ADVERTISING AND MARKETING
that uses athletes and celebrities are of particular appeal to people under Ontario’s legal gambling age of 19. The AGCO referred to the existence of “concerns that gambling behaviour among these underage persons is being encouraged due to the appeal of celebrities and/or athletes who are associating themselves with promoting gambling activities.” I am not aware of any evidence specific to the Ontario market that might substantiate that there is an air of reality behind these concerns (from wherever they might originate). If studies exist that have concluded that underage gambling is in fact encouraged by marketing and advertising that features celebrities and/or promoting gambling activities, they likely originate in markets outside of Canada. Input was sought from stakeholders, but only on the basis that it had already been concluded that (i) the risk to underage persons was real, and (ii) the proposed advertising restrictions were appropriate to address that risk. It was announced that what was being sought was “stakeholder input…related to advertising and marketing to address this risk, along with a proposed implementation approach that would support the amendments coming into effect.” It did not appear on its face that stakeholders were being invited to question the existence of the perceived risk or to press the case for alternative means of addressing that risk. It seems likely that the anecdotal public irritation with iGaming advertising in general to which I referred at the outset is an unspoken motivation behind the decision to impose these new advertising and marketing restrictions. Perhaps inspired by internal polls of public opinion on the subject and by the imposition of similar restrictions in the UK, the regulator is responding to a general sense of public fatigue with frequent advertising for iGaming, particularly television ads during sporting events. As long as the frequency with which the public encounters iGaming ads does not change, there will continue to be a demand for further restrictions. These pressures will not likely be limited to advertising and marketing tied to underage gambling, although the advocates of further restrictions may continue to use that issue as a justification. A number of politicians have determined that the advertising of iGaming in Ontario is an issue with enough salience to use against the present government, which brought in the new Ontario iGaming model. Within the space of a few days in June, each of the two opposition parties in the Ontario
legislature staked out positions demanding further restrictions on iGaming advertising. The Liberal Party of Ontario issued a statement that acknowledged the proposed amendments to restrict advertising that uses celebrities, and then quickly moved to lobby for further restrictions, urging the Ontario government “to work with relevant regulatory bodies and stakeholders…to further regulate the frequency of online gambling and sports betting advertisements, specifically during live television, radio, and online sporting events.” A few days later, members of the legislature belonging to the Ontario New Democratic Party stood in support of a private members’ bill that would, if enacted, ban all iGaming advertising without exception. Two weeks later, at the federal level a member of the Senate introduced a bill that would have the federal government work with the provinces and other stakeholders to impose further regulations on the advertising and marketing of iGaming. Clearly, if the goal of banning advertising and marketing involving athletes and imposing limits on advertising and marketing involving celebrities and influencers was in part to stem public discomfort, the amendments will not succeed on that level. The moral panic wrought by the increased frequency of iGaming advertising and marketing in Ontario will not be assuaged. If the government imposes restrictions without engaging in real, meaningful consultation with the industry, it will be subject to demands for further restrictions immediately after it enacts these restrictions. This will quickly rise to demands to ban advertising and marketing for from television during certain times, and then to ban advertising for iGaming completely. This has been the experience in Australia, which in 2018 banned the airing of sports betting ads after 8:30 pm during the course of televised sporting events, and which now is seeing a call for a “comprehensive ban” on ads. 1 There is every reason to suspect that the Ontario regulatory environment will evolve along similar lines. Very few studies have sought to determine whether a link exists between athlete/celebrity participation in iGaming advertising with underage gambling. The few that exist appear to originate outside Canada, primarily from Australia. Further, these studies only surveyed how Australian parents and children perceived the way in which athletes and celebrities were used in advertisements. They did not seek to measure the actual effect of those advertisements on underage persons. 2 The essential problem with the current approach is that it
1 Belot, Henry. “Calls for ‘comprehensive ban’ on sports gambling ads in Australia as inquiry’s report looms.” The Guardian, June 11, 2023, https:// www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/12/calls-for-comprehensive-ban-on-sports-gambling-ads-in-australia-as-inquirys-report-looms (retrieved June 24, 2023) 2 Pitt, H., Thomas, S.L. and Bestman, A. (2016). Initiation, influence and impact: adolescents and parents discuss the marketing of gambling
PAGE 33
IMGL MAGAZINE | JULY 2023
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker