We all know that while DOND doesn't comes under the auspices of gambling per-se, in reality they are "gambling" on an cash offer. When it could be be construed as gambling and actively flouting gambling rules would be when they have dealt and are then offered the bankers gamble - the name itself is a give away!
I'd like to know how "gambling" is strictly defined by Ofcom actually. I gather the Red or Black endgame worked as it did to circumvent gambling rules - I think the most recent iteration of the legislation allowed "transactional gambling", specifically including roulette, only after midnight. Hence, there was no actual gamble on the spin of the wheel - the spin merely decided if the million quid went to the contestant, or to the insurer that took on the risk of uncertain winnings on behalf of ITV.
Noel has to talk about something and the common thread in the last 6 years has to be the 'bravery' of going to the end or the guilt at walking away from a big sum. Sure we have the 1p club but thats almost sidelined as an 'in joke' to the show.
Very true. I'd question, and question strongly, if that common thread could have been different, but that ship sailed some time in 2007, I think. This is why I sometimes suggest these days that Noel now influences players without even trying - he follows the show's loose-knit catchphrase-driven script, which just happens to place a positive slant on risky play. I probably notice it more because of having studied politics at university, as similar "framing" occurs in the political sphere.
I presume you are referring to jackpotjoy.com? If you go on their website they are a wide ranging gambling site. It is rather curious that a gambling advertisement was approved to replace a yoghurt product.
As I said, it's a voluntary code. Interesting here to note that bingo has always had a specific exemption (as has the National Lottery), and the jackpotjoy.com sponsorship trailers are themed around bingo. Hence, jackpotjoy.com is probably following the letter of the voluntary code, but it strikes me that it's not following its spirit - the site does far more than bingo, and that includes DoND-sponsored digital slot machines. That's exactly the sort of loophole I would hope regulation could work around.
Speaking of regulation, the Ofcom guidance on gambling advertisements state that "Advertisements for gambling must not… exploit the susceptibilities, aspirations, credulity, inexperience or lack of knowledge of children, young persons or other vulnerable persons… suggest that gambling can be a solution to financial concerns… [or] be of particular appeal to children or young persons." If we treated the show as per an advert, would it pass that test? Probably at least a handful of episodes would cross that line (Rob's springs to mind).
When we consider the unknowns that may be thrown up with the live shows that statement could could be more prophetic that you could imagine!
Oh, very possibly - because this game will be so fresh in the viewing audience's mind, it could well make them more inclined to gamble... but there'll be no hiding place in a live show if Noel turns on the spin!
As to why what Noel says matters, well, I'll quote Sara Lueddeke, a researcher into cognitive processes in gambling
, from an interview I had with her for the student magazine in 2009: "A lot of research has stated that in certain types of framing of questions you are going to make a risk-averse or a risk-seeking decision."