The federal government has been under significant pressure all week as it works to finalise proposed regulation to restrict gambling advertising. Currently, a partial ban is on the table.
This has led to severe criticism from gambling harm researchers, community organisations and some MPs and senators. A partial ban is inconsistent with the recommendations of a recent parliamentary inquiry, which unanimously recommended the need for a total ban.
Gambling is a demonstrably big problem. Australians are the world’s biggest per capita gamblers, losing about $25 billion a year. Nearly half of gamblers are at risk of, or already experience, harms from it. These include financial hardship, relationship breakdown, domestic violence, poor work productivity, criminality, insomnia, depression and suicide.
Why, then, is the government so reluctant to ban gambling advertising entirely? Part of the answer is in the industry’s strategic stakeholder marketing strategies, both publicly and behind closed doors. And they’re strategies we’ve seen before.
The social costs associated with these gambling harms in Australia are estimated to cost more than $10.7 billion each year. The problem is so significant that even banks are taking actions to address gambling harm to their customers.
But the gambling industry is putting up a good fight. The peak body, Responsible Wagering Australia, has denied advertising normalises gambling to children, and warned any bans would send people to illegal offshore operators. There’s evidence contradicting both these points.
It’s part of a broader strategy to prevent further regulation. The tactics at play are very similar to those used by two other industries linked to health and social harms: alcohol and tobacco.
Strategic deja vu
These industries have used the full power of strategic marketing, not just to develop, promote, advertise and endorse their products, but also to influence government.
They do this through tactics such as extensive lobbying, media and public relations and stakeholder marketing. Tobacco companies have been known to funding favourable research or to challenge the findings of studies that have linked their marketing to consumption behaviours and harms.
Spruiking fears of job losses in hospitality, corporate social responsibility efforts such as funding community projects and setting up foundations are other strategic marketing examples used by these industries.
In the case of tobacco, this helped delay legislation banning advertising, introducing plain packaging and prohibiting smoking in public places for many years.
For alcohol, the industry has successfully avoided tighter restrictions on their marketing, despite clear evidence it helps drive harmful consumption.