to be said for the precautionary principle - erring on the side of caution in providing educational reinforcement and discouragement of risky behaviour.  We believe that these considerations should outweigh the disadvantage of extra financial costs for advertisers.  Despite the possibility of increasing the attractiveness of gambling or the desire of people to engage in it, the placing of brief messages or warnings should be considered as an additional means of protecting the vulnerable.  To advocate this is not to dismiss the effect of the proposed rules on content, placement and scheduling of advertisements, but to seek to reinforce it.

 

Q.11 Do you agree that to require gambling advertisements to carry a statement of the operator’s licensor or place of licensing would be disproportionate?

18. No.  We note that there is disagreement on this matter between the Gambling Commission, which considers that requiring such a statement would increase transparency for consumers and thereby meet the objective of conducting gambling “in a fair and open way”, and CAP and BCAP, who consider the proposal disproportionate on account of existing consumer protection measures, notably the “white list” which attests a satisfactory regulatory system in the host country.  The question is quite finely balanced, but our inclination is to agree with the Gambling Commission in giving priority to the interest of consumers in obtaining clear licensor information.

 

Other matters

19. An issue alluded to but not raised in the consultation questions is whether the Gambling Commission will make compliance with advertising rules a condition of gambling operator’s licenses. We consider this highly desirable.

 

 

The Rt Revd Tom Butler

Bishop of Southwark

Vice-Chair, Public Affairs

Mission & Public Affairs Council

Church House

Great Smith Street

LONDON

SW1P 3NZ

September 2006

 

feedback | contact us | links | site map | copyright & disclaimer | privacy | site help
Supported by Ecclesiastical Insurance Group
Site developed by ILRT