Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2016 2016 Review of operations_WEB - Page 60

The Board also determined that using language such as being ‘up for the challenge’ is suggestive of taking a chance rather than a promise of winning. • The Board dismissed a complaint about an advertisement on TV and Cinema which contains a montage of athletes competing and concludes with ‘Ladbrokes. Up for the Challenge. Since 1886’ on screen (Ladbroke.com.au –0370/16 and 0371/16). In the Board’s view advertising for wagering products or services which suggest that if you do your research you may increase your luck, does not imply a promise of winning. • • The Board dismissed a complaint about a pay TV advertisement which shows three men discussing whether a footballer will score based on his height vs a defender who uses a hair gel that will get in their eyes and make it hard for them to defend (Unibet – 0475/16). The Board dismissed a complaint about a television advertisement which featured a man commenting on a football match and noting that the soccer referee is on a ‘short Excessive participation Section 2.8 of the Wagering Code states: Advertising or Marketing Communication for a Wagering Product or Service must not portray, condone or encourage excessive participation in wagering activities. In 2016 the Board upheld complaints against two advertisements under this section. The Board determined that advertising which suggested that wagering is a behaviour that needs to be hidden and that isolates someone from their family shows wagering taking precedence in someone’s life, and that this behaviour is an example of excessive participation in wagering activities. • The Board determined that showing excessive participation in a wagering activity can take place in a short amount of time and that an advertisement does not need to suggest this participation is of long-standing for it to breach this section of the Code. • The Board upheld a complaint about a television advertisement which depicted a man reminiscing about a boys’ weekend which shows the men looking at live and replay racing on a wagering app while ignoring other activities such as food cooking (Tabcorp – 0447/16). For more information see the Wagering advertising determination summary. The Board upheld a complaint about a television advertisement which depicted a man hiding from his family under a table and accessing a wagering website on his phone (Lottoland – 0552/16). list’ for being appointed for the final of the tournament. As a consequence, the gamblers conclude they might ‘beat the odds’ by predicting the decisions of the referee (Unibet – 0474/16). 58 Advertising Standards Bureau