Leisure (Gambling)

A video advertisement on YouTube for Hell Spin, an online casino platform, depicted images of a style associated with fantasy theme game characters.
In one image a female character is shown holding a large round metal hammer like weapon with spikes on it across her shoulder.

In a second image, several male ‘warrior’ type characters are featured, one holding a shield and a sword, another holding a tankard of beer, and the third holding another weapon.

Text on the images stated:
“Hell Spin” with the word ‘Spin’ blurred out.
“Online Platform”
“Welcome Packages” was blurred out
“5200 + 150”

Issue 1:
The complainant noted that the advertisement was promoting a gambling service without including any clear or transparent branding. They said that the advertisement appeared to be hiding the company branding and that the voiceover had advised viewers to “remember the logo and find them online”. The considered that the advertisement was unhealthily holding a viewer’s attention without clearly stating it was for a gambling service.

Issue 2:
The complainant considered that the advertisement content was aimed at younger viewers.

Issue 3:
The ASA Executive noted that no responsibility message was featured on the screenshots of the advertisement.

The advertisers failed to provide a response to the complaint.

Conclusion:

The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and expressed concern at the advertisers’ failure to respond to the complaint. They reminded them that there is an onus on advertisers to ensure that their advertising is in conformity with the Code.

Issue 1 Upheld

The Council noted that the advertisement had featured on-screen text, part of which was blurred which rendered it difficult to read. The Council also noted the requirement of the Code that the identity of an advertiser, product or service should be apparent (S 3.34). The Council also noted from the complaint that the advertisement voiceover had advised viewers to ‘remember the logo and find us online’.

The Council considered that the inclusion of the branding in a ‘blurred’ or disappearing format, meant that it was not apparent who the advertiser was. In the circumstances, and in the absence of a response to the complaint, the Council considered the advertisement in breach of Sections 3.10 and 3.34 of the Code.

Issue 2 Upheld

The Council noted the advertisement had used characters and a theme associated with a fantasy games.

The Council noted the requirements of the Code that marketing communications should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society (S. 3.3), and that they should not harm or exploit the susceptibilities, aspirations, credulity, inexperience or lack of knowledge of children (S 10.16), and that they should not be likely to be of particular appeal to children, especially by reflecting or being associated with youth culture, make direct use of signs, symbols, drawings, fictitious characters or real people of primary or particular appeal to children, or directed at those aged below 18 years through the selection of media or context in which they appear, or be placed in or through media, or parts of media, that are specifically intended for children (inserts, supplements, special (radio and TV) programmes, cinema films, etc.) (S 10.17).

The Council expressed concern that the advertisers had not responded to the complaint and in the absence of a response and of evidence that the advertising was not of particular appeal to children, the Council considered the advertisement to be in breach of Sections 3.10, 10.16 and 10.17 of the Code.

Issue 3 Upheld

The Council noted that only a screenshot of the advertisement was available for assessment and that the screenshot had not included a responsibility message. The Council noted the Code requirement that advertisements for gambling products and services include a responsibility message together with a direction to a source of information on gambling and gambling responsibly (S. 10.10). In the absence of evidence that the advertisement had included a responsibility message and in the absence of a response from the advertiser, the Council considered that the advertisement was in breach of Sections 3.10 and 10.10 of the Code.

Action Required:
The advertisement should not reappear in its current form.