Gambling operator William Hill was criticized by the UK Advertising Standards Authority for using images of children and children’s toys in two of its most recent advertising campaigns.
A single complainant turned to the advertising regulator arguing that youngsters might find the ads that were posted on Twitter particularly appealing.
The complaint was aimed at three tweets. The first one featured an image of a jumping child holding a golf ball and club. The tweet said “#TheMasters has started! #yippee.”, clearly referring to the start of the 2015 Masters Golf Tournament.
The other two ads featured two teddy bears wearing a pink or а blue rosette and crowns. In the first ad, the toys were placed on the back of a flatbed truck. In the second one, they were in front of the Houses of Parliament. Both ads appeared a few weeks before the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to her second child, when there was a lot of speculation as to whether the royal baby would be a girl or a boy.
Under the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion, and Direct Marketing (CAP Code), children should not be included in advertising campaigns aimed at promoting gambling products. The ASA announced in a ruling from earlier today that William Hill has breached the Code by using an image of a child.
In relation to the other two ads, the advertising regulator commented that it considered the rosettes and the crowns likely to attract the attention of a wider age range, children included. As for the teddy bears that appeared in the ads, they were likely “to be of particular appeal to children.” This is why, the ASA considered those, too, a violation of the CAP Code.
The regulator ruled that William Hill must no longer use the ads in question. In addition, the operator was told not to feature images of children as well as images that would be appealing to children in future advertising campaigns that promote gambling.
Following the filed complaint against its ads, William Hill admitted that the use of images that featured children or objects that could attract the attention of children was unacceptable. This is why it had already implemented procedures to make sure that this would not be repeated in future advertising campaigns.
