The importance of advertising in the context of the modern market economy is indisputable. The more a given product, any product, is talked about, the better chances it has to sell well. And a good advertising campaign would certainly contribute significantly to the popularity of that product. Here it is important to note that a successful advertisement is not necessarily one that evokes positive emotions in those who have come across it.
In fact, it seems that shocking and scandalous ads tend to create a social buzz and thus, capture greater attention on what is being advertised. Shockvertising is an approach that seems to be gathering more and more popularity. In other words, the use of strange and often irritating tropes is something that advertisers are keen on deploying in contemporary campaigns. Moreover, ads often concern personal and cultural values, religion, gender and other stereotypes, and other important topics. Sometimes, they even poke fun at those quite openly. This is what makes them shocking and thus, more likely to attract broader attention.
Being part of a multi-billion industry, gambling operators rely heavily on advertising among other things. This is why they need successful advertising campaigns in order to promote their services and products and attract the attention of both existing and potential customers. However, gambling companies and advertisers often push at the boundaries of good taste and of what the general public considers acceptable and appropriate.
Here is a selection of ten of the most controversial TV ads presented by international gambling operators – ads that have definitely created a buzz and have even been banned by advertising regulators and major broadcasters.
1. Paddy Power – “Jesus Christ Heals Italian Football” TV Ad (2012)
Speaking of controversial ads, Irish gambling operator Paddy Power is certainly one that knows how to make people tsk in disapproval. It has often been criticized for the topics it touches upon in its ads. However, the generally negative social reaction towards almost each and every of its advertising campaigns has not stopped the company and the marketing specialists it works with to create more and more audacious spots and posters.
But let us focus our attention on the Jesus Christ ad, which was banned by three major Italian broadcasters. It was first aired in 2012 and was intended to mark the launch of Paddy Power’s Italian website. The ad features a Jesus Christ impersonator who seems to be on a mission to save Italian football. But why would it need saving? The ad clearly refers to the 2011 scandal, when a number of public figures were arrested over allegedly being involved in match-fixing practices.
The 30-second spot starts with a comment written on Paddy Power’s Facebook page. The comment goes as follows: “Betting on this football? Only if a miracle heals it.” And the miracle happens. Jesus Christ is sent to Italy to heal “crippled” footballers, bring fans back to the stadiums, and punish match-fixers… with a baseball bat and a scary look in his eyes.
Being the heart of Catholicism, Italy is perhaps not the best place to carry out such a campaign. Some people are clearly sensitive about religion, others are sensitive about what happened with the country’s football. As mentioned above, the ad was banned by three of the major Italian broadcast networks.
2. Paddy Power – “Blind Football” TV Ad (2010)
This 30-second spot features two football teams of blindfolded players kicking a ball with a bell inside it. A cat enters the pitch right before one of the blindfolded men takes a kick. A thud and a loud meowing sound are then heard. A suited man appears and tells both the unfortunate player and viewers that they cannot get Tiddles (the cat) back, but what they could get back is the money they have bet (only on certain occasions).
In other words, the ad was intended to promote Paddy Power’s Money Back Specials program. However, some viewers considered it highly offensive and inappropriate, as it was supposedly poking fun at blind people and was displaying images of unmotivated cruelty towards animals. In fact, the spot was the most complained-about one in 2010 with more than 1,000 complaints filed to the the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), known to be UK’s advertising watchdog.
Although Paddy Power once again proved that it knew how to create controversy by means of shockvertising, the ad was not banned from being aired, as it did not display the actual moment when the cat was kicked.
3. Paddy Power – “New Owner, New Kit” TV Ad (2015)
“New owners can really sheikh things up sometimes, cannot they?” This is how this 30-second spot begins. We are presented with a Premier League football team, which has a new owner – a rich Middle Eastern sheikh. We are also told that one of the first things the new owner has done is to change his players’ kits from the standards ones to long white robes – typical apparel for the Middle East.
A shot shows the footballers coming out on the pitch. However, the sheikh’s team seems to feel uncomfortable in the new kit, as several of the players trip over their robes and fall face down on the ground.
Generally speaking, the ad pokes fun at foreign owners of English clubs who often tend to implement changes without giving a second thought to what fans want. At least, this was what a spokesperson for Paddy Power gave as an explanation of its campaign. Yet, given the current situation in the Middle East, the spot was considered quite inappropriate by many.
4. Paddy Power – “Oscar Pistorius” Poster Ad (2014)
Earlier this year, the ASA announced that Paddy Power’s Oscar Pistorius ad was the most complained about one in 2014. A total of 5,525 complaints were filed against this particular ad.
In brief, Pistorius is a South African Paralympic champion. On February 14, 2013, he shot his girlfriend fatally in their home in Pretoria. Although he claimed he did this incidentally, the athlete was found guilty and was sentenced to five years in prison.
Paddy Power’s Pistorius ad appeared right before the murder trial. Here it is important to note that the trial took place around the same time as last year’s Annual Academy Awards Ceremony.
Paddy Power’s ad features Pistorius face being superimposed on an Oscar statuette. However, the below-the-knee part of the athlete’s new “body” is missing. Complainants argued that the ad referred to Pistorius’ disability, as both his legs were amputated below the knee when he was only 11-months-old.
Apart from the Oscar Pistorius statuette the ad offered punters the chance to bet on the trial’s outcome. Paddy Power promised that it would return all losing bet, provided that the athlete was found not guilty. Complainants stated that the ad in a way trivialized domestic violence towards the female representatives of society.
The ASA ordered the Irish gambling operator to immediately pull it out from media.
5. Ladbrokes – “Climb” TV Ad (2009)
The “Climb” ad was part of an advertising campaign by the UK-based gambling operator that aimed at promoting its online casino brand.
The one-minute spot features mountain man Nolbert Fernandez. Nolbert talks about his friend Pedro – an adrenaline junkie and mountaineer, who appears to be keen on constantly challenging himself or at least used to challenge himself.
Nolbert tells us that Pedro “started to take things too far.” In other words, he did not content himself with just climbing mountains and began doing this in unusual ways. Once, he covered himself in oil and thus, climbed the mountain peak. He even climbed blindfolded but this, too, was not enough for Pedro.
He decided that he could climb with his hands tied behind his back, using only his chin. As one could suggest, Pedro cannot tell us about his own endeavors, as he has been somewhat dead since his latest adventure.
The ad ends with Nolbert opening a laptop and saying that if Pedro had seen Ladbrokes.com, he would have quenched his thrill buds by playing casino games rather than risking his life.
This particular ad as well as the other two that were part of the campaign were banned by the ASA, after the regulator had received a single complaint against them. The UK advertising watchdog claimed that the spots promoted reckless behavior.
6. Ladbrokes – “When you win it’s skill – when you lose it’s bad luck” and “Once is lucky – twice is talent” Poster Ads (2014)
These two particular ads were part of a larger Ladbrokes’ advertising campaign. It aimed at providing an insight into the lives of the Betting Men – five seemingly regular guys who represented the general types of bettors (the Gut Truster, Generous John, the Believer, Mr. Brightside, and the Professor). The massive campaign included a number of TV spots and poster ads that featured the five friends and how they spend their time.
Although some suggested that the ads implied that gambling might enhance people’s personal qualities, the ASA did not found them harmful to the society, except for the above-mentioned two posters.
The first one features Mr. Brightside supposedly trying to convince punters that when they win, this is due to their skills. However, their losses could only be attributed to bad luck.
The other poster shows the Professor and the slogan: “Once is lucky – twice is talent.” In other words, this one, too, touches upon the topic whether winning from gambling activities is a matter of skills or of pure luck. The ASA received 98 complaints against the two posters and ordered to Ladbrokes to pull out them from media. The regulator ruled that they promoted “irresponsible attitude towards gambling.”
7. TigerGaming.com – “Dead Pool” TV Ad
Online poker room and casino TigerGaming was among those who had one of their ads banned by the local advertising watch.
In brief, the one-minute-and-a-half-long ad presents us with a man lying on a hospital bed. He has his nearest and dearest around him. Supposedly, the man is not going to survive through the night. A doctor and a nurse are seen entering his room. The doctor says that there is only 3-to-1 chance that the man would make it through the night. The nurse then decides to place a bet, relying on the doctor’s prediction. The man’s relatives, too, wager some money. A few moments later, the man dies and everyone is ecstatic about having placed winning bets. A slogan at the end of the spot reads: “You lose some and you win some”, thus inviting people to try TigerGaming’s casino games.
People have always tended to poke fun at death. However, advertising regulators found this particular ad in way inappropriate and it was banned from being aired.
8. William Hill – “Sexy Croupier” TV Ad (2013)
This ad was found quite controversial by the ASA and was even banned from being aired. The regulator explained that the 30-second spot equated gambling to seduction, which was considered a breach of the Committee of Advertising Practice Code.
The piece, which the ASA referred to as an offensive one, starts with a close-up of a blue-eyed woman. It soon becomes clear that she is a casino croupier, as the camera pans down towards a roulette wheel. In addition, a voiceover intonates: “Experience live casino like no other.” However, according to the advertising watchdog, unnecessary focus was put on the woman’s chest.
The ASA ruled that the close-up of the model’s eyes and then the shot of her sensual areas were used by William Hill as a means to attract viewers’ attention and to relate seduction to gambling.
The major UK gambling operator denied those claims, but nevertheless the ad was banned.
9. William Hill – “Brekkie” TV Ad (2008)
This 30-second spot was part of an advertising campaign intended to promote William Hill’s bingo website. It, too, was considered reckless and controversial by the ASA and was pulled out from media.
The ad shows a husband and a wife in their kitchen at a breakfast time. The wife secretly winds the clock forward and urges her husband that he would be late for work. Once the man has left the house, the woman hurries upstairs saying: “I get mine the minute he’s out the door.” She then logs on to the gambling operator’s bingo site where she plays all day long. A voiceover says: “William Hill bingo … a massive online community. When will you get your William Hill bingo thrill?”
The ASA ruled that the ad promoted reckless gambling behavior that could cause emotional, social, and financial harm to those who have seen it, as it depicted a gambling addict who tried to hide their addiction from their family. As mentioned above, the spot was banned from being aired.
10. William Hill – “Royal Teddies” Twitter Ads (2015)
A few weeks ago, one of the latest advertising campaigns of the gambling operator fell victim to the ASA. William Hill posted two ads urging people to bet on the gender of the second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
The ads feature two huge teddy bears wearing crowns and blue and pink rosettes. In the first ad the bears travel around London on the back of a flatbed truck. In the second ad, they are poised in front of the House of the Parliament. As mentioned above, they were posted on the operator’s Twitter page a few weeks before the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to Princess Charlotte.
However, the ASA considered the two ads breach of the CAP Code, as they displayed objects that children could find particularly attractive. The regulator ruled that William Hill should not show these ads in their current form.
