Ladbrokes plc Imperial House Imperial Drive Rayners Lane Harrow Middlesex HA2 7JW Number of complaints: 4

Date: 19 December 2007 Media: Television Sector: Leisure Agency: M & C Saatchi

Ad
Two TV ads, for Ladbrokes, featured several well-known football pundits dressed up as builders. They were sitting in a cafe discussing which team was likely to win the football league.   

a. the first TV ad showed Ally McCoist, dressed in overalls, walking into the cafe and greeting the others, who were reading newspapers.  He said "Afternoon salad dodgers.  How are we today? ... What you doing, are you just looking at the pictures".   The others all laughed.  Ian Wright said "So I'm going Liverpool" and Ally McCoist replied "no chance".   Ian Wright said "with the new signings and everything.  I'm not an expert".  Chris Kamara said "you're definitely not an expert" ...  Ian Wright said "The thing about it is at least I've got an opinion, you lot ain't got an opinion".  Ally McCoist said "I'll give you my opinion, I'll tell you Chelsea", to which Ian Wright responded "Liverpool" again.   Ally McCoist said "I tell you your problem you're all that" and made a talking gesture with his hand.  He continued "Why don't you put a few quid on it?"  Ian Wright said "Well I am going to, I'm going to have a cheeky punt, because I put my money where my mouth is" and he pointed at a Ladbrokes shop across the road from the cafe. The other characters all said "'oooooooh'" and mimicked carrying handbags.  Lee Dixon said "You know who else'll go well don't you ... Newcastle".   Kirsty Gallagher, who was dressed as a waitress, responded "Newcastle, are you kidding". The others all laughed.  A voice-over and on-screen text stated "Ladbrokes  Everybody's got an opinion, what's yours worth?"  The ad cut to the kitchen of the cafe and showed Jimmy Hill dressed as a cook.  He said "They know nothing these days".

b. the second TV ad was a shorter version of ad (a) and did not feature Kirsty Gallagher.

Issue
Viewers challenged whether the ads were irresponsible, because:

1. they suggested gambling was a way to gain recognition or admiration;

2. they suggested peer pressure to gamble;

3. they linked gambling with toughness, in particular because of the claim "I put my money where my mouth is";

4. they featured celebrity football pundits who might appeal to children or young people; and

5. they could exploit the susceptibilities or inexperience of children, the young or vulnerable people.

6. The ASA challenged whether the ads were irresponsible, because they showed characters acting in an adolescent and juvenile way.

BCAP TV Advertising Code:

11.10.2(a);11.10.2(b);11.10.2(c);11.10.1(f);11.10.1(e);11.10.1;11.10.2;11.10.1(h)

Response
Ladbrokes strongly denied the suggestion that the ads were irresponsible.  They said they took their social responsibilities very seriously and wholeheartedly supported the objectives of the Gambling Commission to ensure that children and other vulnerable people were neither harmed nor exploited by gambling.  They said they had worked closely with their agency and the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) to ensure they fully met the requirements of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code.

Ladbrokes said they had not received any complaints or negative comments about the ads directly.  They said competitors and consumers alike had thought the ads were light-hearted, in keeping with their brand image and sensitively prepared.  Ladbrokes said they were conscious of the fact that they were the first bookmaker to take advantage of the change in regulation and that they had a responsibility to the wider industry to ensure that they took the greatest care to embrace the spirit and substance of the regulations.  They believed they had done that when preparing the ads and were disappointed that complaints had been received.

M & C Saatchi, Ladbrokes advertising agency, said Ladbrokes was an 'everyman' brand with a sense of humour.  They said it had always communicated to consumers in a light-hearted way and that was what consumers expected from the brand.  They said to make the ads memorable they had used football pundits and placed them in an everyday, 'everyman' situation.  They said that served to remove them from a 'celebrity' world and ensured they were representing good honest blokes who liked nothing more than a bit of friendly football banter.  They said the exchanges in the ads were a very real take on everyday life; they were middle aged men gently ribbing each other and having a laugh.  They therefore believed the ad did not portray a glamorised world designed to suck in the young and vulnerable with promises of recognition, admiration and peer acceptance.  They believed the context of the ads was crucial and they needed to be judged as a whole, not broken down into their constituent parts and taken out of context.   They addressed each of the points in turn:

1.  They believed there was nothing in the ads that suggested someone could increase their status by gambling.   They pointed out that they had actually relegated and de-glamorised the role of the pundits by dressing them as builders to make clear that they represented the 'everyman'.  Furthermore, they believed the ads did not suggest that Ian Wright was more admired as a result of having a bet.  In fact they believed it was the opposite, because his friends reacted dismissively and mocked the fact that he was going to have a bet.

2. They pointed out that Ian Wright was not forced into having a bet because he had volunteered that information during a good natured debate.  They believed there was no suggestion that he needed to bet to conform to the behaviour of the others.  In addition, they considered that the actions of Ian Wright were unlikely to be construed as forcing his friends to have a bet as well.  On the contrary, his friends positively undermined the fact that he was going to have a bet by their mocking, dismissive reaction.

3. They said the literal meaning of "I put my money where my mouth is" was "I'm right" rather than "I'm tough".  They said the context was important; the conversations were all good natured debates over football and the colloquial language, for example "I put my money where my mouth is" and "cheeky punt" merely epitomised that.  In addition, they highlighted again the other characters reaction to Ian Wrights bet as a demonstration that his gambling was not portrayed as a "tough" activity.

4. & 5. They pointed out the pundits shown were middle aged ex-footballers.  They said they had deliberately avoided current footballers, and more importantly footballers who were worshipped by young people.  They pointed out that the featured pundits had been in their prime and playing football at least 10 to 20 years ago.  They said those characters could not be described as "pin-up" material for children and teenagers and maintained that they were likely to be admired by viewers who were now in their 30s.  

6. They said the use of humour in the ads was right for the brand.  They said there was a clear distinction between real banter and childish or silly behaviour.  They maintained that humour was the fabric of the football world and it was therefore credible that those pundits engaged in light-hearted banter.  They believed their exchanges reflected the real-life conversations occurring in the nation's cafes, bars and workplaces right now.  They said it was difficult to see how the behaviour in the ads could be considered 'juvenile'; nobody was hurt, the language was clean, and the behaviour was nothing but good natured and friendly.  The ads simply portrayed a group of middle aged builders joining in the fun.

The BACC said the gentle good natured humour and tone of the ads meant that they did not suggest toughness, peer pressure or that gambling was a way to gain recognition.  They believed the sharp and humorous adult banter featured in the ads was a long way from juvenile behaviour.  They said the featured celebrities were well known for their humour on programmes such as A Question of Sport.  They said it was grown up humour and therefore would not appeal to children.  They said they also believed the characters shown were unlikely to appeal to young people or children and none of them were likely to feature in a poster on a teenager or childs wall.  They maintained that children and teenagers tended to focus on current footballers not ex-players, managers or presenters. They believed the ad portrayed harmless banter used to engage the audience and gently suggest that if a consumer wanted to bet they should think of Ladbrokes.

Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted the other characters mocking reaction to Ian Wrights declaration that he was going to place a bet and considered that viewers were unlikely to infer that his actions had gained admiration from the other characters or that his status had been enhanced because he was going to place a bet.  We therefore considered that viewers were unlikely to infer from the ads that gambling was a way to gain recognition or admiration and we concluded that, on this point, the ads did not breach the Code.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 11.10.1(f) (Gambling) but did not find them in breach.

2. Not upheld
We noted Ian Wright declared that he would be placing a bet in response to the comments from the other characters, in particular Ally McCoists comment "I tell you your problem, youre all that.  Why dont you put a few quid on it?"  We noted the other characters did not suggest they were also going to place bets or that Ian Wright would not be accepted by them if he did not bet.  We considered that viewers were unlikely to interpret the ad to mean that Ian Wright had been pressured into placing a bet to conform with the group; rather he was placing a bet to back up his conviction that Liverpool would win.  We concluded that the ads did not suggest peer pressure to gamble.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 11.10.1(e) (Gambling) but did not find them in breach.

3. Not upheld
We noted the ads were intended to portray a light-hearted, good-natured debate about football and we considered viewers were likely to view the ad in that context.  We noted Ian Wright used the phrase "I put my money where my mouth is" in response to the challenge from Ally McCoist.   We considered viewers were likely to understand the phrase as a demonstration of Ian Wrights conviction in his opinion that Liverpool would win.  We considered viewers were unlikely to interpret Ian Wrights actions as a demonstration of toughness or bravado, especially because of the other characters' mocking reaction.    We concluded that the ads did not show gambling in the context of toughness and therefore did not breach the Code.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 11.10.1(h) (Gambling) but did not find them in breach.

4. & 5. Not upheld
We noted the characters depicted were all ex-footballers who had been in their prime between 10 and 20 years ago.  We acknowledged that Ian Wright was a well-known TV celebrity but considered that, in the context of the whole ad, the characters depicted were unlikely to be of particular appeal to children or young people.  We also considered that because the ads showed adults engaging in a discussion about football in an everyday situation, and because the characters were unlikely to appeal to children, the ads were unlikely to exploit the susceptibilities or inexperience of children, young or vulnerable people.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 11.10.2(a) & (b) (Gambling) but did not find them in breach.

6. Not upheld
We noted the characters in the ads were all middle aged and some were well known for their use of humour in the TV programmes in which they appeared.  Although we noted the ads depicted the characters mocking each other, we considered that viewers were likely to see their behaviour as light-hearted adult banter and were unlikely to consider it as adolescent or juvenile.  We concluded that the ads were not irresponsible.

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 11.10.2(c) (Gambling) but did not find them in breach.

Action
No further action required.


Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)