The last 20 years has seen a major increase in gambling, and in youth related social and health problems (Gupta and Derevensky 2008; Messerlian and Derevensky 2007; Messerlian et al. 2005; Magoon et al. 2005; Derevensky et al. 2003; D-Code 2006). Increased gambling opportunities, easy accessibility to products and higher rates of participation in gambling have developed in tandem with the growing volume and ubiquity of commercial gambling advertisements (Binde 2007a, 2009, 2010; Amey 2001; Felsher et al. 2004; Griffiths 2005; Grant and Won Kim 2001; Zangeneh et al. 2008; McMullan and Kervin 2011; McMullan and Miller 2008, 2009, 2010; Sklar and Derevensky 2010; Planinac et al. 2011; Thomas et al. 2011). Youth in particular seem to be susceptible to the influence of commercial advertising and there is a strong reported relationship between youth gambling and advertising. Over a decade ago, Derevensky and Gupta (2001) discovered that commercial advertisements had a general effect on youth enticing them to purchase lottery tickets, and Wood and Griffiths (1998) reported that the views youth held about gambling were radically changed by high levels of industry advertising. As Skinner et al. (2004, p. 264) put it, society’s representation of gambling has had a “profound impact on youth, affecting their personal characteristics, social relationships and early gambling experiences”.

A more recent survey of youth between 10 and 18 years old found that they were acutely aware of gambling ads on television and billboards and in print, and two out of five respondents said that this awareness would encourage them to purchase lottery tickets (Felsher et al. 2004). Indeed Korn et al. (2005) and Korn, Reynolds & Hurson (2008) discovered that adolescents reported lottery advertisements as both familiar and engaging, particularly the Pro-Line Series and the Holiday Gift Paks and Promotions, because advertisers used buying factors such as stimulating color schemes, high quality graphics, stimulating music and humour to mobilize their appeals to youth and encourage them to participate in gambling activities. Similarly, Derevensky et al. (2007) and Derevensky et al. (2010) also found that 42 % of the adolescents they interviewed were influenced by the many different types of ads they saw or heard making them want to gamble, Griffiths and Barnes (2008) discovered that 40 % of a sample of British young adult online gamblers did so as a result of advertising, and McMullan and Miller (2008, 2010) concluded that youth were a constant bye-catch of casino and online gambling advertising. So, there is growing evidence that gambling advertisements in the media along with point of sale advertising, website marketing, celebrity endorsements, and the “sportification of gambling” by corporate sponsors and government gambling providers are having a powerful effect on young peoples perceptions of gambling (McMullan and Miller 2008; Monaghan et al. 2008; King et al. 2010; McMullan and Kervin 2011; Planinac et al. 2011). This has led some researchers to call for new regulations and better practices to ensure that ads do not target or unduly influence children and adolescents (Binde 2010; Monaghan et al. 2008; Poulin 2006; Sklar and Derevensky 2010).

This study contributes to the growing literature on youth gambling and commercial advertising by exploring adolescents’ exposure to and perceptions of gambling advertisements. Our main objectives are to identify the degree to which young people between the ages of 13 and 18 were exposed to gambling and gambling advertising, to investigate the process by which youth made sense of gambling advertisements, and to determine what adolescents learned from gambling advertisements and what these ads meant to their social identities. The article is organized as follows: first, we discuss the relationship between advertising, commercial culture and youth and outline the dynamics of the circulation of advertising messages in consumer culture; second, we present our methodology and describe the focus group session protocols, objectives and rationales; third, we provide our findings in two phases: both quantitative and qualitative data are presented; finally, we analyze our results, evaluate whether youth received, modified or rejected the messages conveyed by gambling advertisers and discuss the implications of our findings.

Advertising, Commercial Culture and Youth

The media have a powerful effect on people’s beliefs and behaviours and businesses spend billions of dollars a year advertising for a wide variety of products including gambling. While it is widely recognized that the purpose of commercial advertising is to impress, stimulate and persuade for purposes of product adoption, it is not always obvious how advertisers accomplish this or what role consumers play in the overall advertising process. It is imperative therefore that the role of both consumers and producers be taken into account in analyzing gambling advertising and its effects (Binde 2007a, 2009, 2010; McMullan and Miller 2008, 2009, 2010). Unfortunately, there is a tendency in theoretical writings on advertising to conflate the moments of advertising production and consumption into one singular force and underplay the role of the consumer in contributing to and shaping the marketing process. Theories of advertising often ascribe a particularly dominant role to the producers of commercials, whereby the ads seemingly dupe unwitting buyers into consuming products that they do not want or need (Nava 1997). While advertisers certainly use the power of persuasion and myth making to sell alcohol, tobacco, food, drink and other consumer products, customers also interact with many of the commercials they hear or see (Pateman 1980, 1983). As Sherry (1987, p. 442) observes “we do unto advertising as advertising does unto us” and this suggests that “representational” analysis that occurs at the level of the sender must be combined with “receptive” analysis that occurs at the level of the receiver to understand advertising as a coherent cultural system of mass communication (Goldman 1992).

On the one hand, the presentation of gambling advertisements to viewers and listeners invites them to survey images, sounds, and texts in a process where plot structure and transmission time is typically short, focused and repetitive. At the representational level, advertisers produce “preferred messages” that work quickly towards the audience, promoting certain responses over others, in effect demarcating the attention and reaction of the reader, listener or viewer so that the messages are deemed dominant and acceptable (Binde 2010; McMullan and Kervin 2011; McMullan and Miller 2008, 2009, 2010; Derevensky et al. 2009; Sklar and Derevensky 2010). Senders and receivers of advertisements in this view often share similar assumptions and values and they each possess cultural understandings about social pastimes like driving cars, drinking beer, buying clothes, or gambling on lotteries and so can communicate with each other about these products and their meanings (O’Donohoe 1997; Chapman and Egger 1983; Myers 1983). As Hall (1980) observes a dominant interpretation of advertising means that the audience interprets the message in the same way as the sender and the images and texts in the ads are accepted as indisputable statements of the way the product brands really “are”.

On the other hand, ad messages may also involve contested communications where messages are ambiguous or contradict consumers’ interests or perceptions. Success in manufacturing and communicating preferred representations, in this view, does not always ensure acceptance in the meanings ultimately received by customers (Marlow 2001; Klein 2000; Pollay 1986; Agnes et al. 1990; Tellis 2004). Individuals may not completely accept the reality portrayed in an advertisement but instead adapt their own beliefs so that they do not completely oppose the brand messages or messages may be ignored or overtly refused if individuals mobilize countervailing conceptions for decoding ad meanings (Watson et al. 2003; Gray et al. 1996; Hall 1980). Messages may be “under-determined” if the appropriate signs to sell the products do not connect to the targeted groups. They may be unrecognized or misunderstood. Similarly, messages may be “over-determined”; even if the signs used to persuade the buyer have credence they may be rejected by consumers because they are seen or heard as attempts to manipulate, deceive or control them (Barthes 1973, pp. 127-131).

Ads as forms of communication thus operate on three different levels of complexity: 1) The Empty Signifier. An original sign (i.e. sport) is taken over in a commercial by an advertiser to legitimize a new signifier (i.e. poker play). Thus an appropriate sign to sell the product or idea is made attractive to the consumer and received as a message: “Poker gambling is a skilled sport”. 2) The Full Signifier. The symbolism is again obvious and transparent in the commercial and the relationship between the signified (i.e. scratch ‘n win ticket) and the sign (i.e. travel and leisure) is transmitted as unambiguous. The intended meaning or effect conveys an unequivocal message “buy this product and enjoy a stress-free life”. 3) Ambiguous Significance. Meaning and form seem to be linked together in a unitary sign that is not obvious. “Oh sure, of course I know that playing Lotto 649 may make me a millionaire!” Receivers both doubt and yet want to believe in the message at the same time and they experience it naturally and dynamically as at once true and unreal (Barthes 1973, pp. 126–128).

So sending and receiving advertisements is a complex interactive process that is always mutating and shifting, and its messages depend on and build upon wider cultural forms – music, art, movies, fashion, internet etc. – that frame and influence the generation and articulation of meanings (Griffiths 2004, 2005, 2007; Binde 2007b; Turner et al. 2007; King et al. 2010; Chan and Ohtsuka 2011; Ohtsuka and Chan 2009; Escamilla et al. 2000; McCool et al. 2001). Indeed the producers of advertisements are cultural actors, not unlike artists, music promoters, or film makers who draw on pre-existing cultural forms (youth culture, sport culture, fashion culture, etc.) to produce and pitch their messages (Binde 2010; McMullan and Miller 2008, 2009; Gulas and Weinberger 2006; Sivulka 1988; Dyall et al. 2007). Smoking Marlboro, Winston and Camel, advertisers tell us, will make us appear free, defiant, and independent and drinking brand beers are bound to make us seem attractive, exciting and successful (Marlow 2001; McCreanor et al. 2005). As Taylor (2000, p. 336) puts it “advertising does not so much invent social values or ideals, rather it borrows, usurps or exploits what advertisers take to be prevailing social values”.

At the same time, youthful consumers define and live out social ideals and values as they are refracted through the lens of media representation. Youth seem to spend upwards of a third of their day being exposed to a multitude of advertisements (Roberts 2000). A recent survey found that 56 % of youth in one Canadian province (15–20 years) learned about gambling via television and 37 % discovered gambling on the internet (D-Code Inc., 2006, p. 24). Youth identity formation is increasingly constituted through consumption practices where young people create micro-cultures that shape their sense of self and status in relation to others. From this perspective, youth try on identities and act out social roles as they mature and many of these looks, styles, and discourses are media generated and transmitted. As McCreanor et al. (2005, p. 254) put it “youth identities are constituted through representation and not outside it”. Existing cultural ideals are appropriated and circulated by advertising and these, in turn, are received and reincorporated into lived consumer experiences only to be reformatted again as commercially constructed commodities in a continuous process of repeated communication and consumption (Elliott 1999). So, contemporary commercial meanings are more and more based on appropriating the social speech of day to day life in contemporary culture and then retro-fitting a particular product brand (i.e. Texas Hold ‘Em) with an active subject population (i.e. young males) in a system of symbolic and product signification. Youth identities, in turn, arise from what Hall (1980) calls the “narrativization of the self” in which self formation (i.e. identifying with becoming a poker pro) occurs through a media saturated process that emphasize branding and image over product quality or market share and shapes young people as consumers of the symbolic (i.e. new found frame, instant wealth, social status) (Sklar and Derevensky 2010; Klein 2000; Roberts 2000; Elliott 1999; O’Donohoe 1997).

So before an ad can have an effect, satisfy a need or desire, or be put into use, it must first be created as a meaningful communication and be meaningful when decoded by consumers. In previous research (McMullan and Miller 2008, 2009, 2010) on gambling advertising at the sender level, we found that: a) wins, winners and winning was represented as a dominant message in the majority of all lottery ads (N = 920) placed on radio (100 %), print (95 %), point of sale (89 %) and television (78 %) followed by the message that gambling was a normal, acceptable activity placed on radio (90 %), television (62 %), print (50 %), and point of sale (12.5 %) ads; b) the joy of entertainment, more than winning, was represented as the dominant message in casino (N = 367) print (100 %), radio (93 %), point of sale (65 %) and television (50 %) ads; c) the main message of remote e-gambling advertising (N = 64) emphasized gambling as skill (53 %) followed by the messages that gambling was an acceptable, commonplace activity (50 %), a form of personal transformation (42.4 %), a winning way of life (37.5 %) and an escape from the everyday world of work and responsibility (37.5 %); d) excitement and humour, along with bright colours, happy sounds, dramatic texts, youthful images and celebrities were attractive buying factors in most types of gambling ads; and e) responsible gambling messages were unevenly represented in the ads and when present were difficult to see or hear (See also Binde 2010; Korn et al. 2008; Derevensky et al. 2007, 2009, 2010; Sklar and Derevensky 2010; Thomas et al. 2011). But are the messages represented by advertisers also the messages identified and received by youth?

Methodology

As a first step in understanding youth perceptions, attitudes and beliefs about gambling and advertising a focus group study was designed (Coffey and Atkinson 1996; Bertrand, Brown and Ward 1992, pp. 198–199). Theoretical and practical considerations were as follows: 1). Exposure. Was it possible to determine the experiences of youth with gambling and uncover their exposure to gambling advertisements? 2). Decoding the Commercials. Was it possible to understand how youth isolated, decoded and received advertising characteristics and gambling messages and explore what it signified to them as discourses about gambling? 3). Identity Formation. Was it possible to explore how young people’s conceptions of gambling advertising changed with age and affected the formation of their social identities? On a more practical level could tasks be developed which actively engaged young people in the group discussion by keeping them motivated, stimulated and focused to interact as a group while still engaged with the topic as individuals, and which developed fluid communication by deploying techniques which were neither too dull or too difficult for diverse age and gender groups to understand and undertake?

To address these theoretical and practical issues, six focus groups using the same protocol were held with youth from three age groups: 13–14, 15–16, and 17–18 years. In order to elicit opinion from a wide range of educational and socio-cultural backgrounds, groups were drawn from 26 different educational institutions with diverse academic abilities. Participants were selected and screened by telephone from a data base comprised of randomly selected households in an urban municipality. Recruiting was conducted using supervised, fully trained, professional interviewers employed by Focal Research Consultants. An information letter that outlined the nature of the study was mailed to each participant. Parental permission as well as informed consent was obtained from all participants. Fifty adolescents, 24 males and 26 females, were recruited. Each group consisted of eight to ten adolescents and each session lasted ninety minutes. Mixed age and gender groups were avoided so as to prevent males and older teenagers from dominating the dialogue and skewing the results. All sessions were audio taped and video taped and three researchers took observational notes on verbal and non-verbal interaction behind a concealed two-way mirror. At the end of the session a questionnaire was administered to all participants. Data from the screener and both questionnaires were coded in a SPSS database. This was used for descriptive quantitative analysis, and transcripts and verbatim in-session accounts were used for qualitative purposes. All participants were assured confidentiality and agreed to guarantee the anonymity of others participating in the study. The research was approved by the university research ethics board.

A series of activities were developed to explore the research objectives. This protocol consisted of six stages as outlined in Table 1. The pre-session questionnaire set the mood for the study and got the participants thinking about the topic. The session’s introduction focused on their experiences with gambling and their exposure to gambling advertising. Care was taken to create a convivial atmosphere where teens could speak openly and honestly about gambling and the ads they saw or heard. The main part of the sessions involved several short, stimulating exercises which explored young peoples’ interpretations of advertising. Young people were provided with booklets which included still pictures and texts of the ads and either hi-lighter markers to color in their ideas and thoughts about the ads, or pens to write them up if they preferred. These individually designated tasks were accompanied by focused discussions on each of the sixteen ads that were presented to the six groups (Table 2). The basic task involved reading, listening to, or viewing ads which were chosen by the research team because they exemplified the diversity of gambling messages found in previous studies of gambling advertising (McMullan and Miller 2008, 2009, 2010; Binde 2009, 2010; Derevensky et al. 2007, 2009, 2010; Korn et al. 2005, 2008). With the exception of the point of sale ads which were shown on either a table or an easel, the remainder were scanned into a computer and shown on an overhead screen at least twice to all participants. The session ended with the participants answering a 16 item questionnaire and being debriefed by the moderator who presented them with a brochure outlining the risks of gambling and the local gambling help-line phone number.

Table 1 Focus group protocol
Full size table
Table 2 Name and description of advertisements shown to participants
Full size table

Several issues, however, should be kept in mind in evaluating the findings. First, this research did not examine or measure actual gambling behaviours among youth. Second, while these focus groups were drawn from socially diverse schools, the sample size and choice of group participants may not be viewed as fully representative of youth in these three age groups. Third, our sample was limited to urban youth. Results may only apply to primarily urban adolescents and not to rural consumers. Fourth, despite the fact that we selected a large set of diverse ads to reflect the complex content composition of the ads across the industry it might be objected that different findings might have emerged if we had used different ads. Finally, this study is based upon self-reports and observations and no reliable predictions can be made concerning the long term effects of advertising on youth or on young peoples’ perceptions of media advertising exposure and influences. These limitations can best be overcome with research using larger, random sample sizes obtained through interview and longitudinal designs.

Quantitative Findings

Exposure, Experience and Perceptions of Youth with Gambling

The majority of adolescents (52 %) reported that they never gambled, while a small percentage (4 %) acknowledged gambling once a week. Youthful experiences with gambling varied, including poker, lotteries, internet gambling for play money, and betting with friends about sports events. A gender difference was also noted; males had more experience with Internet gambling and with playing poker, while females had more experience with lottery play. Not surprisingly, the frequency of youth gambling increased with age; seventy-eight percent of those aged 13–14 never gambled compared to only thirty-one percent of those aged 17–18.

The vast majority of youth disagreed with the idea that gamblers were cool, that gambling was a good way to make money, and that money from gambling supported good causes, and instead believed that people could get into trouble by gambling. But youth were quite evenly divided in their attitudes about gambling being fun and exciting and in the belief that most people who gamble win something sooner or later. More males than females also felt that gambling was a way to socialize and that skill was more important than luck. Most importantly, as the age of participants increased, they were more likely to perceive gambling as a fun and exciting thing to do with others.

These findings indicate that while half the youth had no experience with gambling, those that did had differing experiences and perceptions of gambling and this was influenced by both gender and age.

Exposure, Experience and Perception of Youth with Advertising

All of the participants had previous exposure to commercial gambling advertising. Seventy-four percent of all participants reported seeing or hearing gambling ads on a daily or weekly basis on television compared to 72 percent on billboards, 66 percent at point of sale outlets, 42 percent on radio and 40 percent in newspapers. They typically recalled seeing ads on television sport channels, on the sides of buildings and buses, at gas stations and convenience stores even “before you walk in”, and on the internet. Males recalled seeing gambling ads on a weekly or daily basis more frequently than females, and there was a high level of exposure to gambling ads for poker, particularly among males. Ad recall increased in frequency with age. All of the 17–18 year old participants recalled seeing more television, radio, print, point of sale and outdoor ads compared to the 13–14 year old group. But all young people regardless of age described their exposure to gambling ads as continuous and commonplace. One girl summed it up as follows: “I’ve seen them so much they are just there”.

Our in-session questionnaire found that the vast majority of adolescents agreed that gambling ads suggested that winning was likely, that gambling was entertainment, and that gambling was an easy way to make money without working. Young people also agreed that ad design was used to promote gambling; in particular colourful images (92 %), music (86 %), humour (82 %), celebrities (72 %), and images of young people (70 %) were seen as attractive buying features. Youth, however, were evenly divided as to whether “Gambling ads suggest that people should gamble responsibly”. Four out of five agreed that gambling ads influenced other people’s decisions to gamble, but only 16 % claimed that they influenced their own decision to gamble. The perceptions of gambling advertisements were rather consistent between males and females, but there were differences over the normalization of gambling and the use of celebrities in advertising gambling. Almost 90 % of females agreed that “Gambling advertisements suggest that gambling is normal, everyday activity” while only 2 out of 3 males concurred, and 58 % of females thought that gambling ads used celebrities to promote gambling while almost 9 out of 10 males claimed so. Participants’ perceptions of gambling ads did not vary much by age. The one exception was with the statement “Gambling ads suggest that gambling requires skill”. As the participants’ age increased, they were less likely to agree with this statement; 44.4 % of those aged 13–14 agreed but only 25 % for those aged 17–18 concurred.

These findings indicate that youth are continually exposed to various forms of gambling advertising, with ad recall being more common with boys, especially as they aged. However, most youth regardless of gender or age, were well aware of the ads’ attempt to sell gambling through positive messages and images.

Qualitative Findings

Exposure, Design and Likeability of Gambling Advertisements

Sixteen gambling ads were shown to 50 participants in the focus group settings. The highest level of exposure was to a Bucko lottery print ad; 78 % of the participants reported seeing it. Over half the youth also said they saw a seasonal lottery point of sale ad, The Ultimate Stocking Stuffer (52 %), and a television 649 ad, Lightning (52 %). The lowest level of exposure was to casino print and point of sale ads. About half of the ads were seen by males and females alike, but females reported seeing lottery and casino ads more than males, while males had much more ad exposure to on-line poker commercials than females. The poker ad, We Play to Bluff, for example, was seen by 38 % of males compared to 4 % of females.

Although gambling advertisers rely on exposure to reach their audiences, the design of advertisements is also important for obtaining and holding consumer interest. Adolescents indicated that colour was one feature that drew them to gambling products. Bright colours were described as “appealing”, “awesome” or “pretty” because they “stand out” or “catch your attention”. Indeed, one participant reported that yellow often associated with lottery products was “a happy colour” that made her “feel good”. However, some television ads shot in black and white were described as “intense”, “intriguing”, “mysterious” and “well done” because the contrasting colours created atmospheres with a lot of “attention, shock and appeal”. Youth also described sound as an important design feature. They regularly commented on how “cool”, “catchy” and “recognizable” music was in the ads, and how, in turn, this sent messages that seemed “happy”, “up-tempo” and “upbeat”. They were especially enamored with ambient sounds – “fun noises”, and “fans cheering in the background” – which they said gave the ads force and credibility. As one teen put it, “It looks pretty cool because of the music”.

Teenagers also insisted that written and spoken language were important features of communication as well. Several ads were praised because they were “simple”, “bold” and “easy to read”. As one girl put it, when there are too many words in an ad “you have to actually think, what does that mean?” They appreciated “catchy phrases” such as “Ultimate stocking stuffer” or “Some games are played away from the table” and relished the promise of prizes and sex appeal in ad designs. Humour was especially appreciated; “It is funny”, “it’s amusing”, “it is humourous” were repeated refrains indexing ad appeal, attention and approval. One ad that depicted a poker-playing dog gambling with a security guard was cited for its cleverness as well as for its amusement value. As one girl put it: “It’s funny the dog wins”. The Bucko ad that depicted a loonie as a cartoon like character was also considered eye catching and attention holding. It was favoured because it was “funny”, “friendly” and “cheerful”. He has a “happy face”, declared one respondent, and this will make “little kids laugh”. Another youth summed up his stance for laughter when he insisted that in his focus group “we like humour in the ads”.

Simplicity in ad construction and communication was another selling technique that young people identified and agreed upon. They favoured the commercials that were easy to read or quick to view or hear. The Bucko print ad was a favourite because it was “not cluttered” and the Lightning television ad scored high because the plot structure was “short” and “to the point”. The “busier” the ad the more distracting it was to most youth causing them cognitive and communication confusion. Advertisements were also attractive when, in the words of one teen they were “sex selling type of ads”. Most males liked what they called the “pretty girls”, “sexy ladies” and “attractive women” portrayed in the casino and the T.V. online poker ads. They noted that these images were highly visible “on the front and centre” of the ads and made gambling glitzy and exciting. One teen wryly remarked that the only thing he disliked about a casino ad that he viewed was that “he was not drinking with these girls”! Females, on the other hand, identified and acknowledged the sex appeal pitches but found them one-sided (“all for men”) annoying (“stupid dancing girl”) or pretentious “the girls are showing off” - in the way the advertising connected women’s bodies and sexual images to gambling.

Many of the youthful participants identified the emphasis on winning signs and symbols in the ad designs. Bold proclamations such as win “$2000 dollars every 2 weeks for 20 years”, win “$25,000 dollars each week”, and win “400 daily cash prizes” were admired because, in the words of one adolescent, they put “a good image in your head” about quick money and good times. Several youth commented on the signs around the pricing of products: “only a dollar”, “it’s cheap”, and “less money per ticket” were powerful buying triggers that youth said would motivate them to gamble. Similarly symbols and texts that made reference to “Free” play, bets or prizes in the ads evinced highly positive responses suggesting that the absence of cost was a significant inducement for young people to gamble. As one teen put it, “Everyone likes something free”. Ads that signified gambling as thrilling also had appeal. Young people liked the voiceovers in the radio and television ads because they “got you excited”, because they were “heart pumping” and because they made “you feel as if you were there watching a sporting event or playing in one”. Still other youth commented positively on the “sound effects” in the casino ads that framed gambling in the context of “the partying, the fun, and the glitz” where “everyone looked happy”.

In sum, while all the youth had been exposed to about half of the ads, females reported that their exposure was mostly to lottery and casino ads, whereas males reported a high degree of contact with poker ads. However, exposure to the ads did not vary much by age. Almost all adolescents also indicated that colour, sound, humour, and simplicity in ad design was appealing to them, which strengthened their appreciation for the ad.

Decoding Gambling Advertisement Messages

Were youth able to isolate the target audiences and decode the message content from the form of the ads? First, adolescents were perceptive about intended audiences. They understood that the ad promoting lottery tickets as stocking stuffers, for example, was directed at “grandparents”, “parents” and people “busy during the holidays” who needed to find a quick gift at the last minute. They recognized that ads portraying young women in a sexualized manner were targeting “young males”. They observed that some ads were directed at low income populations. The Bucko ad was seen as targeting people who “don’t have a lot of money”, are “living in slight poverty” or “don’t want to spend lots”, and they reported that the PayDay ad was aimed at “average, working people” or consumers who are “in need of extra cash”, or who “need money”. Youth also noted that some ads had no obvious targets. The lottery ad Lightning, they insisted, was intended for “people of all ages”, but they self-identified themselves as the “younger crowd”, the “teenagers”, or the “younger kids” of the gambling marketplace.

Second, young people also identified and interpreted the intended meanings in many of the messages. The “winning” message embedded at the sender level discovered in much research was perceived and received by most youth (Griffiths 2005; McMullan and Miller 2008, 2009; Binde 2009, 2010; Derevensky et al. 2007, 2009, 2010; Korn et al. 2005, 2008; Sklar and Derevensky 2010). They emphasized that this message was telling them to gamble because “you could win money”, “you can win prizes easily”, or “you’ll win instantly”. In addition to the promise of winning, they acknowledged that the chances of winning indicated in advertisements were one-sided and presented in the players’ favour; “there is a very good chance you will win”, “higher chance of winning” and “chances of easy money are really good” were common themes that were identified and reported upon as a powerful buying factor by youthful participants. Winning messages, they added were supported through regular real winners or celebrity pros who acted as spokespersons for gambling; “new winners everyday”, “there are more winners”, and “you will be a winner” were perceived by youth as personal and credible ways for advertising to signify gambling as profitable, desirable, and common.

Youth also identified the message that gambling was being presented as a natural everyday activity consistent with what recent research has revealed about the preferred meanings of many gambling marketers and promoters in their advertisements (McMullan and Miller 2008, 2009; Derevensky et al. 2007, 2009, 2010; Monaghan et al. 2008; Korn et al. 2005, 2008). Signifiers such as “sweeping the nation”, “everyone is doing it”, and “daily lotto” reinforced the message that “gambling is normal now” in the minds of young consumers. They recognized that many ads were telling them to “play it every day” [lotteries] or to visit the casino for a “normal and fun outing”. As two teens put it, advertising is saying that “gambling is a normal way for people to socialize with each other” and it is trying to make “you feel like your odd if you’re the only one not doing it”. The message that gambling was part of a fun ethic, which was also discovered in several content studies of gambling messages sent by advertisers (Binde 2010; McMullan and Miller 2008, 2010; Korn et al. 2005, 2008; Sklar and Derevensky 2010) was also decoded by youth in the focus groups. The ads that portrayed the casino as a place of “free fun”, where you could “meet new people”, “try new games”, and “have a party” were seen as attempts to convey the impression that casino play was first and foremost about “being social” and not really about betting, winning or losing. As one youth put it, the message is “you’re guaranteed to have a good time”. For young people, however, the “fun” message was perceived much more clearly than the “gamble” message and only a few adolescents connected the entertainment theme to wagering or saw it as part of an overall message inciting gambling.

Third, some ads were too complicated for youth to isolate relevant messages. The main message in Lucky Ladies which revealed information about a blackjack bonus side bet option (i.e. a winning hand could be two queens, otherwise known as lucky ladies in blackjack) was not identified by any youth. Most adolescents focused on the word “ladies” and the female caricatures of two queens of hearts playing cards. They interpreted the message to mean “get women into the casino” to gamble. While this may have been a subtext, the main gambling-related message was under determined and not identified or decoded by respondents. This problem was true for the 13–14 year old age groups more generally. When asked about the key messages, they more often responded “I don’t know”, “I really didn’t understand it” or “I didn’t understand what they were saying”. For example, the main message in the ad Sunglasses, which showed a rack of sunglasses with the tagline “What will you wear to our new poker room?” was under-determined and not recognized by any of the 13 or 14 year olds. Only the older group connected the symbols to the signified and understood the intended message that if you cover your eyes while playing poker, as one youth put it, “nobody will be able to see your intentions through your facial expressions” when you gamble. Most of the younger participants also had difficulty recognizing the message in the PayDay ad. The message here was that gambling provided players with the opportunity to win a pay cheque rather than have to work to earn one. However, only two of the participants from the younger age group saw the connection between gambling, winning and escaping work. Similarly, the lottery ad Lightning appreciated by youth for its design features, was not comprehensible to many members of the youngest age group. While some of them understood the message to be “it’s not as hard as it looks” to win, many either did not understand the metaphor about the odds of winning or reversed its intended meaning. So, cognitively speaking, this age group had difficulty in isolating, interpreting and accepting the meanings embedded in about 6 of the 16 ads. They explored the composition of images and texts in the ads, but for them the signs did not connect into coherent plot lines and they had more difficulty than older youth in interpreting the significance of messages and connecting their meanings to master storylines about gambling.

Fourth, still it must be said that many youth in the focus groups were able to see how ad messages functioned as a wider form of cultural communication. For example, they isolated and appreciated the low cost gambling message in the Bucko ad, but they also realized that the pricing signs in the ad content evinced a more complex communication, namely that gambling was being portrayed as “harmless” with “no risks”. Little cost little harm, youth claimed, was the wider cultural appeal of this ad. Young people were also astute at interpreting the upselling message of a point of sale ad called Break Open. This ad promoted a scratch ticket entitled “Loose Change” by informing the consumer that purchasing five dollars worth of fifty cent tickets led to a prize sweepstake. Young people observed that this ad was “trying to get you to buy more” by conveying the impression that “the more you spend the better your chances” of winning. So “buy big to win more at the lottery”, they said, was the leitmotif of the commercial. Likewise winning and easy money messages were readily decoded for their wider cultural significance. On the one hand, young people found the iconography around wins and winning positive, stimulating and motivating. On the other hand, they were aware that winning was over emphasized in the ads:

“It’s really dumb and you spend so much money on it, and they make it really hard for you to win” (Female, 13–14).

“Advertising is making you aware of the winners, not the losers” (Male, 15–16).

“You are going to lose a lot more money than you win” (Female, 17–18).

“A lot of people waste a lot of money and they go bankrupt” (Female, 13–14).

They noted that it was easier to win “little amounts” rather than large jackpots and one teenager admitted that while an ad might entice her to play, she knew that she was “not going to win”. So the preferred readings from advertisers about winning were recognized but not always uncritically accepted by youth.

“It [the casino radio ad that stated how much it paid out] doesn’t say how much Casino Nova Scotia took in last year.” “It would be interesting to see how much they made as a comparison” (Male, 15–16).

Yet it must be emphasized that the message of winning was very compelling to most focus group participants even if it there was ambiguity around its signification. Youth both doubted and wanted to believe in the myth of the happy successful gambler at the same time. They could see through the ads attractive selling symbols and their wider social appeals, dreams and even deceptions. However, they negotiated their own feelings and beliefs about the theme of winning so that they did not completely oppose the advertised message or reject it as entirely false or misleading (Barthes 1973).

The messaging about the primacy of skill over luck identified as an emerging selling discourse in some gambling ads was decoded by youth as well (Binde 2009, 2010; McMullan and Miller 2008, 2009; Monaghan et al. 2008; Dyall et al. 2007; Maher et al. 2006). Many young people stated that the ads were telling them that “there is skill involved in the majority of gambling”, and that in poker, blackjack and lotto sports “you can influence the odds”. They noticed that several of the poker and lottery ads connected gambling with sports icons and images. Signifiers like play for “Team Canada”, become a “world champion” and “represent your country” at poker tournaments were interpreted to mean that advertisers were “trying to make this [poker] like a sport” and were representing gambling as “like the Olympics” where the only time you will lose is when “you’re not good at it”. The ads, they insisted, were telling them that skillful play could transform the “average Joe” into a “poker star” who could “play with the pros”. Interestingly focus group participants recognized that luck was inextricably related to gambling but they were reluctant to give it too much salience. They evinced the view that gambling was really becoming more and more like a sport. Males in particular emphasized that the web of signification connecting sports programs, sport channels and sport events to gambling was legitimate, attractive and exciting. Indeed the tone and content of the ads was seen by them as simulating the reality of a sport event so that the message communicated about the “sportification” of gambling was neither mistaken nor dismissed by most youth. It was played upon in an appreciative manner by young males and for them this theme appears to be part and parcel of a myth in the making!

Fifth, youth also engaged with the responsible gambling content that was presented in the ads. They welcomed the caveats to gamble smart and to be mindful of age restrictions because they recognized that people can get into trouble gambling. But young people found the responsibility messages over-determined. They observed that the warnings had no persuasive punch and were not meant to connect to them as a consumer audience. They criticized the “small print” and the “brief notes” in the ads telling them not to gamble, and remarked that in comparison to the commercial signage the responsible gambling content was “hard to read” “hard to see” and “nobody really pays attention” to the captions. Advertisers, they opined, “don’t really want to show them” and are “trying to hide them from you”. This cynical interpretation was particularly true of 13–14 year olds who were more anti-gambling than the other two age groups. Making “the warnings too small” or “hiding the fine print” about playing responsibly, they said, belied their convictions that gambling was potentially harmful, (“it can get you addicted”), costly (“if you go to there [casino] you’ll waste money”) and unethical (“lottery tickets should not be in a Christmas stocking”). So, young people decoded the social responsibility messages as poor attempts at communication with them. They were rejected by most youth as insincere and ineffective, especially among the youngest of the focus group participants who also found them incredulous.

Finally did youth draw on the claims of gambling advertisers to negotiate an identity around gambling as they reportedly do with alcohol and tobacco (McCreanor et al. 2005; Taylor 2000; Marlow 2001; Bailey 1998; Jackson et al. 2000; Gray et al. 1996; Warde 1994)? To start, the youngest participants did not identify themselves as gamblers or see gambling as a vital part of their own social identity. While they may have been experimenting with gambling among themselves by betting on sports events, gaming events or card games, they viewed themselves as marginal to the market place and its image makers and expressed a strong antipathy towards commercial gambling and advertising. This age group found some of the images of gamblers and gambling disconcerting and they evinced a social distance from the tone, style or look that many older youth found interesting and attractive in the ads. The two older age groups were more favourably disposed to gambling ads and were more likely to recognize the cultural capital of gambling in the form of hanging out with friends, winning money quickly, doing something exciting, or having fun by playing and betting:

“It’s fun to do with friends” (Male, 15–16).

“I do enjoy playing poker because my friends play” (Female, 17–18).

“I bet on sports and poker with buddies because it’s a good time and makes things interesting” (Male, 17–18).

These age groups possessed an ambivalent perspective about gambling and its benefits and dangers when compared to the 13–14 year olds. Like smoking, gambling offered perceived independence from the restrictions of early adolescence because it invited involvement in a forbidden “adult” activity and demarked a new self-image (Allbutt et al. 1995; Gray et al. 1996, p. 227). One youth recounted how graduating from high school was connected to gambling as a rite of passage toward a more grown-up self-image. “My prom”, he stated, “was at the casino” and he and others in his school “played poker as part of the prom”. While this example was unique, many youth, especially between 15 and 18, evinced a desire to participate in gambling. Some had already slipped into the casino, others had purchased lottery tickets, several had gambled for money on-line, and many who had not gambled were anxiously waiting the day they could walk into the casino at the age of majority. Older teenagers, whose thinking was more abstract and lateral, could see the links and verbalize the connections between identity and gambling. They expressed a more grown-up appreciation of the images of gambling as “an experience” “a transformation” or a “thrill”, while still recognizing the possible harms associated with the activity. A number of them had older friends who had already informed them, for example, of the “holiday” atmosphere at the casino: “it’s glamorous”, “it’s a good deal”, and “it’s right downtown”, and prepared them for this world of adult activity free from the constraints of family and the restrictions of legal authority. While it may not be said that gambling signified young people as trendsetters or mavericks, as smoking and other forms of drug use have done in the past, it is clear that youth identified themselves with the gambling experience well before they turned nineteen years old (Marlow 2001; Watson et al. 2003; Korn et al. 2005, 2008; Derevensky et al. 2007, 2009; McMullan and Miller 2008, 2009, 2010; Sklar and Derevensky 2010). They saw themselves in the excitement and youthfulness of the people portrayed in the casino and poker ads especially, and their ambivalent attitude towards the presence of gambling messages and images illustrates how ordinary gambling was becoming for these older teenagers who were more likely to have already consumed commercial gambling products.

Discussion

Interestingly, our findings indicate that gambling advertising seems to mean similar as well as different things to young people of different ages. On the one hand, these results suggest that youth perceptions of gambling messages and characteristics revealed a considerable level of consensus; most youth agreed that advertising conveyed the impressions that gambling was entertainment, an easy way to make money without working and a normal everyday activity where winning was likely. Indeed senders and receivers often inhabited the same belief system; the ads constructed and transmitted a representation of gambling which was then appropriated by youth as similar, decoded by them as meaningful and accepted by them as sent by the transmitter. Almost two-thirds of the ads shown were received by youth as intended.

So these findings support previous research indicating that gambling advertising and promotions are extensive, ubiquitous and pervasive and that adolescents are repeatedly exposed to gambling advertising in their daily lives (Griffiths 2005; Korn et al. 2008; Binde 2010; McMullan and Miller 2008, 2009, 2010; Sklar and Derevensky 2010). In addition they confirm Korn et al. (2008), Derevensky et al. (2007, 2009, 2010) and Monaghan et al. (2008) findings that the messages sent in advertisements are often being received by young consumers and are the same reasons reported by youth as leading them to gamble at an early age. In Derevensky et al.’s words (2007, p. 37) the popular view of gambling as entertaining, harmless and convivial matches “perfectly the rose colored perspective offered by advertising”. As a consequence, the exposure and communication effects of gambling marketing and promotions may very well add to or reinforce high youth gambling participation rates as well as high youth problem gambling prevalence rates that are already two to four times higher than for adults (Gupta and Derevensky 2008).

On the other hand, our findings reveal a measure of communication disjunction where particular ad features and messages were not received by young people. While the clearest example of over-determined communication was the disconnect between responsible gambling warnings and the rejections of these messages as ploys, there were also several ads that were, in whole or in part, not recognized or received as intended because: a) the signs were too abstract for all adolescents to appreciate (Lucky Ladies); b) the content was decoded differently by youth of different ages so that young thirteen and fourteen year olds brought countervailing conceptions to the interpretation process and rejected them as outside their own young teen cultural world (Glasses, Pay Day, Break Open, Play for Team Canada, and Lightning); and c) the content was decoded by older youth to modify their suspicions or displeasures into a qualified acceptance of the meaning of the ads without completely embracing or rejecting the realities portrayed in them (Glasses, Pay Day, Break Open, Play for Team Canada, and Lightning). Fully one third of the ads were not received by youth as intended.

This raises an important issue regarding consumer protection through socially responsible advertising. Aside from the important issues of how, when and where advertising should be allowed, what images, texts and sounds should be permitted, and what type and size of responsibility signage should be included for purposes of harm minimization (Thomas et al. 2011; Monaghan et al. 2008; Dyall et al. 2007; Blaszczynski et al. 2005; Eggert 2004), there also exists the matter of what might be called the legitimate speech needed to reach potential and existing young gamblers. Clearly messages that contradict the wider world of normalization and cultural approval around gambling may be ignored or ridiculed by young people. “Just Say No”, or “Don’t Do It” messages have not been especially popular or effective with youthful populations because they have not been aimed at the adolescents who are the engaged consumers (Korn et al. 2006). The signifiers in these types of ads typically connect authority figures – government, police, teachers and parents - to the fears and attitudes of an older generation and this may not be the best discourse to use when communicating with young people who often feel they know more or know better than those who are sending responsibility messages to them (Messerlian and Derevensky 2007).

Our findings indicate that responsible advertising should create conversations with youth and youthful gamblers and incorporate a diverse set of messages to appeal to youth of different ages and with varying levels of gambling involvement. The signifiers in gambling prevention ads might best capitalize on young people’s cultural experiences with gambling to make messages of concern heard in the early teen years and then reframe them to encourage long term responsible behaviour as youth move towards adulthood. Thus social responsibility ads might acknowledge the pleasure that a gambling experience may provide whilst attempting to promote the idea that it is possible to have fun, win money, acquire social status and experience excitement without gambling. They might advertise that if people do gamble they will have a better time doing it if they are aware of the harms for themselves, their friends and their families. The mistaken belief that gambling is profitable might be countered through communications that feature detailed information about the gambling industry and their attempts to make gambling look ‘easy’ and ‘cool’ to young adults and teenagers. The excitement or mood benefits associated with problem gambling may be countered with the promise of interventions that offer alternate forms of enjoyment and socialization in exchange for quitting problem behaviours. The endorsement of skill based gambling such as sport betting, poker and blackjack by celebrities and professional poker players in advertisements might be countered by the mobilization of public figures who are famous and respected by young people in ads but who nevertheless identify with the risks and problems associated with gambling and sound a cautionary message. As Shead et al. (2011, p. 177) note, “celebrities have been shown to help promote social causes and have strong potential as spokepersons for gambling prevention messages aimed at youth”.

In sum, real life stories, the use of irony and humour, role modeling, and emotional messaging may work best if they deploy non-judgmental language, visually attractive media formats, and diverse popular communication styles that set up associations that have positive connotations with the world of youthful consumption and offer young people tangible benefits in exchange for voluntarily desistance from gambling. Social responsibility messaging should be multiple and heterogeneous and not assume that all youth are alike or will be influenced by a single message. For example, females with little or no gambling experience should not receive the same responsibility message as males with a heavy gambling involvement. Arguably one message might emphasize the benefits of abstinence while another might feature the social hazards of gambling too young and too often. As Powell and Tapp (2009, p. 11) observe, the gambler should guide social marketing recognizing “that their self interest may well differ from pre-conceived notions held by otherwise well meaning professionals” and that harm minimization messages should be increased and standardized to counter-balance the promotion of gambling to youth.