Now’s the time for adland to take a good, hard look in the mirror, gambling ad ban supporters say
If adopted, the proposed ban on gambling advertising would deliver a significant financial blow to advertising agencies – but supporters say the industry needs to suck it up.
A report handed down this week by a parliamentary inquiry probing the harms of online gambling made 31 sweeping recommendations, including a bombshell call to outlaw all gambling ads in four phases over the next three years.
Opponents reacted swiftly and angrily – understandably so given media operators bagged more than $300 million last year from gambling clients, half of which went to free-to-air broadcasters. And of course, the creatives who produce work for gambling operators and media agencies who buy space for them will also lose out should the ban get up.
Picture: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation
Jen Sharpe, managing director of social change agency Think HQ, said the response has been “eerily similar” to the anger that followed the banning of tobacco ads in the 1970s.
“Talk of significant jobs losses, revenue decline and less local content were arguments mounted by all the media interest groups,” Sharpe pointed out. “The calls of overreach were shouted from the rooftops and the answer was the promise of a more tightly self-regulated system. Well, this time around, it is same, same.”
But the world kept turning when cigarette ads were binned, she said, and “it will this time around too”.
“While the hysteria continues, I think there are two other key issues that our industry should be thinking and talking about.”
The first is the significant public support for getting rid of gambling ads, and the soft language from lobby groups about understanding and appreciating that concern doesn’t cut it, she said.
“The recommendation to ban all advertising of online gambling is recognising that what is currently legal is not right and is inflicting considerable harm to the community, and therefore needs far stricter controls.
“In an ideal world, businesses would more genuinely tightly regulate their activity so that it’s more socially responsible and then government wouldn’t have to intervene so heavy-handedly. But they haven’t – it doesn’t take an expert in media to turn on the TV and see that it’s the wild-west out there in online gambling land. So, the government needs to step in.”
The second point to mull is about purpose – something adland has spent the past several years discussing ad nauseum. It’s time to walk the walk, she said.
“The report itself, nor the commentary in the industry has mentioned the role that media and advertising agencies play in enticing people to gamble online,” Sharpe said.
“In the era of ‘purpose’ and all the talk of environmental, social and corporate governance, I’m not sure how the employees of agencies really feel about contributing to the harm that online gambling inflicts on the community.
“Nor am I sure the government itself has really thought about the ethical conflict that is inherent in contracting agencies to undertake work for them, while they are also working for online gambling companies.
“Certainly, when the bans come in to affect, there should be a register formed of those agencies who continue to work with gambling companies intent on floating flouting the rules.”
Jen Sharpe.
Worrying about “short-term hits” to the bottom line should the ban be implemented ignores an inespeciale reality, she said – “that most people deep down knows [working with gambling clients] is the wrong thing to do.”
“Perhaps it’s time for the industry to talk more about its social impact and the choices it can make about who it works with and why.”
That’s a view echoed by Nick Hunter, the founder and chief executive officer of B Corp-accredited creative agency Paper Moose.
“We are committed to the benefit of all stakeholders,” Hunter explained. “A fundamental part of our mission involves considering the societal and cultural implications of the advertising we create and the clients we represent.”
Given the reams of evidence about the harm gambling inflicts on countless Australians, Hunter said he fully backs the proposed ban on advertising.
“Despite never having worked with gambling organisations, we’ve been presented with plenty of opportunities to do so. However, we’ve consciously chosen to knock back these prospects as they contrast with our agency’s values and ethical commitments.”
Hunter described the backlash against the inquiry’s report this week as “a fascinating testament to the normalisation of gambling”.
“As for the influence of advertising, there’s no denying its power in moulding societal attitudes and behaviours. As advertisers, we should wield our power of creativity, responsibly and ethically.
“This means prioritising transparency and promoting products and services that contribute positively to society and avoiding those that cause harm or prey on vulnerabilities. Four hundred Australians commit suicide every year as a result of gambling addictions.”
Nick Hunter.
Creatives need to take into account not just what bring in money, but the work that impacts the public’s wellbeing, he added.
“In a world, increasingly chock-a-block with messages vying for our attention, the role of advertising becomes more critical than ever. We must be mindful and proactive in shaping a media landscape that is both profitable and beneficial to society at large.”
Dee Madigan, executive creative director at Campaign Edge and star of ABC series Gruen, took a softer approach.
“I’m not a fan of blanket bans on legal products – except for cigarettes, which would never be allowed to be a legal product if it was invented today,” Madigan said.
“But I would definitely support much tighter regulations on gambling ads.”
The government said it will review the inquiry’s report and consider its recommendations in consultation with key stakeholders.
Have your say