“Not rivers of gold out there”: Gambling ads fund other content, say FTA execs
Ripping out gambling advertising will mean other content areas are ultimately impacted, an industry panel insists.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
A blanket ban on gambling advertising on television, will impact other Australian content, a panel heard at the Australian Content in the Streaming Era Symposium at ACMI, last week.
Renee Quirk, Seven Commercial Director, Sport, said gambling revenue was a critical part of the network’s ability to buy sports rights, broadcast niche sports and fund other content at a time when the ad market is under pressure.
“Anyone who’s reading the press or following any of the commercial free to air networks, probably almost any media organisation, would be aware that advertising revenue is challenged. It’s not rivers of gold out there. It’s a tough market,” she said.
“So to have a chunk of revenue stripped out from the gambling and wagering area is a significant impact on our ability to fund sports rights going forward. So whilst we absolutely recognise, and as a parent and as a community minded citizen, I understand that it needs to have a balance. It’s a key community issue. I understand that. At Seven we’re looking for a balance, and I’m desperately, personally keen to keep being able to fund the sports that the Australian public deserves, and we want to show.
“It’s going to have an impact, like it or not. We don’t want people to think, you can just say’ ‘blanket ban, it’s gone’ without understanding there’s a very real commercial impact on organisations such as Seven.”
Bridget Fair, CEO of Free TV Australia, noted there are already strict rules around gambling advertising in broadcast, banned from whistle to whistle, five minutes before and after play, and limited to one during scheduled breaks.
“That said, we’re having the debate that we’re having, there’s going to be a lot less gambling ads, not just in scheduled breaks, but across the board,” she said.
“As Renee said, we do need to think about what that means for having a free advertiser funded media sector here in Australia, which is an important thing that I think people look to and rely on. Because it funds a lot of other things, apart from free Sport. It brings you a lot of trusted News, it spends a lot of money on Australian content, employs a lot of people. I think we need to have a better conversation around if we are taking that revenue out, it’s not a magic pudding. It doesn’t just magically regrow.
“People keep saying, ‘Why isn’t it like tobacco advertising?’ Because it’s not 1988 that’s why. There’s more than three channels in the market where people can advertise, revenue is declining and there’s more competition.
“So if we’re going to have this conversation around reducing the amount of gambling advertising, then we need to really think carefully about what it means for the kind of community we want to live in and the sort of media sector we want to have here in Australia.”
The government is still preparing its response to a 2022 inquiry into gambling advertising. Australians spend and lose more to gambling than people in any other country in the world, amassing $25 billion in bets every year.
9 Responses
You have to be over 18 to Gamble so perhaps that’s how it should go for advertising it (and alcohol), though with TV perhaps anything rated PG and under they can’t and rated M they can.
I know M is for 15 and over, however it’s likely the closest you get to 18, most Sport would be PG anyway, the AFL, NRL, Tennis Australia, Cricket Australia and etc., want to include Families to their brands. So can’t see them wanting the TV Stations to classify the televised coverage of the Sports as M to get around it, I know M or PG Families would likely watch anyway, even if it said Rated M with a descriptor of Contains Gambling Advertising.
Whatever is decided though, it should apply equally to Free To Air, Pay TV and Streaming, none of this you pay for the service so you’re inviting it in stuff. Sure on some, like I do with AFL360 on Kayo you can wait 20 mins from when it starts and skip the adverts which are pretty much 60% Gambling ones, but still apply it equally.
The problem with that FTA lobbied for 7:30pm to be M. The Government should ask 7,9,10 whether they want Anti-syphoning rules (now up to 2500 matches a year) and cheap license fees or sports betting ads. They clearly shouldn’t continue to get both. They made the same argument about tobacco ads, alcohol ads and junk food ads and it’s the there no community support for any of those anymore. Kids watch Netflix and iView not FTA, Stan and Paramount+ are moving sport behind paywalls already. Claiming that what price reductions on streaming rights as well is hypocritical. State Government, especially NT, have created this problem because they legalised sports betting with no controls so that they could profit from taxing it. We shouldn’t forget that pokies are still twice the problem of sports betting. Meanwhile the federal government has been obsessed with trying to block off shore online poker because they can’t tax that. But they can’t stop people accessing it by VPN either.
Exactly on the M Rating with 7:30pm, and why I said I don’t see the Sporting Bodies wanting the Broadcasters to change to M for various Sports just to include Gambling adverts. Sport being rated M for Mature Audiences and a with a descriptor of Contains Gambling Advertising wouldn’t wash with them as growth depends on Families watching and going. Though perhaps it’s something that would need to be looked at and some sort of safe guard to stop them doing that, Streaming as I say should be included with them having advert tiers now (as well as PTV).
Pokies is a good case in point, I believe we are at the point now where all AFL Clubs have had them removed from their Social Clubs, some since 2008 and they’re doing fine financially. Shows that you don’t have to rely on Gambling and other avenues of revenue open up, just as they did as you say with tobacco ads, alcohol ads and junk food ads
If you’re relying on gambling advertising to support your business, you have a broken system.
Maybe if you create or screen better content that your audiences would enjoy, then you could increase the advertising spot value.
10-15 years ago I would have agreed. Not today, that view is out of date with regard to FTA which is in a downward spiral as revenue has migrated to other forms of reach permanently.
They always make some excuse when it comes to gambling ads. Enough is enough.
I don’t think he understands that if everybody’s revenue is down then they don’t have to bid over the top for e.g. NRL or AFL. If that means less money for footy “stars”, well many of them are overpaid anyway. How many ppl did all the stations send to the Olympics? Did it change the athlete’s performance? Let the market decide buying prices for rights instead of ego.
“Over the top” bids are due to competition between the networks and the sporting bodies know this as audience/revenue dives without them. Sports and news are just about the only content that rates on free tv.
The matters presented are true. The networks will be required to excise equivalent spending to remedy any significant reduction to revenue. A total ban should see significant cut backs on smaller sports and/or news bulletins by networks to compensate so the business at least gets back to zero.
Obviously there are ethical issues involved. They’ve got to prevent those that are vulnerable. I suppose for gambling companies, it’s about maintaining compliance and trust to keep business flowing.