Publish and be damned! We suggest not.
There has been a lot of commentary about the recent Advertising Standards Authority rulings around gambling marketing and advertising, particularly involving LeoVegas (BetMGM TV advert and BetUK radio advert). As many have said, although there are no definitive thresholds to help marketing compliance teams, there is a lot of useful information in these and other rulings, which need to be fully considered.
The LeoVegas rulings covered both TV and Radio adverts which means we can assess what the ASA may consider regarding both visual with audio, and audio only presentation. There are some commonalities and some differences.
The TV advert ruling refers several times to a lack of “visual clues” linking American comedian Chris Rock’s presentational appearance to his past film work and other appearances. So, despite there being a lion involved in the advert, no link to the Madagascar film franchise was determined. It’s just as well Mr Rock was not wearing a Zebra striped suit in the advert, I guess? Amongst many other things, this ruling also refers to Chris Rocks’ “distinctive voice” in various children's films and considered it “unlikely that the majority of children would associate his voice, as heard in the films, with his image as he appeared in the advert”.
Now, there are many points of interest here, and we’ve highlighted a couple of key ones below.
The fact that the ASA considered both visual and audio elements separately to help build a picture, and no one item was used in isolation to come to a decision. This is important. Each item considered separately, then the whole considered as well.
The use of the word “majority” in the line “…unlikely that the majority of children would associate his voice…”. This could be read that for a negative ruling against an advert to be found, that a “majority” of children would have to have associated the voice in the content with the other popular children’s films. However, that would be incorrect for several reasons, not least is the fact that the guidance refers to “absolute” numbers, as in; the actual count, and not a percentage or majority. This must mean that there is a number, above which, the content becomes “of strong appeal”. More on that later.
The radio advert ruling obviously has only the audio content to consider. However, as with the TV advert, the ruling considers a wide range of information about the celebrity used, Adebayo Akinfenwa, and not just the content presented in the advert. Unlike Chris Rock, Mr Akinfenwa had very little to no past work which was aimed at or involved under 18s. His football career was in the lower leagues apart from one season in the Championship (classed as “low risk” by BCAP guidance) and was not in a national team or the premier league. So far, so good. However, Mr Akinfenwa also marketed a clothing line and had other media presence (Netflix documentary, active social media accounts, character in the FIFA videogame series) which helped build up a considerable social media following.
The Big Picture
For both the rulings, one complaint upheld, and one did not, the decision was reached after review of a wide range of facts outside of the advert content itself.
That said, one of the main considerations was that of social media activity and the make-up of the social media audience.
In the TV advert ruling, the calculations used against the social media audience suggested that only 1,075 under 18s were based in the UK.
In the radio advert ruling, the calculations suggested “that over 157,000 followers aged under 18” made up the social media audience.
But neither of these adverts were on social media, one was TV and one was radio. So why are these key considerations?
It’s all about ‘the big picture’ and consideration of all the facts before reaching a conclusion. In their rulings, the ASA provide very useful information about what they consider, how they approach such considerations and why they make their assessments of each element under consideration.
Such information can be used to reverse engineer a process of assessing the level of risk for potential advertising campaigns, not only for the celebrity talent being considered but also the entire campaign approach. It takes time and effort, and a considerable amount of focus on past ASA rulings, the codes and published guidance.
And what of the numbers?
Well, in a Sky Bet ruling, a potential audience of 135,000 under 18 social media users was considered to be “of strong appeal” and therefore an element considered in a breach ruling.
In a William Hill case, a potential audience of 8,810 under 18 social media users was adjudged to not be “of strong appeal” in the finding that the ad was not in breach.
And in a Bet365 example, a potential audience of 10,905 under 18 social media users was found not to be “of strong appeal”.
Does this mean that ‘as long as the potential under 18s social media audience’ is less than 10,905 the advert will be OK? Nope. Because, as you can see from the above, this is just one aspect of the whole picture, and although each element is considered separately, all are then pulled together to reach a conclusion.
Why is ALL of this important?
Well, the ASA (and of course the Gambling Commission), expect an operator to have gone through a risk assessment, and to have documented the approach they took, to identify the likelihood of their advert being “of strong appeal to under 18s” and to be able to present the information considered should it be challenged. If that’s not done, there’s virtually no chance of a complaint being rejected.
Should you want to discuss marketing risk assessment processes or have your current approach reviewed, get in touch with Betsmart today. After all, a risk assessment or review won’t just prevent a potential fine, but the vast waste of marketing budget for an ad campaign being pulled, and the reputational damage in the media.
Written by Andrew Mason.