A new report, coming in the wake of a newly-proposed measure by the Labor government in Australia, which will see the country possibly enact far-reaching restrictions on gambling advertising, suggests that the measure may not be as efficient as it is touted to be.
Although the report is meant to illustrate the effectiveness of the Anthony Albanese-led government’s decision to act on gambling advertising, it also highlights the relatively limited projected impact and that it would not hit the mark many gambling hawks have been hoping for - a tangible reduction in gambling spending driven by gambling advertising.
In fact, the report argues that only 0.8% of total gambling and wagering spending will be reduced as a direct result of the measures, which include banning athletes and famous personalities from advertising gambling products, as well as enforcing whistle-to-whistle bans on gambling ads during live games, and more.
The report, produced by Anthony Albanese’s Office of Impact Analysis, noted that the new gambling advertising restrictions will impact NRL and AFL websites, podcasts, app stores, and physical spaces, as well as radio and television.
The report also reiterates some of the key positions of the ban, such as a reiteration of the ban on gambling ads online for U-18 individuals, and no gambling ads for people who have not logged into the digital platforms they use (to confirm their age), as well as the application of the measure on popular digital platforms such as Netflix.
Though promising and decisive, restricting gambling advertising may not be as efficient as before. Some international data from Sweden suggests that gambling ads may not be to blame for problem gambling and addictive behavior after all, as the number of problem gamblers in the country has continued to decline despite a widespread proliferation of gambling products - and adverts.
The reform is set to affect 2,461 industry stakeholders, including betting companies, broadcasters, podcasters, and streaming services. Ultimately, however, the spending would only drop by $62.7m, and this is not in itself inherently a way to limit the pernicious impact of gambling.
Image credit: Unsplash.com
