ASA Adjudication on Ladbrokes plc

Ad

Two TV ads for an online casino.

a. The first depicted a character with an eye-patch identified as "Willem Snyman, mentor and oceanic guru" talking about his erstwhile pupil. The pupil's story was depicted in flash back, intercut with commentary from Willem, and showed him taking more and more extreme risks in his chosen "sport" of diving with sharks, including tying raw bacon and sausages to his wet suit and leaping into shark infested waters dressed in a seal costume. Willem stated "His appetite for new highs was getting out of hand. He was taking too many risks. We told him, but he was so headstrong. All we could bury was his flipper". The final line of dialogue stated, "If only he'd seen ladbrokescasino.com it would have quenched his thrill buds". A ladbrokescasino.com red background and logo appeared on screen to the sound of deep laughter, and text stated "GET £20 FREE".

b. The second ad depicted a narrator called "J 'snake eyes' Kowalski, pilot and sky diving pioneer" talking about his student "Ted". Images of "Ted" getting a tattoo, sky diving, and jumping off a roof holding a small umbrella appeared, intercut by Kowalski's narrative. Kowalski said, "Ted was a great kid, young, naive, well, he'd try anything. We had some good times, but he got bored real easy, so he started experimenting with smaller and smaller 'chutes. Then one day he just jumped. Fifty gram pack maybe, but a thirty gram pack of potato chips?" An image of Ted jumping out of a plane using an empty crisp packet as a parachute appeared on screen. "I tell you man," Kowalski continued, "if only he'd seen ladbrokescasino.com his thrill buds would have been quenched." The same ladbrokescasino.com red background and logo as in ad (a) appeared on screen to the sound of deep laughter and text stating "GET £20 FREE".

Issue

The complainant challenged:

1. whether the ads portrayed gambling in a context of toughness or linked it to risk taking and reckless behaviour;

2. whether the ads portrayed, condoned or encouraged people to gamble in a way that was socially irresponsible and could lead to financial harm; and

3. whether the ads exploited the susceptibilities and aspirations of vulnerable people.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Ladbrokes plc (Ladbrokes) and M&C Saatchi provided a joint response to the complaints.  

Ladbrokes and M&C Saatchi said the primary purpose of the ads was to make people laugh.  They explained that Ladbroke's was a populist brand that had always communicated to consumers in a light-hearted, humorous way.  They said the humour in the ads was deliberately exaggerated and ridiculous; they believed such humour was crucial to communicating with their target audience of 18 to 34-year-old men.

They explained that the TV ads were pastiches of the documentary style of filming and the humour was communicated using preposterous objects, the narrator's deadpan delivery juxtaposed with fantastical, ridiculous action and the lyrics to the music. They believed the fantastical, unreal nature of the events in both scripts combined with a humour that delivered over-the-top comedy that engaged their 18 to 34-year-old audience.

1. Ladbroke's and M&C Saatchi argued that the context of unbelievable, humorous and fantastical action debunked any notion of the heroes displaying "daring" or "toughness".  They believed viewers would laugh at the ridiculousness of the action, not aspire to be in their shoes.  They said, even if the ads were taken out of context, they were in fact cautionary tales; they pointed out that the narrator lamented his friend's reckless behaviour. They said the moral of the story was that the protagonist should have "quenched his thrill buds" in a less reckless and more moderate way.  They asserted that the theme of the ads actively encouraged caution and moderation over extreme behaviour and recklessness.

2. Ladbroke's and M&C Saatchi believed there was nothing in the ads which could be seen to encourage gambling to financial harm.  They said the £20 free offer fell within the guidelines set up by the Gambling Commission and that the ads actively encouraged caution and moderation.  They said the endline "quench your thrill buds" was merely a "copywritten" way to communicate that casino games were thrilling; they said the ads did not breach the Code because they did not encourage frequency of gambling, nor anything that suggested gambling at a damaging or irresponsible level.

3.  Ladbroke's and M&C Saatchi said the ads needed to be judged in their overall context.  They said they were ridiculous and humorous and, furthermore, cautioned against reckless behaviour. They said none of the characters in the ads came across as vulnerable people who were being exploited in any way.

Clearcast said the ad campaign was conceived at the time new advertising rules on gambling were coming into force; they said they had considered the scripts at length before approving them.  They believed the ads were compliant because everything that took place in them was within the realms of fantasy and said they were, in fact, cautionary tales in which the daring fellows met a sticky end.

Assessment

1.  Upheld

We noted the ads were humorous and showed the protagonists engaging in ridiculous and extreme behaviour; we considered that the activities shown in the ads would be unlikely to be seen as realistic or aspirational by viewers. We further noted Ladbroke and M&C Saatchi's argument that the ads were cautionary tales and encouraged caution and moderation, not risk taking and reckless behaviour.  We nevertheless considered that the overall context of the ads, including the claim If only hed seen ladbrokescasino.com it would have quenched his thrill buds, portrayed gambling in a context of toughness, and linked it to excessive risk taking and reckless behaviour. Although we acknowledged that the scenarios shown in the ads were intended to be cautionary tales, we concluded that they breached the Code by portraying gambling in a context of toughness and linking it to recklessness.

On this point, the ads breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 11.10.1(h).

2. & 3.  Not upheld

We noted the end line to the ads offered a £20 free stake but considered that that was unlikely to encourage excessive gambling.  We acknowledged that both ads contained the statement "If only he'd seen ladbrokescasino.com it would have quenched his thrill buds", but also noted the reference to gambling as a way of satisfying the desire for excitement or thrills was made in the context of ads that offered gambling as an alternative to the extreme and ridiculous risk-taking of the characters in the ads.  Although we acknowledged that the ads presented gambling as an exciting activity, we considered that it was not portrayed in such a way as to suggest that people should gamble repeatedly, or in a way that was likely to result in financial harm.  We concluded that the ads were unlikely to exploit the vulnerable in a socially irresponsible way.  

On these points, we Investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 11.10.1 (a) (Gambling and social responsibility) but did not find them in breach.

Action

The ads must not be broadcast again in their current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)