An ad for online sports gambling company Fanduel in Manhattan, May 11, 2022.AMIR HAMJA/The New York Times News Service
Timothy Dewhirst is a professor and senior research fellow in marketing and public policy at the Gordon S. Lang School of Business and Economics at the University of Guelph.
The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario introduced amended sports-betting advertising regulations that took effect at the end of February. Publicity about the new standards highlighted that athlete endorsers were no longer allowable owing to their youth appeal and potential to encourage underage wagering.
Still, while watching broadcasts of the baseball playoffs (sadly, not involving the Toronto Blue Jays), it’s been striking how unsatisfactory the ad standards remain, and how insufficiently they are being enforced.
Exemptions continue to allow athlete endorsers in sports-betting ads if they’re encouraging “responsible” gambling practices. Georges St-Pierre, the renowned martial-arts fighter, appears in BET99 ads indicating that they’re “here for you” to help you gamble responsibly.
“Responsible” involves being accountable, but such marketing communication tends to shift attention away from the role of the sportsbook provider and toward the prospective gambler. The addictive potential of gambling goes unspecified.
For sportsbook promotions that do mention “responsible” gambling practices, humour is usually the key approach. By producing lighthearted ads, accountability and the seriousness of the matter are largely dismissed.
Who should be the source of “responsible” gambling ads? Public-service announcements appear a more fitting approach than largely turning to sportsbook companies to provide them.
Looking to the role of media campaigns and interventions that effectively reduced tobacco use, there are lessons to be learned from the Fairness Doctrine period in the United States.
Federal Communications Commission policy stipulated that those possessing broadcast licences were to present contrasting points of view on controversial issues. So, while cigarette advertising was still permissible in the broadcast media, effective Fairness Doctrine anti-smoking messages were also aired prominently on television and radio. The Fairness Doctrine, however, was abolished in 1987.
A non-profit or public organization such as the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) appears more suitable to identify signs of problematic gambling and how to seek help than any individual or body connected to the industry.
By turning to sportsbook companies to provide “responsible” gambling ads, it is seemingly – at first blush – an attempt to make them engage in corporate social responsibility, or CSR, initiatives. These initiatives should involve voluntary commitments from a company, rather than legislated ones.
With Ontario’s current rules, saying “gamble responsibly” has simply become the mandated price to be paid by sportsbook companies that have a continued desire to feature athletes as endorsers.
CSR is supposed to be aimed at having a positive impact on society. It has instead been co-opted by companies as a fig leaf for practices that have a positive impact on shareholder value and the company’s bottom line. Such campaigns are designed to enhance public perceptions of a company rather than contribute to the public good.
Another issue: The stipulation of focusing on a “responsible” gambling message is applicable only to endorsers who are athletes.
Let’s consider some of the persisting sports-betting ads that include non-athlete celebrities. Bet MGM advertisements regularly feature Academy Award-winning actor Jamie Foxx. The promotions seemingly breach the advertising standards in place.
The amended standards do not allow the use of a celebrity or entertainer who “would likely be expected to appeal to minors.” Mr. Foxx’s movie credits include several family- or youth-oriented movies, such as Rio, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Annie, Robin Hood and Miami Vice.
“Ontario iGaming” is visible in the promotions, which makes it apparent that the advertisement is meant to be broadcast in the province.
Actor and comedian Jon Lovitz, whose movie credits also include many films aimed at younger audiences, is seen in FanDuel ads that encourage bettors to follow “Your Lingering Hunch.” Advising people to guess or act on a premonition for betting decisions, especially in the sports context where fans are recognized as often being superstitious, does not come across as good guidance. Furthermore, as a celebrity who would likely be expected to appeal to minors, Mr. Lovitz should not be appearing in any gambling ads in the first place, even if he were giving good guidance.
“Responsible” is synonymous with being trustworthy and ably choosing between right and wrong. It’s time to rethink who is the source of ads that are focused on “responsible” gambling practices.
Also, the amended ad standards in Ontario appear insufficiently enforced, considering the heavy dose of sports-betting promotions that continue to be seen, which runs contrary to the rules. And, quite simply, the existing standards are unsatisfactory.
Canadian federal legislation has left it to provincial and territorial governments to determine how single-event sports betting is regulated. The time has come for federal legislation to more rigorously restrict sports-betting promotion, prompting consistent measures that curtail its reach among youth.