The federal government has faced considerable pressure this week as it moves to finalize proposed regulations aimed at limiting gambling advertising. Currently, only a partial ban is being considered.
This approach has drawn sharp criticism from gambling harm researchers, community organizations, and some members of Parliament. They argue that a partial ban falls short of the recent parliamentary inquiry’s unanimous recommendation for a total ban.
Gambling poses a serious problem. Australians are the highest per capita gamblers globally, losing around $25 billion annually. Nearly half of gamblers are either at risk of or already experiencing significant harm, including financial difficulties, relationship breakdowns, domestic violence, poor work performance, criminal activity, insomnia, depression, and even suicide.
So, why is the government hesitant to implement a complete ban on gambling advertising? A key reason lies in the industry’s strategic marketing efforts, both publicly and behind the scenes—strategies that are eerily familiar.
Escalating harms
Aggressive marketing, lax regulation, and the rise of technologies like sports betting apps and online casinos have made gambling more accessible than ever.
The research highlights the distressing stories of gamblers:
“The feeling of losing… I hate even talking about it… it makes me so upset… It drives you crazy… I’ve dropped my phone, smashed the screen… because I was so upset… I was out of my mind, it’s horrible.”
The social costs associated with gambling harms in Australia are estimated to exceed $10.7 billion annually. The problem is so pervasive that even banks have started taking steps to mitigate the impact on their customers.
Yet, the gambling industry continues to resist tighter regulation. Responsible Wagering Australia, the industry’s peak body, denies that advertising normalizes gambling for children and warns that any bans could drive people to illegal offshore operators. However, evidence contradicts these claims.
This resistance is part of a broader strategy to fend off further regulation—one that mirrors tactics employed by the alcohol and tobacco industries, both of which are linked to significant health and social harms.
A strategic playbook revisited
The alcohol and tobacco industries have long leveraged strategic marketing not just to promote their products but also to influence government policies. They do this through extensive lobbying, media and public relations campaigns, and stakeholder marketing. Tobacco companies, for instance, have funded favorable research or contested studies that linked their marketing to harmful behaviors.
These industries also use fear-mongering about job losses in hospitality, corporate social responsibility initiatives like funding community projects, and establishing foundations as part of their strategic marketing arsenal.
In the case of tobacco, these tactics delayed legislation banning advertising, introducing plain packaging, and prohibiting smoking in public places for years.
Similarly, the alcohol industry has managed to avoid stricter marketing regulations, despite clear evidence that their promotions contribute to harmful consumption.
The gambling industry’s tactics
The gambling industry has taken a page from this playbook. Beyond media advertising, it employs celebrity endorsements, sponsorships, and other strategies to influence public perception and policy.
Political donations totaling millions of dollars over the past two decades, hiring lobby firms, and hosting extravagant events for politicians are all part of the industry’s approach.
Like the alcohol and tobacco industries, the gambling sector funds research, often distorting or disputing findings that link its marketing to public health and social harms.
Currently, we see the industry aligning with media companies to argue against a ban on gambling advertising, just as alcohol and tobacco did in the past to protect their revenue streams.
This strategic marketing playbook grants the gambling industry in Australia significant power, access, and influence over policymakers, potentially explaining why the federal government is hesitant to implement a total ban on gambling advertising.
In the case of tobacco, it took the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to curb these tactics through strong regulations. These efforts successfully reduced smoking rates, improved public health, and mitigated harm. A similar framework has been proposed for alcohol.
To reduce gambling harm effectively in Australia, similarly robust regulations may be required. These could include limits and disclosures on political donations, bans on gifts to politicians, stricter lobbying rules, and transparency in government meetings, whether with the gambling industry or others. These measures could complement the proposed advertising bans, sponsorship limits, and controls on product availability.
A comprehensive regulatory approach that addresses the gambling industry’s strategic marketing tactics is essential to protect the Australian public and prevent gambling harm.
