The latest TV advertisement from Coral was found to be in violation of BCAP code rules by the Advertising Standards Authority.
The betting operator has been ordered not to show the ad again in any way.
There were complaints that the ad broke the code by condoning or encouraging gambling that was socially irresponsible or could lead to financial, social or emotional harm.
The commercial depicted a stressful horse race on a foggy day with eager spectators gazing on, with a voice over stating, “Exciting, isn’t it? It’s when your horse wins by a nose. If that is exciting, how about three months ago? Any horse is capable of winning. When your horse is under starter orders, how about now? How long have you been waiting for those gates to open? That is not anything. Is it still possible to ask about earlier still? The only horse that matters to you is your horse. There is a Coral. Get as close to the action as possible.
The ad did not depict, or explicitly refer to, betting, and the complaints against it were upheld. Throughout the ad, Coral banners could be seen around the track and in the crowd, each horse had “CORAL” written on its saddle cloth, and the ad ended with a reference to Coral in the voice-over and in large on-screen text.
Coral said that their intention with the ad was to capture the trackside excitement and crowd atmosphere at popular horseracing events. We wanted it to appeal to an adult audience of horse racing fans and we had designed the visuals and dramatic soundtrack to evoke a cinematic feel.
We believed that a strong sense of anticipation before races was an inherent feature of horseracing, and that replicating that aspect of spectator experience was not indicative of problem gambling, especially since feelings of excitement were a normal reaction to the build-up to large sporting events.
Summary:
Two challenges against Coral’s latest television advertisement have been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority. The betting operator has been ordered not to show the ad again in any way. There were two challenges because of complaints that the ad broke the code by condoning or encouraging gambling that was socially irresponsible or could lead to financial, social or emotional harm.