The Netherlands Online Gambling Association (NOGA) has expressed its disappointment at the country’s advertising code for gambling, saying more needs to be done in order to “prevent a gambling advertising avalanche.”
In a statement on its website, NOGA welcomed the code, but says it “does not go far enough,” considering the fact that the new cap to allow a maximum of three gambling advertisements per commercial break only applies to the internet.
NOGA Director Peter-Paul de Goeij said companies such as Holland Casino, Gaston and Koning TOTO can, therefore, advertise offline without any restrictions.
“The viewer does not make the distinction between offline and online at all – the consumer just sees an irritating gambling ad,” said de Goeij.
“In addition, gambling advertisements of today’s gambling providers are already ubiquitous; on television, radio, internet, bus shelters and in our letterboxes. Let’s face it, consumers find too many gambling adverts just irritating.”
NOGA, the advocate of safe and responsible online gambling in the Netherlands, says all gambling providers, media parties and broadcasters must agree on the total amount of gambling advertising in the country, or risk customers migrating to illegal sites.
“We need to do this to temper the growth that is coming, with the legalisation of the online market, and to prevent a gambling advertising avalanche,” added de Goeij.
“If we do not prevent this from happening, there may be a ban on gambling advertising introduced soon and then we will not be able to persuade consumers to play at a legal gambling site. NOGA therefore advocates advertising volume control.”
Founded in 2013 and based in The Hague, NOGA currently has ten members, including bet365, Betsson, Betway, Entain, Flutter and Kindred.
The body also expressed its frustration at being left out of the drafting process of the advertising code, saying: “With ten members, NOGA represents more than a large majority of the future licensed online gambling providers in the Netherlands.
“Unfortunately, despite repeated requests, NOGA was not involved from the outset by the land-based providers who wrote the code. This exclusion is very unwise. After all, self-regulation benefits from the broadest possible adoption.”