SBC News Voice of the Sports Betting Industry
In its weekly ruling newsletter, the Advertising Standards Authority has found against Betfred, 888sport.com, and Isiris Racing Services, which offers a horse racing tipster facility in the Racing Post.
The independent regulator and watchdog said one of Betfred’s matched bet promotions, and 888sport’s “BagBigOdds” adverts, breached several articles of its CAP Code and were cited for Misleading Advertising, Qualification, and Significant Conditions for Promotion.
“The ads must not appear in their current form again. We told Betfred.com to ensure that significant conditions of their £25 matched bet offer, such as the required odds on the first bet placed, were specified in the main text of future ads,” the ASA commented.
Referring to 888sport.com, they added: “The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Cassava Enterprises (Gibraltar) Ltd to ensure that future ads made clear significant conditions.”
An advertisement promoting a horse racing tipping service was warned for Misleading Advertising, Substantiation, and Exaggeration. Isiris Racing Services were also told to ensure bets were proofed appropriately and that profit claims were based on odds that were achievable by most customers.
Paddy Power’s “WHO’S THE BEST MASS DEBATER? CLEGG 6/4 FARAGE 1/2 …” advert did not breach the code, although investigated with regard to harm and offence. The supervisory body accepted that the ad had appeared in a newspaper targeted at adult commuters who would understand the light hearted and tongue in cheek nature, the Metro.
“The ASA noted the ad appeared in a newspaper aimed at an adult audience, in the context of two TV debates between the two politicians featured. Adult readers of the Metro were likely to recognise the ad as a reference to betting on the evening’s forthcoming debate and, although there were no explicit references to masturbation, they would understand the double meaning of the text and facial expressions.
“We understood that the advertisers had intended to convey their service in a light-hearted way and considered that readers would regard the ad as an attempt at humour on the part of Paddy Power. We also considered that readers might not share the advertisers’ humour and find the ad to be disrespectful and in poor taste.
“Marketing communications must not contain anything likely to cause serious or widespread offence. We acknowledged the complainants’ views, and considered that many readers may have found the choice of text and images to be distasteful. Given the context in which it appeared, however, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause offence to a serious or widespread degree.”
