November 13, 2013

(i) the overzealous comparison with competitors; (ii) the garbling of player incentives; (iii) the ‘philosophical disagreement’ over presentation; and (iv) the simple mistake. Gambling operators need to ensure that their marketing and

promotional teams are properly trained in how the CAP Code regulates (in particular) price

comparisons and superlative claims. Claiming to be the ‘best’ or better than others, generally or

particularly, is not acceptable without systematic and rigorous substantiation. There is a concept

called ‘puff ‘ in advertising – claims which are so daft or Quixotic that no one would take them seriously – but claiming to be the ‘best’ at something, or ‘better’ than others,is a representation that punters are likely to take at face value. It therefore must not only be true, but provable and in writing. There is no point in incurring substantial marketing spend on a campaign that is pulled due to poor or non-existent homework at the outset. The misrepresentation of player incentives is also an area fraught with difficulty because two diametrically opposed impulses are at work. On the one hand the

operator wants to make the promo sound as attractive as possible. On the other, the last thing the

operator wants to do is actually part with cash. Inevitably, free bets, bonus spins and so on will require

the player to stake the amount and be further subject to restrictions on the cashout of not just the stake but the winnings. There is only one solution to this: be absolutely crystal-clear with the public as to what they are getting and what strings are attached. Nothing else is good enough, including hiding

material caveats in small print distant from the actual headline promo itself. Any condition of any promo likely to be regarded by a punter as material should be put in flashing neon lights in the actual

promo text itself. Complaints from marketing that there isn’t enough space, for example, won’t wash.

The ASA seemed prepared, in the 24 July ‘Betfred’ adjudication, to contemplate significant caveats ‘no further than one click away from the ad itself ‘ but ‘best practice’ remains to put the ‘biggies’ in the

ad copy itself. By contrast, disagreements with the ASA over content are inevitable. Each ad treatment is going to search for a compelling angle that captures the fleeting attention span of the modern digital viewer and if it be a glimpse of ‘décolletage’ then, in 2013, that does not seem to the author to be a capital crime. The author has been the counterpart to numerous disagreements with OFCOM and the ASA as to the conformity or otherwise of given items of editorial content and it is usually the case that the regulator has made up its mind in advance as to its acceptability, often on a quite subjective basis, and no representations to the contrary will cut any ice. That is not an encouragement to throw selfregulation to the winds and embrace non-compliance, rather an acceptance that the application of a body of rules like the CAP Code to editorial content is an imprecise science and the outcome may often be interpreted by different people in different ways.

Lastly mistakes are going to happen and one can do little more than train personnel and make

them aware of the big risks first – advertising to children and young persons, advertising of ‘foreign’

gambling and the promotion of obviously socially irresponsible behaviour – in the aspiration that

they ring the bell when copy should be referred for proper clearance. It should be remembered that ClearCast clearance is not guaranteed compliance with the ASA Codes. As the Coral adjudication reminds us, TV compliance relies as much on scheduling and programme context as on actual copy.

Without exception, it is better to take the trouble to put in place some initial compliance on a creative idea, than to upload it only to find oneself embroiled in a fruitless exchange with a regulator.