11 ms·
The Guardian bans all gambling advertising
- 0898 3y agoLaudable I guess. But it does seem relevant to note that The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust, which is sitting on £1bn+ assets.
- globular-toast 3y ago[flagged]
- richbell 3y agoObesity is a problem, however, it's hard for people to download an app and gain hundreds or thousands of pounds on a single night.
- guerrilla 3y ago[flagged]
- localplume 3y agoexcept people need food to survive? you don't need gambling. thats why its fine to ban. you're jsut engaging in a very bad faith argument since they aren't even close to equivalent.
- AlexandrB 3y ago> Everyone who's ever had a feast knows you can gain enough weight in a weekend it'll take months if not years to diet off. Is this actually a thing? I've definitely massively overeaten for short periods before (e.g. Christmas dinner). But the effect on weight was very transient.
- openweb 3y agoYes i highly doubt the validity of his statement. My calorie intake is around 2500 a day to maintain a weight of around 70kg (with some excerise). If i wanted to gain 2kg of weight id have to consume around 10000 excess calories over a period of two weeks. I have also many times lost 2kg over a period of a few weeks by simply being lazy to calculate my calorie intake while excersising more than usual. Gaining weight takes ridiculously more effort for me than losing weight.
- guerrilla 3y ago> If i wanted to gain 2kg of weight id have to consume around 10000 excess calories over a period of two weeks. Which is of course trivial to do. That's one kebab extra per day. You just don't eat caloricilly dense food at a high frequency and grossly underestimate how many calories someone can eat in a day [1]. Also, for most people losing 1kg a week is considered very fast weight loss at the border of what's recommended for safe caloric restriction. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36339530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36339530
- wccrawford 3y agoI've lost about 65 lbs, then gained about half of that back. If I overeat in a single day, I can put on a pound or 2. If I don't compensate the next day for that excess, some of that weight will stay on. If I don't compensate within a couple days, all of that weight will stay. I've had this struggle for a few years, gaining about 30 lbs over the course of a few years. What the GP said might not apply to everyone, but it does apply to those who have eaten to excess in the past and are now struggling to keep that excess weight off again.
- ben_w 3y agoIf you chug down 3 lites of vegetable oil, and it somehow all ends up in your lipid stores rather than giving you an unpleasant visit to the ceramic throne, you gain at most 2.8 kg. This may indeed take months to shift, but it's not even close to the maximum possible damage to someone's finances from gambling.
- guerrilla 3y agoYour number is exactly correct (1.4kg/day) [1] but you can easily do it without oil as they did in the study (there are a lot of waking hours in the day and a lot of good fatty foods.) Alcohol (and some medication) of course makes both storage and consumption easier. 1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7598063/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7598063/
- ben_w 3y ago3 lites of oil is approximately 10 times the recommended calorific input for adult men; it certainly isn't "easy", on the basis of what I've heard from a now-long-deceased acquaintance with cystic fibrosis who was required to consume 10,000 kcal/day just to overcome the medical condition; and 10,000 kcal/day is less than half the amount here (24,436 kcal), which I chose on the basis of it being a lot of fluid to drink in one day even if it was water.
- throwaway22032 3y agoThere is no way that a normal person can gain 1.4kg of body mass in a day unless they are on some sort of eating challenge. Even then I doubt that they would metabolise even half of the food unless they built up to it. That's a 10,000+ calorie surplus, you'd have to eat 1.5kg of straight mayonnaise and digest it all. Sure, you can get the scale to shift by that much, I can do that in a few minutes by drinking 1.4L of water. If you want to learn about actual realistic bodyweight tuning, look into the bodybuilding community, or any sport that has weight classes. Much more accurate information than using indirect measures of what people sort of felt like they sort of wanted to eat.
- globular-toast 3y agoThat's not really the problem with gambling either, though. The problem is addiction.
- discreteevent 3y agoThat's true but it would be extremely expensive if not impossible to implement therapy for all the addictive people in the world (most people, including me). So we just have to accept addiction and then try not to deliberately encourage the more damaging addictions. So addiction to coffee is not great but it doesn't do that much damage. Addiction to cigarettes does much more damage so while we don't probit it we don't allow people to deliberately encourage it via advertising.
- globular-toast 3y agoAddiction to coffee? Are there a lot of people for whom coffee is harmful yet they keep on drinking it? The only people I know who say coffee is bad for them don't drink it. Obese people, on the other hand, continue to eat despite knowing it makes them fat and unhealthy. It's an addiction just like cigarettes and should be treated the same.
- richbell 3y agoIndeed; gambling as a business model, be it betting apps or gacha games, relies on hooking in "whales" (gambling addicts) for most of their profits.
- xxs 3y ago>download an app and gain hundreds or thousands of pounds on a single night. Home delivery apps do that. Although I am not sure if "pound "is a unit for weight or currency in this case. If it's currency - in the UK, there are mandatory loss limits (esp. for new accounts). If weight thousand[s] of pounds is unrealistic gain to anyone.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoDo you have examples of food advertisements in the Guardian?
- dazc 3y agoThey have two in-house restaurant reviewers.
- KineticLensman 3y agoOne of these is Jay Rayner [0]. His reviews are not always positive for the restaurant concerned [e.g. 1], so I don't count them as pure advertising. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/profile/jayrayner https://www.theguardian.com/profile/jayrayner [1] https://www.theguardian.com/food/2023/apr/23/jay-rayner-restaurant-review-cavo-london-the-emptiest-of-empty-vessels https://www.theguardian.com/food/2023/apr/23/jay-rayner-rest...
- polar 3y agoJay Rayner writes for The Observer, which is a sister publication of The Guardian.
- KineticLensman 3y agoWell, and the Guardian. Here's today's piece (a Thursday, not the Observer's Sunday): https://www.theguardian.com/food/2023/jun/15/shopping-bags-too-heavy-embrace-trolley-jay-rayner https://www.theguardian.com/food/2023/jun/15/shopping-bags-t...
- polar 3y agoAh, indeed. Thanks. I ought to have been more precise about what he writes about on a Sunday.
- doctor_eval 3y agoIn Australia at least they partner with another magazine (broadsheet) which is basically all about food and entertainment.
- bluSCALE4 3y agoMexico started putting ads on cigarettes on how it causes death. Graphic images as well. Then they started adding labels to food, "excess sodium / sugar", etc. Then they banned mascots on food products. No more Toucan Sam or Tony the Tiger. Though the last thing seemed a bit excessive, the cereal does look more generic and I know that as a kid, I asked for name brand cereal. I hope they target fast food ads next depicting great looking food that in reality usually look as if it was stepped on.
- treis 3y ago>No more Toucan Sam or Tony the Tiger. Though the last thing seemed a bit excessive, the cereal does look more generic and I know that as a kid, I asked for name brand cereal. Nah advertising to kids is a bunch of bullshit. It should not be allowed in general and definitely not for things that are harmful to them.
- ekianjo 3y agoAds for adults is hardly better...
- ravenstine 3y agoIf it's bad for kids, what makes it any better for adults?
- briandear 3y agoAdults presumably are adults.
- treis 3y agoAdvertising at its core is one adult telling adult about something. There's utility there and it seems like a pretty fundamental right. Though I agree that it's warped into a bit of a monster and should be dialed in a bit.
- bondarchuk 3y ago
- goethes_kind 3y agoThis is like when people say that consuming meat is a problem for climate change, completely ignoring the utility of meat. Obesity is a problem, but at least food, even fast food, even junk food, has some utility, whereas gambling has none at all.
- donatj 3y ago> gambling has none at all It pays for newspapers.
- zztop44 3y agoI don’t think people who say meat is a problem for climate change are ignoring the utility of meat. They’re just pointing out that meat is a problem for climate change. Which it is, regardless of utility.
- qwytw 3y ago> has some utility, whereas gambling has none at all. Different people have different preferences. It's like saying anything that provides only recreational/etc. value has not utility.
- briandear 3y agoIt gives people a reason to watch soccer. Watching 90 minutes of a zero zero game is pretty boring unless you bet on that outcome.
- globular-toast 3y agoI didn't say fast food should be banned. I said fast food advertising.
- nemo44x 3y agoIt’s entertainment. Isn’t that utility? People also build community around it and make friends. Certainly sports betting makes watching professional sports (which have no utility) far more interesting. Like spiking a drink.
- regularfry 3y ago2025, now: https://www.just-food.com/news/uk-government-delays-junk-food-tv-advertisement-ban-once-again/ https://www.just-food.com/news/uk-government-delays-junk-foo...
- Joe8Bit 3y agoI'm interested in this line "Many media outlets are increasingly reliant on money from betting companies" as I'd be interested to know how reliant the Guardian was on this revenue. Is stopping this type of advertising a big impact on their top line? I applaud the move either way, but stopping doing something that's 0.1% of your revenue vs something that is 25% are two very different things.
- rvz 3y agoThey won't tell you, or give an exact figure, other than this nonsense: > Guardian Media Group increasingly relies on contributions directly from readers, rather than advertising, for its income. Which is no wonder they 'seem' to be continuously begging their readers to pay. Now after this, I should expect them to be begging even more aggressively, unless someone is funding them grants or what not, since they are still not telling us something or giving an exact figure. Either way, one-sided publications like the Guardian is hardly worth paying for regardless.
- mnd999 3y agoI pay for the Guardian and I think it’s easily worth the money.
- ekianjo 3y ago[flagged]
- throwaway290 3y agoIts called "you give people who do good money so they do more good". The alternative is called "you are the product".
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- matthewmacleod 3y agoJesus, come on. Isn't this just called "paying for a product that you think offers some value"? Do we need to pathologise literally everything?
- manishsharan 3y agoI was watching the NBA playoffs and I found that the numbers of ads from betting apps was higher than any other category. I don't think this is a healthy trend. Also unlike last year, this year we did not see any crypto ads.. so that's a good thing.
- ghaff 3y agoI was in Boston last week and DraftKings sportsbook was plastered all over the place. I've also gotten mailings at home.
- simoneau 3y agoThe Daily has a good episode on how online sports betting moves into one state at a time: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/10/podcasts/the-daily/sports-betting-lobbying-laws-states.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/10/podcasts/the-daily/sports...
- khalilravanna 3y agoThey recently legalized sports betting in MA. My SO lives in the North End and even I didn’t realize until I noticed Boston go from normal ads to sports betting ads being everywhere in the city. https://www.wcvb.com/amp/article/massachusetts-sports-betting-guide/42704553 https://www.wcvb.com/amp/article/massachusetts-sports-bettin...
- ghaff 3y agoI didn't know either until I saw the ads everywhere. I don't live in the city and don't really pay a huge amount of attention to the local news.
- h2odragon 3y agoThere's those who view the insurance industry as a form of gambling...
- blibble 3y agofor the sellers of insurance: it is but as a purchaser of insurance you're giving up a risk in exchange for a fixed loss, which is the exact opposite of gambling
- ravenstine 3y agoAssuming the insurance company doesn't deny your claim.
- huhtenberg 3y agoWent to the UK for a visit few years ago and the amount of gambling/betting adverts in public places in the UK was flabbergasting. The fact that every ad featured a macho dude with a buzz cut half-threateningly peddling his betting venue of choice didn't help much either. "Like an addict to addict, here's the brand I prefer" type of thing. This left a really bizarre and lasting impression for some reason.
- doublerabbit 3y agoOur anti-gambling slogan is: when the fun stops, stop. If you're addicted there is no fun. And to stop, you can't stop. Kind of an ridiculous slogan don't you think?
- CaptainZapp 3y agoWell, it's like the booze industry's Drink Responsibly shtick. They don't really have an interest for their best customers to drink responsibly. Same as the gambling industry is not interested that their best clients stop. Regardless if the fun stopped or not.
- lost_tourist 3y agoWhich actually works for me, I go weeks without having so much as a hard cider. However I don't think slick slogans work with addicts.
- pjc50 3y agoThis is one of the negative legacies of the Blair era, the expansion of gambling. On behalf of party donors. (They nearly got away with taking a bribe from Ecclestone to liberalize cigarette advertising, but people spotted that)
- secondcoming 3y agoYes, it's extremely popular here. The US has a similar 'WTF' when it comes to pharmaceutical ads.
- zirgs 3y ago[flagged]
- doctor_eval 3y agoIf they starve they won’t be helping anyone.
- zirgs 3y agoI understand gambling and cigarette advert bans, but how does a fossil fuel advertising ban help in this case exactly? It's not like we can stop using fossil fuels completely right now. So it seems like hypocritical virtue signalling.
- bamfly 3y agoSeems to me if it doesn't help, then the ads weren't doing anything anyway, so they're doing fossil fuel companies a favor by saving them money that they were wasting.
- zirgs 3y agoThe ads might influence which fossil fuel supplier people will pick, but in the end they have to pick someone, because we can't even get food without burning fossil fuels somewhere.
- bamfly 3y agoNot all ads are sales ads. This is especially true for huge industries with a few major players and strong industry associations & lobbying groups. Double-especially true for such industries that also have a serious negative-externality problem and are facing significant regulatory risk. A quick image search for "[name of fossil fuel company] ad"—plus, just having seen lots of these ads over the years, in the wild—suggests that much of that spending is about PR and influencing policy opinions of voters, not trying to sell me some particular product. As you keep writing, the fuel that's needed will be purchased anyway, so the main effect of this would be reducing the reach of corporate PR (i.e. bullshit) campaigns. Seems like a cheap and easy win to me, and a service to their readers.
- throwaway22032 3y ago[flagged]
- hhmc 3y agoIts right wing broadsheet counterpart -- the telegraph - just filed for bankruptcy. So I don't think there's any counterfactual to support your 'arugment'.
- Mindwipe 3y agoTBF while I think the Telegraph is flying into extremely bad headwinds by chasing a literally dying audience, it's bankruptcy is due to the ongoing feud between the family that owns it and them trying to starve each other of funds by pulling cash out of the parent company rather than the business of that newspaper itself.
- qwytw 3y ago> textbook example of "go woke, go broke" Yeah totally.. people no longer buying printed newspapers obviously had nothing to do with it.
- CoastalCoder 3y agoMy brother used to be a newspaper reporter and then editor in the US. His take was that the early pain came from Craigslist eating their classified ad sales.
- pjc50 3y agoThe Manchester Guardian has always been lefty. That's not a new thing.
- jmclnx 3y agoWhere I am, there has been talk of banning these ads statewide, but of course, that may be just a fund-raiser for the upcomming election. :(
- mypastself 3y agoWeird that they should call it a “ban”, as though there’s a legal aspect to it, or as if it applies to entities beyond the company’s direct control. Aren’t they just stopping it? Not sure if it’s related to the fact thay they’re excluding state-sponsored gambling from the “ban”.
- constantcrying 3y agoIt is common in journalism to write total nonsense into headlines.
- fknorangesite 3y agoNothing about the word "ban" requires a legal aspect.
- mypastself 3y agoApart from the vast majority of its definitions? But the minority definitions are exactly why I added the “or” part.
- amelius 3y ago[flagged]
- pjc50 3y agoMost of those have been banned, or heavily regulated, by a combination of the UK FCA and ASA. https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/financial-products-and-services-cryptoassets.html https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/financial-products-and-...
- cm2012 3y agoI work on advertising and draw a hard line for myself: no promoting gambling or mobile apps that are mostly gambling. I think it should be legal to gamble but illegal to advertise it.
- detritus 3y agoYup, with you. I've run my own wee concern for about 14 years and the only Gambling-related job I took on was helping a fairly desperate friend out with a very small something that utimately didn't come to pass, for promoting 'PaddyPower'. It kind of amuses me thinking of all the contracts I might consider whereas jobs for Gambling companies are an immediate 'Nope'. Such a nasty industry.
- daniel-cussen 3y ago[dead]
- lupyro 3y agoI'm all for the legalization of cannabis/gambling/alcohol/prostitution/etc. but I do believe that advertising for these industries are a net negative for society. We're all used to alcohol advertising by now but it's objectively just as bad as the rest.
- stevenicr 3y ago'We're all used to alcohol advertising' - I can not stand to see alcohol advertising in certain places where I know it should be trivial to block it - like ads in google news.. There are some regulations or standard applied to alcohol ads though right? And not allowed for in content / showing people drink it TV shows as well? I am for free speech.. so I hate to say ban ads.. but I can see 'no sexy models pushing alcohol / gamblin' - perhaps they should be words only and no imagery allowed.. still want optout option for google news and similar.. nice if can be opted out at an ip level - seeing those ads on chromecast and other devices, meh!
- autoexec 3y agoI think most advertising is a net negative for society. I'm all for legalizing the things you mentioned, but every one of them needs to be heavily regulated and a part of that should mean limits on ads along with where/when those products can be bought and enjoyed.
- hospitalJail 3y agoI was(and might still be) a libertarian that believes in legalization of everything... But you get older and you see the effects of drugs, gambling, etc... Humans have almost no control over the reptilian part of the brain, this is the part that keeps people coming back to drugs and gambling. (There is a book Power of Habit, my number 1 book ever, that talks about how that reptile brain works, I'd pay $100k for that book) If humans have no control over something, maybe there is a case for big brother stepping in. But not if having a black market actually improves the condition.
- shocks 3y agoUK bookies are evil. It’s rather easy to win money from them, but they are extremely good at spotting smart money and will immediately limit your account. If you have a long term account with a bookie, you are a loser. (in monetary terms. :))
- iou 3y agoCanada needs to do this, it’s out of control on every media avenue.
- 0xDEF 3y agoThe is significant. Gambling and football betting ads make up a significant percentage of TV, radio, and newspaper ads in Western Europe.
- mock-possum 3y agoman it's crazy to me that some people have so little self control, that the only caring option is the nuclear one, to simply never risk exposing ANYONE to the thing that these people are addicted to or compulsive about. Like I can see a gambling ad without wanting to gamble, but other people have it SO BAD that the Guardian is avoiding showing me gambling ads, just to be on the safe side. it's shocking.
- nsvd 3y agoAddiction is hard to understand unless you're yourself an addict. Especially on an emotional level.
- lacker 3y agoHere in California, the state government itself advertises gambling, promoting the California Lottery. I find this extra frustrating - my tax dollars are being spent to encourage dumb behavior by other citizens.
- smugma 3y agoIt’s not your tax dollars at work, it’s the opposite. The CA lottery generates about $2B, 1% of total funds that go to public schools. It encourages dumb behavior but brings in money for the state. Is it a net win or net loss… depends on how much the negative externality is valued—is lotto a gateway to more gambling or a substitute for other, costlier gambling? There are plenty of people who argue that lotteries should be banned, which is fine, but that will result in fewer services or higher taxes.
- WirelessGigabit 3y agoExcept it extract $ from the poorest in the state. People who need the money the most. You don't see lottery signs in the rich neighborhoods of Los Angeles. You only see them in the poor ones. So that money that it generates? We're still paying for that, as those people now need more help to get around. And I say 'we', but I'm out.
- lacker 3y agoThe way I see it, California extracts plenty of money from its citizens via taxes. When they decide to extract this money via a lottery instead, all the overhead of the lottery is just a complete waste. That includes advertising the lottery and implementing the lottery.
- stjohnswarts 3y agoI guarantee your lottery makes many times over what it costs to advertise, so not a dime of your tax dollars goes into it. If you're buying lottery tickets then yeah a portion of that goes into it. think, Mark, think.