"Be A Player, Be A Winner" slogan, legal or not debat

[LinkinFart]

If this thread needs to be somewhere else please put it there.

I think this should be separated from "Casinos and responsible gambling" thread because debate over this issue became irrelevant to original thread. Here`s the link to original thread and if You havent read it already please do that, its a good thread with valid points. Original thread LINK
This debate started here LINK

And now the conclusion.

Thank You Da_Gambla for making me use notepad to write posts.

All quotes are from Da_Gambla posts in this thread:

They do not beat around the bush at all about what they are selling: WINNING! With slogans like "Who will be next?" or "Will YOU be next?", it's obviously all about playing on the human urge to gamble. Sometimes they even run 'infomercial' type programs that show a couple multi-million winners, and how it changed their lives.

Here You have provided an example what is allowed to advertise yourself. They can promote previous winners and how it changed their lives. This is coupled by "Will You be next" which is not the same as "You will be next". I`ve already explained a difference and why one is allowed and other not.

Nothing on their website mentions anything about losing anything. You're not the next loser, you're the next potential winner.

And here You seem to grasp the concept yet you still push the idea that its normal to advertise certainty of a win. Gambling advertisers are not obliged to promote losing but they cant advertise "sure win".

"Be a Player, Be A Winner" is misleading? I mean, how, exactly? It's a slogan! Dr. Pepper used to have a slogan "Be A Pepper!" What does that mean, exactly? Since I can't actually physically become a pepper, is this misleading?

I`m sure we could dig up few more slogans that wont be relevant to this discussion like Dr.Pepper. "Be a winner" is misleading for reasons I have clearly explained in two previous posts of mine.

How about the Lotto example slogans listed above, "Are You Next?"

Will You ever admit that there is a difference between the two?

Doesn't matter if you say yes or no, as it's just your opinion at that point, and obviously the government here is fine with it.

This is not about opinion of any individual, its called logic. As far the government is concerned, I tried, really did, for 3 or 4 hours yesterday to find US laws related to gambling advertising but was only able to find few specific laws about lottery advertising and tons of finds about online gambling advertising which talk about UIGEA and similar. Maybe I couldnt find those laws because I`m not too familiar how and where US federal laws get published so if someone has the link or more info about it please tell me, PM or post same to me. In this shitty country I live called Croatia, government has a site where I can easily search through all the laws from the day this "backward" country was created. They try to overwhelm you with the quantity instead of hiding it.

Why do casinos need to mention that you can lose?

No they dont have to mention you can lose.

I'm only going to have a problem if I see an advert that says "You Can't Lose!". Actually, forgive me, I'm not going to have a problem, I'm going to deposit, lose, and then sue them, because that is just truly a lie.

There You go again. I dont know if its on subconscious level that You can understand or that on conscious level You are just screwing around with me and nate. "You cant lose!" is the same as saying "You will win!".

Just out of curiosity, is this prohibition specific to gambling slogans, or all advertising? I'd be interested in understanding the exact law and how they distinguish between those that are allowed versus those that aren't.

Its not prohibition, its called false advertising. I dont think that restaurant slogan is totally "legal" but gambling attracts much more attention since you cant go bankrupt by having one bad meal. One bad gambling session can leave you bankrupt.

Also, I didnt see any "BadMealAnonymous.org" sites recently. Have You?

Using 'be' in an advert here is an invitation, not a guarantee you WILL become that. For example, a branch of our military for years had the slogan "Be all you can be". This is widely accepted as an invitation, not a guarantee. So when I see "Be a player, be a winner", I am programmed to interpret that as "choose our company".

Difference between "Be all you can be" and "Be a winner". Military slogan doesnt say, "Be a hero" or "Be a general" it doesnt even imply it in any way. You could become new Ghandi, even Teletubbie. They dont even use words like infantry or pilot. On the other hand "Be a winner" is quite specific in implying positive outcome, unless you are from some different dimension and those that lose are called winners. Thats direct and it falls under category "false advertising".

In the case of cigarettes and alcohol, they are selling cool, and they always have. Alcohol ads are ridiculous. They are selling cool and sex.

Exactly, but I didnt see a slogan "Drink Heineken, Be cool" and for the very same reason, addiction prevention. I have even better example of not saying but still presenting it, Axe. They are promoting in every commercial that women will go crazy after you just because you used Axe. Here is the link one such commercial and slogan is

So that being said, we all win some wagers, lose other wagers. It's usually a slow drain south, but in the meantime, RTP suggests that at least SOME of your wagers are being returned to play through again, if you choose. So, if you put $1 in a slot and win back 50 cents, YOU'RE A WINNER. That's a win, plain and simple.

Example You provided is not a winner. Explained it already, bet is a process which consists of bet amount/game/outcome and you cant separate this trio, although You would like to do just that.

Not the win you wanted, but did the statement "Be a winner" guarantee you a win above your wager, or a cumulative win above your deposit? No, of course it didn't.

Yes,it does imply exactly that. As I said before, if You dont see a term "Winner" describing a positive outcome, in this case profit, then You must be from different dimension and there are bunch of Multiverse scientists who would like to get their hands on You. You cant be a winner and a loser at the same time. If You end your session with a profit you`re a winner if You end your session with a loss then you`re a loser. If Your session is comprised of both wins and losses then again, you cant use the term winner because its not the only result you`ll be getting. And this is also to show that YOU were the one that entered 'exaggeration zone' first, so either stand ground and defend your point of view or admit that You were wrong but in any case dont run around when you feel cornered.

If you supply YOUR definition of winner, or the definition you just want to create, then you can make this slogan, or any slogan for that matter, misleading.

I`ll jump in here although You were talking to Nate. As You could see from the links I provided in previous post its not my or Nate`s definition of a winner. It`s the only valid definition of a winner. Yes, there will always be small number of people who could find every slogan deceptive but just because they exist doesnt make their opinion valid. In this case, Winner is a person that won the money by gambling.

If you are deeply impacted by all of this rather benign advertising that casinos do, then I will have no other recourse than to assume you have a personal gambling problem.

Not only was this a mean thing to post imply about Nate but it also show how either biased or unaware of marketing influence You really are. Do a little research on marketing and propaganda, beginning with Sigmund Freud.

Look, whatever. I'm just happy you chaps aren't in charge of these rules. They may be bad now, but I'll accept them as is, versus the alternative you're proposing.

You can read again so I dont repost, yours and mine.

The problem you are facing is that, if you are going to accuse some company of a misleading slogan, the burden of proof that it is misleading becomes yours. You have thus far failed to do that. You have trotted out only the most rigid definitions of 'win' and 'winner', and just are conveniently believing no other usage of those terms exist.

You still cant grasp the definition of the terms "Win" and "Winner". I`ve explained them again above in case You forgot.

Your statement above agrees with my previous post: anything returned to the player, even if it does not equal or exceed his wager, is considered 'winnings'.

Sorry, I forgot to include definition of winnings in previous post, noun "Winnings"(

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

). And then You go on and add

The only beneficiary of 'winnings' can be the 'winner'.I stop there, and consider that if at any point you can be defined as a 'winner', then that satisfies the meaning.

Why do you stop there? More important, why do You begin Your "Winner determination thought process" at "Game" stage of the whole "Bet" process? Remember, bet/game/outcome is what is considered a BET?

Then You continue and PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, again BTW

You continue on and say, whilst someone is a winner at that point

I never said that. I hate to quote myself but here it is: "Once You place that $1.00 bet and You get WINNINGS of $0.50 the outcome of the bet was that You`re a LOSER.". You also add to already falsified quote YOUR definition of winner in brackets as it was mine or as it was something I agree with.

Lets continue with quoting

Are you saying that a net win or loss is calculated after EVERY wager?

and later you also write this one too

You are forcing ONE possible time period for the sake of argument, but it's just argument for argument's sake, and not fact.

NO! You were the one that put "Slot pull" example as proof which will satisfy the term winner in slogan. I`ve just used that very same example to show You how wrong You are.

Then You go on and try to put time limit on the term winner. Lets make this as specific it can be. Give simple answers to these questions (YES/NO, RIGHT/WRONG, AGREE/DISAGREE)

We are talking about gambling, right?
Winner is the person that has won something, right?
Win is the term describing the gain of some kind, in this case bet, right?
Bet can be losing or winning one, right?
Winning bet is the bet where player made profit, right?
Losing bet is the bet where player lost money, right?

FYI, my answer to all those question is "RIGHT". If you answer any of those questions differently please let me and others know which one is that.

We agree that a return on a wager is commonly referred to as 'winnings'

Yes, we could agree on that.

We should be in agreement that the only beneficiary to winnings would be the 'winner'.

No we couldnt. For the reasons explained not once before you again put this argument as valid, and this is not my point of view THAT IS THE FACT.

You have not made any burden of proof that a company's slogan "Be a winner" should be calculated on the exact point in time YOU want it to have, and since other variables will always exist, you will never do so.

YOU JUST MADE THAT "POINT IN TIME" ARGUMENT AND PLEASE DONT TRY TO INTRUDE IT. You tried to intrude "Slot pull" argument too and now when You are cornered with FACTS, you`re just trying to intrude "Point in time". Point in time has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MEANING OF TERM WINNER, just in determining success rate and clasification of individual results over certain period of time.

And what did we try to prove? Legality of the term Winner in 3Dice`s slogan. You defended the case this slogan was legal with the "Slot pull" hypothesis that it is valid to say winner because we all have winnings, which is not true. It`s really ridiculous that I had to explain what is the definition of the BET and yet You still fail to accept this and try to convince me and other people to accept YOUR skewed definition of a winner. Now, when I had to go down to BASIC level to prove a point, and You got cornered with FACTS we have this poor attempt by you to intrude irrelevant "POINT IN TIME" argument which, if You think for a second, will never change the meaning of the term winner.

I might have missed something its really long post.

 

[jstrike]

Your logic is flawless.

But if there's one thing less logical than the way most people gamble, it's the way they believe in advertising.

To wit, the difference between "You will be the next winner." and "Will the next winner be you?" in a legal sense is huge. To an ad executive, it's just semantics; maybe someone should consult the legal department. And to a hard-core gambler, those two statements mean exactly the same thing.

I'm not arguing for any kind of moral relativism here, by the way. The statement is counterfactual, and has an economic purpose. False statements made for money are a kind of evil, malum in se, whether you're in Croatia or anywhere else in the galaxy. But I do think it's a distinction that can only be made or understood by a lawyer or someone in the ad industry. (If it wasn't, it wouldn't work so well).