The new Lib-Con government is talking a big game on the topic of binge drinking. How this impulse manifests itself remains to be seen, but we are right to be twitchy about the recommendations contained in the Health Committee First Report on Alcohol (HC151) and the prospect of alcohol sponsors being told – you’re barred. But as we wait for news on drink, gambling is grabbing the headlines.
John Higgins’ taped conversation with Russian mobsters, has plunged snooker into a black hole of doubt and recrimination; and the longer term effect on the commercial value of the sport is now very much under question.
Meanwhile, Bodog, an American onling gaming brand, made an ‘Indecent Proposal’ to Tiger Woods, in the shape of $100million over five years, with a no moral judgement clause. This might be a stunt or a genuine offer, but either way it raises broader questions.
On the one hand, you have to applaud any brand with the confidence to make such a gesture. It feels at least more honest than the sanctimonious departure of Tiger’s sponsors who should have known better. On the other hand, this feels like the real face of online gambling – gloves off.
For a primer on the issue of sport and gambling, I point you toward Declan Hill’s book, The Fix. Hill estimates of the total global market for gambling, the legitimate gambling brands (bookies, lotteries, exchanges etc) account for just 40%. The rest is unregulated and underground. This means any government seeking to ban gambling sponsorship are merely tackling the ‘visible’ minority. But even within this group, the problem is evident. On a personal level, I half believed the story offered to me by one representative of the UK online gambling industry: that the big profits came from whales, the name given to gamblers who can afford to lose ridiculous amounts of money. But it never really stacked up – ask the World Lotteries Association for clarification: the real money is made from hundreds of thousands of people losing a little too much, too often.
Although the figure was disputed by the previous Government, the UK Gambling Commission estimates that 7.4% of people go on to develop an addiction to betting, and the number of women with gambling addiction is soaring, according to charities such as Gamcare. Commonsense says it can only increase – it’s invisible, exciting, and convenient: a pretty powerful combination.
The connection with alcohol is ubiquity. Ubiquity isn’t really talked about in marketing but it was ubiquity that was driving the concerns of the Health Committee: both in terms of blanket, untargeted exposure and the subconscious messages of legitimacy and social acceptance that ubiquity suggests. The online gambling brands are ubiquitous in a way that alcohol never was.
“But it doesn’t make me want to buy one” is a common response to marketing among the general public. But this misunderstands the issue, which for me could be an X Factor in the debate. The result of ubiquity is awareness but it also brings a legitimacy and an unconscious imprint of acceptability. When a brand, or a sector’s advertising, is everywhere, it starts to become the norm – and reduces emotional resistance or the perceived barrier to entry. Having a flutter, like having a quick one down the pub, can be perceived as the cultural norm. The Health Committee didn’t articulate their issue with sponsorship in this way, but I’m convinced it lies at the heart of their concerns. Despite its multi faceted appeal to business, to the vast majority of sports fans, and legislators, sponsorship is all about the logo, and ubiquity.
We all have to learn to deal with the pressures of living – both the daily grind and the deeper existential stuff: and addiction is just one response. But if the anti-alcohol lobby gains momentum – and the medical profession has the history, the infrastructure and the voice to argue the case for sponsorship prohibition – it opens the door even wider for online gambling.
I would hope that Tiger’s got enough FO money, if not dignity, to decline. I wonder what the IOC would say?