Advanced Search

Paddy Power

Can you give me an example of their marketing campaigns?

Two promotional campaigns illustrate the benefits and dangers of launching innovative marketing ideas:

Firstly, the dangers: In 2001 Paddy Power's advertising campaign which placed odds on two elderly women crossing a road safely was banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The regulator received more than 50 complaints about the advert, including one from Age Concern.

The bookmaker's advert marked the launch of a new UK service. A poster showed two elderly women negotiating a zebra crossing as a lorry approaches. Next to each pensioner were the supposed odds (or chances) of their making it across the road. Alongside the picture a caption read, "Let's make things more interesting".

The ASA said that the advert was likely to cause serious offence after receiving complaints that it was "ageist and offensive", "demeaned" older people and could lead to dangerous drivers trying to recreate the scene. See the full adjudication at the ASA's Web site at: http://www.asa.org.uk (You will have to search through the adjudication index.)

Paddy Power told the ASA that the advert was part of a campaign aimed to depict "everyday situations as competitive fixtures through the eyes of a betting man". The company said the bet was on which woman would reach the other side of the road first and not which one would be knocked down by the approaching truck.

Now, the benefits: During the 2002 World Cup finals in Japan and Korea, in a PR masterstroke Paddy Power said it would be refunding £128,000 as a goodwill gesture to gamblers who had lost out when Ireland were defeated by Spain on penalties, after extra time.

"It's good to give something back to the punters," the chain's owner, Paddy Power, told reporters. Perhaps more revealingly, he added, "and it means that there's more money in their pockets for the next game."

The bookmaker offered to pay out on single bets of up to £250 per person, as long as the bets were made before kick-off. The decision was seen at the time as a public relations masterstroke, but some observers noted that the refund offer was a relatively cheap way of buying positive publicity about the brand.

Index | Previous Question | Next Question