Red card! Alarmist report on gambling advertising offers little value

The University of Bristol's recent report, Gambling Marketing and The Premier League: The Continued Failure of Industry Self-Regulation, looks at the prevalence of gambling advertising messages during the opening weekend of the Premier League season. 

It found a significant increase in the number of adverts compared to the equivalent weekend in 2023, and has expressed strong dissatisfaction with the current self-regulated status of the industry.

10 researchers

The research was carried out by a team of 10 researchers. They analysed “24 hours of live match coverage, 15 hours of Sky Sports News coverage, 15 hours of TalkSport radio broadcasts, and gambling advertising posted on Instagram, Facebook, and X from 16 to 19 August.”

The report contains some strong opinions, but it’s crucial that it is examined closely and critically, rather than simply accepted at face value. All properly researched, academic publications must, after all, stand up to scrutiny.

Key takeaways 

The report and associated press release make several central assertions, namely that:

• The number of gambling adverts trebled on the Premier League opening weekend
• Televised gambling adverts increased by 240% and were seen “more than 24 million times”
• More than 100 social media adverts were in breach of regulations
• The current and upcoming restrictions to advertising during sports games are inadequate
• The industry is incapable of responsible self-regulation

Limitations

The report raises clear concerns which will likely trouble both those in the industry and many outside it. And it quickly becomes clear that the report’s authors are passionate about their message. 

However, there are a few reasons why it should be approached with caution, and even scepticism.

Interpretation of data

It’s important to note that some of the University’s claims include that the number of gambling adverts has “almost trebled since last year”. The ‘almost’ in this sentence is, of course, open to some interpretation. 

The figures state that 29,145 adverts were counted this year, whereas trebling the previous year’s stats would give 32,997. This is a discrepancy of 3,852, which is significant. The increase is certainly still stark, but this margin points to an unscientific and emotionally-charged interpretation of the statistics.

The framing, or misframing, of data can have powerful and wide-reaching effects, and it appears that, in the case of the press release, an amount of licence has been taken. Actionable research should present objective truths as they are found, and not in such a way that they carry dramatic emotional connotations and skew the results.

Emotive terminology

The press release describes the match which featured the most advertising as being the “worst-hit”. This is excessive – it sounds more like the description of a natural disaster – and would be considered unscientific by many. Negative terms such as “drastic”, “offending” and “out of control” are used frequently throughout. 

The same problems are present in comments made by supporters of the report. One of these, Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP, called regulators “toothless” and stated that “we are all being flooded with adverts that the vast majority of us do not want to see”. It’s worth noting here that the vast majority of us would probably prefer to see no adverts of any description whatsoever, but that’s simply not how commercial realities within a democratic economy work.

The report alludes to a number of messages “that are not obviously identifiable as advertising”, suggesting that these messages are in breach of advertising law. Whether or not something is “obviously identifiable as advertising” is highly subjective, and the adverts that have been reported are described as those that “seem” to be in breach. Currently, there exists only a small body of research into this area, and more is required.

Big claims and finger pointing

Bold statements and accusations are made, with little apparent substance. The press release claims that operators “prioritise profit over safety” and the lead author states that “the industry is out of control”. These statements illustrate this bias. Such claims, in an academic work or accompanying sanctioned materials, should be presented alongside evidence and not go unchallenged. 

There are many instances in the report of terms that come with strong emotional connotations. The report and press release together contain more examples of these biases than we can reasonably provide here, though “the industry's attempt to self-regulate is wholly inadequate”, “it’s a failure to protect the public”, “woeful inadequacies” and “it is simply not good enough” give a clear indicator of what to expect. 

Limited generalisability

The report features no shortage of statistics and quantitative comparisons to the previous year, but it should be acknowledged that the only statistics available for comparison appear to be those collected by the same university. 

Furthermore, this is only the second time that this data has been collected, so the value of comparisons, particularly those concerned with changes over time, is limited. 

This is not to say that the data is not robust, concerning and worthy of both further investigation and debate. However, comparisons with third party research would make for more powerful, reliable and generalisable results.

Assumptions

One refrain that the report and press release feature throughout is the use of what appear to be assumptions, many of them seemingly blind. Phrases such as “the industry's attempt to self-regulate is wholly inadequate” and “the industry is out of control” indicate a significant bias in the report. These comments could be considered as alarmist and unproductive.

Rather than using an informed, academic tone, the report and press release employ highly emotive language. This style is in line with that typically used to drum up anger and bait people into making emotional, ill-informed and unobjective responses.

Lack of objectivity

The lack of objectivity in the original report even extends beyond language. One icon, accompanying data regarding the prevalence of advertising during six matches, features what appears to be a number of individuals in crosshairs. The implications of this are unfair, and unprofessional. This blatant attempt to vilify the industry is not balanced or productive.

Some will argue that the language used and the heavy-handed approach may well raise credibility issues about the report and research.

A failure to communicate

Perhaps most unfortunately, the authors seem to be presenting their case as a series of demands, rather than offering an opening to a mutually productive conversation. 

By insisting that “the government must intervene” and “we must stop relying on ineffective self-regulation”, the authors only serve to distance themselves from the conversations that are necessary if progress is to be made.

Calling for bans and making sweeping recommendations is not only unrealistic, but it’s deeply unhelpful when it comes to actually improving anything. Industry organisations, regulators and charities work hard to keep discourse open, and the recent White Paper consultations sought to ensure that all voices were heard. 

Communication is vital, but the University of Bristol position seems to be one of intransigence and little desire to offer anything other than criticism and sour digs at the industry.

Final word(s)

The University of Bristol report is not without value. It contains some disconcerting statistics and highlights the likely start of a pattern that needs addressing. 

Gambling advertising is a contentious issue, and there are few who would claim there isn’t room for improvement. Various efforts to improve regulations have been made in recent years, especially by the Betting and Gaming Council.

However, the report is also flawed, particularly in the assumptions it makes, the absence of balance, and the apparent disinterest in engaging in a productive conversation with the industry. A more logical approach would have been to engage the industry to compare and discuss data.

The press release is particularly problematic, and it’s likely to be quoted verbatim by reporters, which could result in a skewing of public opinion on the matter. There is of course the possibility that the media release has more of an ‘own goal’ effect in some quarters – the over-emotive language in places ringing alarm bells for readers. 

Play safe

At Slot Gods we take Responsible Gambling very seriously. British players have a strong support network available to them, including numerous charities which do some great work. Players should make use of the available safer gambling tools, including self-exclusion, time and deposit limits, and reality checks. 

If you or someone you know is struggling, don’t hesitate to reach out to one of the support organisations – contact details are in the link just above..