When faced with the age-old question of whether the advertising industry should ban ads for things that, frankly, aren’t good for us, we all have a tendency to fall down a philosophical rabbit hole that could see us lost for hours, if not days.
It goes something like this: a very well-meaning idealistic individual (the FPs amongst us if you know your Myers Briggs) will loudly declare that we must ban gambling and other ads because they make money out of vulnerable people and fundamentally worsen us as a species. Or, in the words of Helen Lovejoy – “won’t someone please think of the children!”
This is where the libertarians loudly step out of the woodwork, indignant that anyone would limit their freedom, even if it’s for their own good. Whether they choose to gamble, drink, do hard drugs or put knives in toasters is firmly their business they declare, and to be honest, they have a point. I personally value the freedom I’ve had to make many, many bad decisions in my life. Afterall, they were my decisions to make and I’ve learnt from them.
Now we could talk about whether free will trumps societal good until the cows come home (or the oats, for the sustainable milk drinkers amongst us) but (to be meta about it) this debate does no one much good.
Plus, unless you have the luxury of being an Ancient Greek philosopher, it’s likely that you have deadlines and goals to meet that will come around before judgement day and/or the end of time, so a more immediate solution to whether we should ban certain ads is needed.
This is why SBS’s solution to banning certain ads on their on-demand platform is so welcome (for those of you who have missed it, in their upfronts yesterday that announced that they will be giving viewers the chance to opt out/significantly reduce gambling, alcohol and quick service restaurants if they choose to).
Now on the surface of it, this solution is painfully obvious. It is sort of like them dating TikToks that go into detail about what men or women like, when in reality, the best solution is always just to ask the individual you are dating.
However the fact SBS has actually done it, and also got endorsement from brands such as Endeavour Group and Tabcorp, is where the genius lies.
Steering clear of the philosophical rabbit hole, SBS has pointed out the obvious truth that actually works in favour of brands rather than against them – spending money to reach people who are never going to buy your services is a waste of money.
I mean let’s look at it this way – someone who is going to go to the effort of contacting SBS to have the adverts removed really doesn’t want to see them.
This may be because they don’t gamble, drink or eat fast food so therefore seeing the ads and brands paying for the ads is a waste of everyone’s time.
It could also be that they are from a religious or cultural background where some or all of these things are frowned upon and therefore SBS undoes a lot of its work to be inclusive by throwing these ads down their throats. Once again, it is within the interest of these brands to not impose themselves on people who have fixed negative beliefs around them.
Or lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the person may not want to see these ads because they are suffering from alcoholism, gambling addiction and/or a food disorder. Whether someone struggling with any of these issues wants to change is their choice, but if they are CHOOSING to opt out of ads that show these things then that strongly implies they are trying to change and the advertising industry should respect that.
In the age where brands are increasingly held accountable for how they treat consumers, targeting vulnerable people, struggling from addiction, who are actively trying to change isn’t the best look.
Not to mention the issue of ad efficiency – not spending money on people they will never be customers gives brands more money to spend on those who already are.
In a world where there is increasing social and regulatory pressure to limit ads that show alcohol, gambling and/or junk food – introducing an element of consumer choice and consent may be better for everyone in the long run.
