Advertisment
A television advertisement featured a man looking at his mobile phone, the camera pans into his forehead, as if inside his head.
The man is then shown on a train platform, the destination on the train is ‘Train of Thought’.
A voiceover states: ‘now boarding the train of thought’.
The man boards the train, which is already occupied by various others, including a jockey and horse, sports pundits, a man being interviewed, a man cradling an injured knee while a pundit speaks into a microphone, two men looking at a tablet and a group planning football strategy.
During the on-train footage, a female voiceover states: ‘Calling at, Injury Lane, Stat-Minster, Opinion Circus, Last Chance Cross and Decision Time.’
At one point in the advertisement, a horse race was shown taking place alongside the train, followed on the other side, by a footballer kicking a football towards the train. The man was then shown hitting the stop button on the train, and the train stopped. The audience was then transported out of the man’s forehead, and the man was shown looking at his phone and selecting a bet. The man pockets his phone and walks away. The tag line ‘Back Yourself’ was then shown on screen.
Complaint
The complainant considered that the advertisement was promoting gambling addiction as they considered the character was shown being consumed by gambling and checked out from reality and had used the tagline ‘bet on yourself’. They considered the advert was promoting an unhealthy fixation with betting and portrayed gambling obsession as a positive.
Response
The advertisers said that the advertisement had depicted a stylised internal “Train of Thought” representing the main character’s internal reasoning process before making a single, optional decision to bet. They said it was reflective and measured in execution and did not depict compulsion, escapism, indispensability, or reward, and had carried prominent 18+ and safer-gambling signposting and messaging throughout.
While the complaint appeared to rely on a misheard tagline and an incorrect interpretation of the visuals, they recognised that perceptions mattered and had assessed the advertisement against both the letter and spirit of the Code. They said that the campaign line was “Back Yourself”, not “Bet on Yourself”, and had been developed as a neutral, motivational expression widely understood to mean trust your own judgement, not that gambling enhanced one’s self-worth or guaranteed success. They said that in summary the advertisement had :
• Depicted reasoned consideration before a single, measured action.
• Avoided any suggestion of winning, transformation, or reward.
• Reinforced responsible gambling through clear signposting.
The advertisers said that the tagline used in the advertisement was “Back Yourself”, was both announced by the voiceover (“VO”) and shown on screen in the end frame. They considered that the distinction was significant, as the meaning and tone of the phrase “Back Yourself” was fundamentally different to “Bet on Yourself”. They said that “Back Yourself” was a neutral, motivational expression about trusting one’s own judgement, and was consistent with their long-standing safer gambling messaging and an evolution of their previous campaign’s tagline, “Choose Wisely.” They said that mishearing suggested the complainant may not have followed the advertisement in full, and some of their interpretation appeared based on that misunderstanding. They said that when viewed as produced, with the correct line and context, the advertisement conveyed a message of reflection and informed choice, not self-validation or compulsion. They said that the character was shown inside his “Train of Thought”, a metaphorical space that visualised how a sports fan weighs information before a decision. The sports imagery, such as fixtures, events, and player updates, were a creative device to show information and data processing, not gambling activity.
The advertisers said that at the start, the character paused to think, the viewer then enters his internal sequence, where he “boards” the train of thought. Onboard, he considers information that could inform a decision, such as a pundit noting an injury, statisticians’ analysis, and managerial debate alongside acknowledgement of chance (e.g., a blindfolded character throwing at a dartboard). They said that once he had considered the information, he stops the train; only then does he consciously decide to place a single bet. They said that the character never interacts with odds, apps, or monetary stakes within the internal sequence and remains calm, rational, and composed.
They also said that the narrative deliberately culminated in a single, finite decision, followed by a calm return to the character’s everyday routine and the character continuing about his day. They said the tone of the advertisement remained measured and controlled throughout, even within the more dynamic “Train of Thought” sequence. They said the sequence was clearly representative of an internal reasoning process, not a prompt to gamble or act immediately and no odds, no offers, and no calls to action were anywhere in the film, no live betting markets, time sensitive prompts, or visual effects implied urgency, reward, or pressure to participate. They said that the character remained calm, composed, and self-assured, observing and processing information rather than reacting emotionally or impulsively. They said the advertisement followed a clear and finite sequence with the character first thinking before making their decision inside the “Train of Thought” and returning, reinforcing that gambling, if undertaken, should be informed, deliberate, and optional.
The advertisers said that the creative deliberately situated the character in a neutral, transitional moment, a pause in his day when he was not otherwise engaged in work, family, or social commitments. This framing, they said, ensured the scene could not reasonably be read as withdrawal or emotional isolation and the character remained in control throughout. As he approached “decision time”, the protagonist consciously chose to press the stop button, signalling that they had reached their decision. Once this decision was made, the internal thought sequence concluded, and he simply continued with his day. They said that the engagement with the “Train of Thought” was momentary and finite. The character in the ad was never shown neglecting relationships, work, or obligations, there were no cues of displacement, no missed events, calls, or interruptions, he was depicted in a moment of stillness, not avoidance, and the entire sequence was finite in scope and time. They said the structure of the advertisement represented a single self-contained decision followed by return to everyday life and made clear that gambling was not central or indispensable, but one optional activity within a person’s day to day activities.
They said that the phrase ‘Back Yourself’ was an inward-facing phrase about self-trust and rational judgement, it did not promise transformation, validation, or superiority. They said that there was no “before/after” narrative, no heroism, and no implication that gambling enhanced self-image or esteem. They considered the advertisement showed confidence in the decision-making process, not confidence gained from gambling.
The advertisers said that the wider “Back Yourself” campaign was designed to demonstrate context, not certainty. They said that social content and digital partnerships used form guides and Opta statistics to help adults understand factors and risks, while consistently recognising that outcomes were inherently uncertain and could not be predicted or controlled. They said that the purpose was to encourage measured, informed participation, not to downplay chance or imply improved success; reinforced by safer-gambling prompts.
They said that across the campaign, “Back Yourself” was linked to informing yourself before you bet, using form, data, and context rather than emotion, instinct, or bravado. Additional assets included a dedicated safergambling execution and the tone was intentionally cognitive and rational, promoting preparation and deliberation, not courage, risk-taking, or emotional response. They said that this aligned with behavioural best practice (autonomy, self-regulation, deliberation) and mirrored neutral motivational language used responsibly in other regulated sectors
Finally, they said that the advertisement was produced within a robust compliance and safer-gambling framework.
• Prominent 18+ and responsible-gambling messaging (“Bet Responsibly,” GamblingCare.ie), are visible throughout the ad.
• Brand-led, not offer-led with no odds, boosts, or inducements.
• Internal Compliance review of the script
• Adult-oriented tone and content with mature pacing, adult protagonist, and no elements likely to appeal to under-18s.
Conclusion
Complaint Not Upheld.
The Complaints Council considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
The Council noted the concerns raised. The Council noted the requirements of the Code that marketing communications for gambling should not portray, condone or encourage gambling behaviour that is socially irresponsible or could lead to financial, social or emotional harm (S. 10.12a), portray gambling as indispensable or as taking priority in life (S. 10.12d) or suggest that solitary gambling is preferable to social gambling (S. 10.12j). In this case the Council noted that the character featured was shown going through a ‘thought process’ in advance of placing a single bet before proceeding with their day, and that the advertisement had focused on the brand and had not promoted any offer or individual sports bet. In the circumstances, the Council did not consider that the advertisement was in breach of the Code on the grounds raised.
Action Required
No further action required.
