Alarm bells have been raised over the lack of a level playing field when it comes to the advertising of the black market compared to the regulated sector.
Reacting to marketing that raised eyebrows on social media, which saw a Sports Direct consumer directed to a free spins gambling affiliate site, BetBlocker Founder, Duncan Garvie emphasised that untargeted advertising is concerning and certainly risks capturing vulnerable audiences.
Nonetheless, he stated that this type of advertising is fairly commonplace within the industry, adding that ‘most of the major newspapers have sections promoting gambling despite this being an entirely untargeted advertisement’.
In terms of the Sports Direct marketing specifically, he emphasised that what leaps out as unusual is the presentation of the ‘earned reward’, which could elevate the advertising into a higher risk category.
Furthermore, Sports Direct requires minimal age verification checks, which further heightens the risk factor around the advertisement.
But as the UK adjusts to a challenging new tax climate and regulated operators are facing a future hampered by a crippling marketing spend, the unlicensed sector is being given carte blanche to advertise freely.
Garvie warned: “The advertisement doesn’t appear to be compliant with UK gambling advertising standards, with insufficient terms and out-of-date responsible gambling messaging, strongly suggesting that the marketing partner isn’t a UK licensed gambling operator.
“The current sector appears to have one set of rules for operators who look to function legitimately with the licensing system, and no standards for the unlicensed operators’ marketing via high-exposure channels.
“More needs to be done to rein in any advertisement of unlicensed gambling operators in the UK. If a sports team or UK present company chooses to market gambling, there should be severe consequences if they choose to market illegal gambling.”
The calls come amidst proposals for the banning of unlicensed operators from gaining exposure in the Premier League, which would be a significant move in terms of limiting the level of advertising for unlicensed operators in the UK.
Mark Conway, Consultant for GamHarm, stated that more should be done to protect players, emphasising that where verifiable age-gating can take place, then it should.
He added: “What I would say is that anybody partnering with paid sponsorship or marketing (such as advertising) should have to be mindful of the potential impacts on their own audience or members through what it is they are willing to promote or endorse.
“If you are willing to accept money to be seen endorsing a product which is known to have a non-negligible or non-incidental link to potential harm through use, then I would suggest that this should mean taking on board some of the liability and responsibilities that others have to accept to be licensed to sell those same products.
“In the case of gambling marketing where adverts sitting outside of the zone of regulated activities – such as here, between Sports Direct and a slots comparison site – but which are seeking to promote products which do sit within the sphere of regulated activities – such as gambling – should be required to follow the same marketing and promotional guidelines which apply to the regulated product providers.”
He underlined that there is clear injustice to license holders if others can carry out advertising strategies, driving customers to make directed choices around licensed products marketed by their competitors in ways that they or their competitors cannot. If nothing else, this acts to significantly undermine the protection of customers, which is the key prerogative of the regulation.
