TV or not TV: why brand-led gambling adverts are more fiction than fact

TV advertising has been one of the biggest marketing assets to betting and gaming operators in the UK for quite some time. In 2019, most agreed that TV was a marketing channel that had been severely misused over the past decade by betting brands, and these admissions set into motion what would soon be known as the whistle-to-whistle (W2W) ban.

From the early murmurings of a ban last January, to the final implementation in August 2019, marketing directors and CMOs across the industry scrambled to find areas of investment where their annual TV budgets could be profitable at scale and also serve the same high-level objectives, such as brand awareness, salience and preference.

Google, Facebook, Twitter and even the controversial True Geordie threw their hat in the ring, suggesting their platforms and brands could help fill the void that would be left by the ban. Most large operators with econometric modelling understood the value delivery of TV and were clinging to this data with their fingernails – knowing the potential revenue and share of voice lost from reducing sportsbook advertising spend.

After much debate over the six-month period, the conclusion from most senior marketers back to their management team was clear: ‘We really need TV.’

Meanwhile, outside of gambling, Les Binet and Peter Field (UK marketing-effectiveness pioneers) also used econometrics to illustrate that there is no solid foundation for the popular view that ‘TV is dead’ when they completed their book The Long and Short of It. The study showed that marketing campaigns were 40% more effective when deployed on TV, even in Instagram-obsessed 2019.

It was therefore no major surprise to see when the Premier League returned from its summer break that, despite the ban, spend across sportsbook advertising only saw an 8% annual decrease to £8m when looking at Sky Sports, BT, ITV and other broadcasters. This willingness to pay increased media rates for less-premium inventory suggests an industry that recognises the extreme importance of advertising alongside the most watched sport for male 18-40s in the UK, despite rising costs.

A conceptual shift

To offset the negative PR of an underwhelming decrease in investment post W2W, most operators toted brand-led or content-led marketing as a more responsible and ethical way to promote and maintain brand equity on TV. The intention is to take big price offers and shouty promotions away from live sports events.

This evolution to brand-led is a slow process and most operators continue to use TV as a direct response tool, bringing awareness to their online shopfront of the day, a strategy that suggests an unwillingness to change or a difficulty to define exactly what brand-led means in the gambling vertical.

Responsible, ethical and purposeful advertising, which is connected to a solid, well-researched brand-positioning piece, will prove to be more effective and create greater affinity or likeability for your brand.

This was seen in 2008, when the price comparison market was filled with brands and TV advertising shouting about value and opportunities to save. Along came Compare the Market, a relatively unknown site that totally shifted the balance of play with a pure brand-led and award-winning campaign, driven by a smart-mouthed Russian meerkat called Aleksandr Orlov. The campaign aimed to get Compare the Market on the map, driving the brand from 16^th to forth in terms of market share.

As the UK online market looks set for single-digit growth in the coming years, it’s most certainly within the interest of key industry bodies to understand the true value of TV advertising. TV is not just a revenue driver but a tool to help shape our industry perception, educate bettors on responsible gambling and evolve our industry by using TV to tell a fresh brand story.

Alexis Zamboglou is former marketing director for the Ladbrokes and Coral brands, most recently leading the rebrands of the UK sportsbooks