You may well be right. I think ‘direct’ is not the best word I could have used to describe it. But the prospect of winning is there nonetheless.
The quote from Vlandys is just another excuse along the lines of “it’s just a harmless little flutter”. It is an attempt to misdirect away from the fact that to some people the widening of gambling access is a disaster. Given the huge per capita losses to gambling in the western suburbs of Sydney and the lower incomes in the area it is hard to accept that this is just entertainment.
Winning, or the hope of winning is very much part of the addiction. The rush that gamblers feel is very real. Studies have shown that intermittent rewards are strong feedback to encourage further participation.
On a per capita basis we are world leaders in gambling losses, we have done our convict ancestors proud. A shame that such enthusiasm for entertainment doesn’t transfer to music, art and dance. Why do we permit gambling advertising during children’s programs, is it OK to spread the normalisation down to children? And back to Vlandys, why link gambling to sport and suck more suckers in?
I think that is because it is a different dynamic, pokies, horses and footy games are all high activity, rapid repetition of action. Lotteries are slower less frequent and I suspect mainly supported by a different slice of society.
The suggestion “always winning” is a concern and is under the spotlight with one recent ad for “Sportsbet”. Not that it’s got anything to do with sport, or has it?
The whole ad is based on the one premise of winning. The caution at the end unlikely to come up to
Australia has never needed mass marketing to promote gambling, lotteries etc. The TAB once existed without any fanfare, casket and lottery tickets were sold by Newsagents, there was the Mater Prize Home and always the local charity ‘chook’ raffles.
P.S.
Go to the link to download the table or full report (800+ pages)
Gambling turnover exceeded $50B in 2023. For many reasons very big business keen to defend its prominence. Similar to the amount spent annually by Govt on the aged pension.
These days gambling commercials are followed by the (obligatory?) message that “you will lose more than you win”.
I agree. It’s a double standard.
Ironically, for a game of pure chance (like the state lottery) you really have to lose in the long run i.e. in the long run you will lose more than you win - whereas for a game involving skill (like sports betting or, say, poker) some players may actually in the long run win more than they lose (at the expense of course of those who lose more than they win).
I think the double standard arises somewhat because
when you play the pokies (for example), you control the frequency with which you play - whereas with organised lotteries, the “government” controls that
when you play the pokies, there are opportunities for the machine to control you, so that ultimately the machine controls the frequency with which you play, particularly if you have an addictive personality.
What are you prepared to lose today? Set a deposit limit.
Imagine what you could be buying instead.
You win some. You lose more.
What are you really gambling with?
The 5th tagline has been getting plenty of airtime in one providers evening time slots. Open to interpretation whether it is being treated tongue in cheek.
Except for those really skilful few who seem to have a problem because success sees their gambling restricted. One might ask why in comparison it’s not applied by the same betting businesses to restrict losers, or worse.
Those who pull the strings of government have been in the queue and in their faces.
There is a perverse element that while fleecing the punters in various ways gambling also enables clubs to operate and pays dividends directly as well as indirectly. Government must weigh the + and - and with Australia’s long history of gambling what are the odds?
The government need to weigh up what is in the best interests of the community as a whole. Listening to lobby groups which support retention of current gambling arrangements will only give a one sided (bias) view.
There are plenty of lobby groups giving government a one sided view from the other side.
Responsible government is to listen to all points of view, sort the BS from the factual, understand what the government is trying to achieve, and then make a decision whether to do anything and, if so, what.
I’m sure government understands that lobbyists on all sides will have their own priorities and that there is often an element of self-interest (even when arguments are dressed up as relating to other concerns).
The implication being that we are talking about TV, radio and (?) internet ads here? (e.g. not print media / billboard / …)
Most any media outlet of any sort is one sided or has bias. In comparison to say a Murdoch publication like FoxThe Guardian is pure gold. In comparison to one like the Christian Science Monitor, maybe not so much.
It shouldn’t matter what news source was read is journalists adhered to the MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics. Unfortunately, journalists are driven by being first to report and website clicks and its associated advertising revenues. This has resulted in journalist opinions, agendas and sensationalism being present in most all news outlets.
Speaking of places to finish it looks like we are off to the races.
Does anybody seriously think a rating of levels or directions of media bias is going to help make sensible gambling policy? Perhaps we can say that governments ought to make decisions for the whole electorate and not suck on any particular teat? I am sure one day we will have one like that, in the meantime we hope.
No, and it is fairly obvious that nobody suggested that this was the case. More to the point, does anybody think that biased media reporting can be of help in forming an unbiased or sensible opinion?
Unfortunately most governments just want to maximize the number of teats they can feed off, with it often just being a coincidence if the final decision is of an overall benefit to the electorate.
Gambling can be seen as a consumer issue or a societal issue or a non-issue.
Those of either of the first two persuasions might be happy it is being discussed. Those of the last might need to revisit their value systems and priorities?
Even if the whole population was to fall within your three suggested groups, you would likely find that people needing to revisit their value systems and priorities would be proportionally spread across all of those groups.
If you were referring to my comment about posts in this topic not needing to be there, you might find the below information helpful.
The topic heading is “Gambling advertising ignores the truth”. Whilst the initial post is on topic, it does not provide any examples to support the assertion or specify which type of gambling was mentioned in the offending ads.
The next batch of posts includes general rants about the evils of gambling, including the stereotyping of particular types of gamblers. The comments predominantly relate to poker machines, a form of gambling which other than at point of sale, has little or no advertising. They do not address the stated topic.
Whilst there are many references to gambling and gambling advertising in later posts, they only contain brief mentions of examples where gambling advertising might ignore the truth. Given that each gambling ad includes a warning, it would be difficult to argue that any of them ignore the truth.
