Search

Public concern around gambling advertising in the UK has been met not by government action but by industry self-regulations, such as a forthcoming voluntary ban on front-of-shirt gambling sponsorship in Premier League soccer. "Safer gambling" (harm prevention) adverts are one recent example, and are TV commercials which inform viewers about gambling-related harm. The present work is the first independent evaluation of safer gambling adverts by both gambling operators and a charity called GambleAware. In an online experiment, we observed the change in participants' (N = 2,741) Gambling Urge Scale (GUS) scores after viewing either: a conventional financial inducement gambling advert, a gambling operator's safer gambling advert, an advert from the GambleAware "bet regret" campaign, an advert from the GambleAware "stigma reduction" campaign, or a control advert that was not about gambling. Relative to a neutral control advert, GUS scores increased after viewing a financial inducement or an operator's safer gambling advert. In comparison to the neutral control condition, GUS score changes were similar after viewing a bet regret advert, but showed a significant decrease after viewing a stigma reduction advert. Those at higher risk of harm reported larger decreases in GUS after watching a bet regret or stigma reduction advert. Overall, this study introduced a novel experimental paradigm for evaluating safer gambling adverts, uncovered a potential downside from gambling operators' safer gambling adverts, and revealed variation in the potential effectiveness of charity-delivered safer gambling adverts., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gambling advertising employs a range of persuasive strategies. We therefore aimed to evaluate a counter-advertising intervention video to increase resilience to gambling advertising persuasion., Methods: Three in-depth focus groups were conducted, and each group contained a mixture of gambling-related academics (N = 12) and experts with lived experience of gambling-related harm (N = 10). Participants were given access to the intervention video and provided feedback during the focus groups. Qualitative data were audio recorded and thematically analysed by the research team., Results: Three main themes were identified. First, participants recommended a shorter video that had a simplified and digestible structure. Second, frequent real-world examples of gambling advertisements within the video were discouraged, and the inclusion of a relatable human voiceover was considered imperative to the receptiveness of the video. Finally, participants deemed it important to deliver psychologically grounded yet jargon-free content via a conversational style. An overall narrative framed by consumer-protection was also preferred in order to increase acceptance of the video content, rather than a more didactic framing., Conclusions: Evaluating the acceptability of a counter advertising intervention video provided valuable insight from both an academic and lived-experience perspective. Such insight is instrumental to the meaningful co-design of counter-advertising interventions., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health.)

Objective: The inclusion and design of age restriction warnings, harm reduction messages and terms and conditions (T&Cs) in gambling advertising is self-regulated in the United Kingdom. Our study examines the visibility and nature of this information in a sample of paid-for gambling adverts., Study Design: A content analysis of a stratified random sample of gambling adverts (n = 300) in the United Kingdom from eight paid-for advertising channels (March 2018)., Methods: For each advert, we assessed whether any age restriction warnings, harm reduction messages and T&Cs were present. If so, visibility was scored on a five-point scale ranging from very poor (≤10% of advert space) to very good (≥26% of advert), which had high inter-rater reliability. Descriptive information on position, design and tone of language was recorded., Results: One in seven adverts (14%) did not feature an age restriction warning or harm reduction message. In adverts that did, 84% of age restriction warnings and 54% of harm reduction messages had very poor visibility. At least one in ten adverts did not contain T&Cs. In adverts that did, 73% had very poor visibility. For age restriction warnings, harm reduction messages and T&Cs, most appeared in small fonts and outside the main advert frame. Most harm reduction messages did not actually reference gambling-related harms., Conclusion: Age restriction warnings, harm reduction messages and T&Cs do not always appear in paid-for gambling advertising. When they do, visibility is often very poor and the messaging not clear. The findings do not support a self-regulatory approach to managing this information in gambling adverts., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)