Tag Archives: MediaPost Marketing Daily

How Much Is FanDuel’s Super Bowl LIX Ad Like Crack Cocaine for Gamblers?

by doctorads

Well they Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and checking out MediaPost’s Marketing Daily, when I came across Danielle Oster’s piece about the new teaser ad for FanDuel’s upcoming Super Bowl commercial/canoodle with the Fox broadcast network.

Former New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning stares at a screen with the word “Destiny” under an image of a football goal post over a cosmic background in the latest teaser for FanDuel’s upcoming “Kick of Destiny 3.”

“They say destiny finds you — unless your dad and brother want you to have a quarterback destiny instead,”  Manning intones in the ad’s voiceover. Eli’s philosophical waxing about destiny is interrupted when his brother Peyton — like Eli, a two-time Super Bowl champion — shows up to ask him what he’s doing, followed by a contentious exchange.

The new teaser’s playful brotherly rivalry tone is meant to stoke excitement for FanDuel’s “Kick Of Destiny 3” Super Bowl ad, and associated programming.

Wait – and associated programming? Yes, indeed.

The Mannings will have a kickathon during the Super Bowl pre-game show, but first “FanDuel [will call] on fans to place a free bet on which brother will win the competition, with winning picks earning an equal share of $10 million in ‘Bonus Bets’ on the platform.” Then FanDuel’s two spots during the game will recap the competition.

Look, Doc, I know the corn is off the cob, and the days of Super Bowl ads that were standalones  – paid (through the nose) commercials that ran during the game and that was that – are long gone. But isn’t this a bit much?

– Bet Noir

Dear BN,

The Doc has already passed judgment on the Axis of Wheedle – the unholy trinity of sports leagues, sports broadcasts, and sports betting. Spoiler alert: It will inevitably become corrosive if not corrupt, despite being pitched as good clean fun.

Exhibit Umpteen: Fanduel’s new teaser for its Super Bowl Adstravaganza.

The Manning brothers have replaced former New England Patriots loose end Rob Gronkowski, who blew his Chip Shots o’ Destiny the last two years. But what remains is the $10 Million in Bonus Bets that who knows how many suckers will divvy up, given that they have a 50-50 chance of picking the winning Manning brother.

Great odds, yeah?

Except so-called bonus bets can quite often be the gambling equivalent of handing out free dime bags of crack on the local street corner. As Jason Quick reported in this New York Times piece, “in 2023, the [sports gambling] industry brought in a record $10.92 billion, up 44.5 percent from 2022, according to the American Gaming Association.”

Beyond that, the rate of gambling problems among sports bettors is at least twice as high as it is for other gamblers, according to the National Council on Problem Gambling, which adds that “2.5 million U.S. adults (1%) are estimated to meet the criteria for a severe gambling problem in a given year. Another 5-8 million (2-3%) would be considered to have mild or moderate gambling problems.”

To top it all off, “youth gamblers [read: males 18-30] have higher rates of gambling problems than adults.” A Fairleigh Dickinson University poll found that “one-quarter of men under 30 bet on sports online; 10 percent of young men are problem gamblers.”

Of course, sports betting companies like Fanduel always give a nod to problem gambling in their promotional materials. Here’s what appears (not actual size) at the bottom of the Manning vs. Manning teaser for all of the last eight seconds.

The Doc’s diagnosis: We’re laying plenty of eight-to-five that this problem just gets worse the more “bonus bets” get circulated. You can take that to the bank. Or not, odds are.

Should All Newspapers Ban Gambling Ads The Way The Guardian Has?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and clicking through  MediaPost Marketing Daily, when I came across this piece by Ray Schultz.

‘The Guardian’ Rejects Gambling Advertising

The Guardian has banned gambling advertising out of concern for the damage done by chronic betting.

“Many people like the occasional bet, but the advent of 24/7 betting apps on smartphones, marketed to the public through billions of pounds and dollars in advertising across all forms of media, has placed high-stakes gambling machines in almost every pocket,” writes Anna Bateson, chief executive, Guardian Media Group.

Bateson continues that “Guardian journalists have reported on the devastating impact of the gambling industry in the UK and Australia, helping to shift the dial and ensure the issue remains high on the public agenda.”

Whaddaya think, Doc – are they smart to put their money where their mouth is?

– Ad Hawk

Dear AH,

Let’s start by recalling this classic formulation from the great press critic A.J. Liebling: “The function of the press in society is to inform, but its role in society is to make money.” So a tip o’ the pixel to The Guardian for valuing principle over principal in this case.

In an Inside The Guardian note, Anna Bateson expanded on the “devastating impact” of the gambling industry,

Problem gambling poses significant risks, leading to financial distress, mental health issues such as depression, and various personal and social problems for many individuals. The costs of problem gambling for individuals, their families, and for wider society, are significant.

Studies highlight a clear correlation between exposure to gambling advertising and increased intentions to engage in regular gambling.

Australia holds the unenviable title of having the highest gambling losses globally. Annually, approximately $25bn (£13bn) is lost to gambling, predominantly by those who can least afford it.

A growing chorus of media analysts and public health officials has been comparing the adverse effects of gambling ads to the damage cigarette advertising previously wrought. (The Doc sang that tune months ago.)

Australian website The Conversation published a post with the headline, “Sport is being used to normalise gambling. We should treat the problem just like smoking.”  Closer to home, Daniel Kaplan at New York Times-owned The Athletic quoted this political Cassandra in a ban-it-or-not piece.

“This is a public health crisis,” said U.S. Rep. Paul Tonko, D-N.Y., who has introduced a bill to ban sports gambling ads, comparing them to once upon-a-time ubiquitous tobacco spots. “What we’ve done is simply displace Joe Camel with this activity.

“What’s worse is they’ve replaced Joe Camel with celebrity spokespeople.” (Joe was a smoking cartoon camel popular in the ’80s and ’90s in ads for Camel cigarettes.)

According to ad-measurement firm iSpot, national sports gambling TV spots grew from $17.6 million in 2018, the year of the Supreme Court decision, to $278.4 million last year ($110 million in 2023 through April 30). And those figures do not include local TV or other outlets including websites, social media, billboards, radio and podcasts.

(To be sure graf goes here)

To be sure, the New York Times Company itself has a horse in this race, as was disclosed in Kaplan’s piece: “The Athletic, it should be noted, has a sponsor partnership with BetMGM.”

And – what are the odds, eh? – this ad was embedded slightly below that disclaimer.

That brings us to an equally serious problem, namely the emerging triad the Doc has dubbed the Axis of Wheedle: sports books, sports leagues, sports media. Case in point: FanDuel hooked up with the Tennis Channel during this month’s French Open to showcase betting lines before – and during – men’s and women’s singles matches.

A segment of the Tennisverse on Twitter has not taken kindly to that FanDuo.

Get used to it, people. Here’s the current list of FanDuel’s partners.

Multiply that by umpteen sports books, and you have the future: Games = Gambling.

And then, all bets on the integrity of sports are off.