At the start of the NRL season I wonder what odds we would have had that a mere 11 weeks of Tom Waterhouse would be all it took to have the PM herself intervene and demand the banning of live odds during broadcasts?
There are also restrictions being ‘voluntarily’ placed on what a gambling company representative can tell the cameras during breaks in play. Don’t worry sports fans, ‘generic material’ is still allowed.
As this article on Crikey points out, the whole issue has been a ticking time bomb from the minute Waterhouse strolled onto our screens and took a seat in the Channel 9 broadcast box.
Plenty has been written about the big-money incursion of gambling companies into our beloved sports. I’m not going to add another column inch to those concerns because I find it very easy to resist the siren song of sports gambling. This is mainly because I couldn’t correctly tip whether the sun will rise tomorrow, so I keep my wallet in my pocket.
But the time has come to poke a bit of fun at the usual ham-fisted handling of all things sport by Channel 9, plus the geniuses Tom paid for marketing advice.
There is a lot to dislike about Tom and the industry he represents. However, the Tom I know – the Tom who knows what punters want but seemingly not much else – is a construct, an image, a literal walking advertisement.
Tom and his advisers decided the best way to spruik betting to the typical Australian was to incessantly stuff a rich, milk-toast nancy-boy down their throats during the broadcast of the toughest, hardest sport on the planet and they’ve sowed the seeds of discontent.
Previously, punters were at worst bemused by the appearance of a fairly good sort (Jaaaaamie Rogers) or an orc (Munsie) doing the same thing on behalf of a fairly inoffensive organisation.
I say inoffensive because even though they sell the exact same product as Tom, the image they projected was of a low-rent organisation that just wants to join you, the punter, in having a little fun while watching the game.
Contrast this with the Waterhouse approach which to me screamed, “Yeah, I’m already rich and I decided I’d like some more of your money. Here’s how you can give it to me…”
During the new generation ads, Tom’s people decided he’d best be seen pretending to stroll through sporting events reminding potential customers he’s never played anything beyond conkers at school.
He’s also seen pretending to whirl around in a sweatless frenzy, dictating “the action” to a cast of actors in some kind of betting bunker.
This is meant to imply that if Tom slips up for a second, you the punter could take the whole Waterhouse empire down.
Before you can say “I know what punters want” it’ll be you snapped streaking shirtless and pasty down a beach in Italy while your impossibly beautiful wife looks on, admiring your bulging pockets.
It’s really nothing personal with Tom but the fact is someone decided his face should be the main marketing tool of his company. It’s just not the right face to do it with.
Sports fans want to reach into their screens and give that smug smirk a little slap, then another, then another.
Previously, the potential punter could dismiss Munsie as a publican with a new TAB machine installed and Rogers as a good looking but obvious piece of bait.
Tom just invokes either irritated rage or lightning reflexes with the TV remote.
Channel 9 and Tom have jointly fouled their own nest. They apparently decided that $10 million per year equals Waterhouse never leaving the viewer alone to mull over the action on the field as opposed to the action off it.
Tom claims to know what punters want and his success would suggest this is true.
However, he is now finding out the hard way what non-punters want: much less of his face on their TV screens.
Vivalasvegan
Guest
Totally agree... He has polarized opinion completely by pushing us all too far. The wider industry must be furious with him. I find him the most revolting little scrat on the Telly. And that is saying something...
AdamS
Roar Guru
Doesn't help that he looks like a character who got rejected as an extra on Twighlight for looking too spooky...
seven dollers worth
Guest
Aussies are just sick and tired of seeing this Waterhouse bloke!
Gareth
Roar Pro
It's a very good point. I wonder if we'd gotten here if the Waterhouses had a bit more perspective on what the wider community thinks of their dubious dealings. It was obvious from the outset that they (or their advertising partners) had absolutely no idea when they came up with the first version of the ad where Tom talks about how he was born to bet and how great he is at betting. Did none of them think at any point "Oh hold on, our potential customers are betting *against* us"? Did they not think that compositing the prissiest of private schoolboys against a backdrop of tough, sporting manflesh would greatly exaggerate an already unflattering image? A big part of me thinks that if they'd been a bit more shrewd in their marketing and branding, the critical mass of public annoyance would never have come to be, and we wouldn't be seeing this ban come into effect. So thanks, Waterhouses.
oikee
Guest
Old Tommy, he is sticking his chest out and taking them on, big time. hehe. Looks like everyone is sinking the boot into him, i even read Demetriou sunk the boot into him and channell nine over his betting antics. I wonder if we will get live betting on the Melbourne cup races this year, or is this only a half-herted effort aimed at only Tommy because him and his are from Sydney. Your either cracking down on Gambling seriously , or your just token jestering. I think Tom should look at selling, go buy a pie shop or coffee cafe. hehe.
Naught
Guest
Is there going to be a bloodbath? A bloodbath where the 1st 100 callers get an extra dollar on a bet that may cost Tommy under 10k all up? Gambling is deceit. I've dabbled and it can be fun (I enjoy 1st and last scorer punts) but it is taking over our sport and people are getting to the point where they can't talk footy without odds being mentioned.
Deano_27
Guest
I detested online gambling before Tom Waterhouse invaded my senses. Now that he has I do what I do with the Cricket (as I don't have Fox Sports); put the telly on mute and tune into Grandstand. Online gambling robs a bloke of the true essense of having a punt down the TAB for example. Get a few mates togther, hit the pub, blow the froth off a few, partake in a good perv on any talent on show, bask in the glory of a win with the boys and most importantly....hand over real money from your pocket so you feel your losses. There's no social aspect to online gambling. You can sit at home, alone, in the dark, on your Smartphone and literally gamble your life away without seeing/touching/smelling any $$$. And the irony is, Tom effing Waterhouse is the LAST bloke I'd want to have a beer and a bet with down the pub. Although I imagine he's a white wine spritzer type of guy.
madrid john
Guest
Live betting we'd like to see: 1 How many consecutive hit ups Tom Waterhouse could manage against the home side forward pack. 2 How many ball-boys T.W. could tackle before running off crying for mummy Waterhouse. 3 How many bombs Tommy could catch before nose bleed results. 4 How many guesses Tommy would need before correctly identifying the King as both Australian and immortal. 5 Probability of Tommy knowing that ET does not refer to a Sci-fi movie. 6 Number of stubbies Tommy would open with a Sterling- silver cork-screw before discovering that they're twist tops. 7 Number of consecutive minutes Tommy would hold his ground on the hill at Brooky or Leichardt Oval without tears, pant wetting or fleeing. 8 Probability of Tommy correctly identifying which term is not an insult, A poncy-boy, B mummy's boy, C dummy half.
Boomshanka
Guest
It's not just Tom we detest. He is the tip of a murky underworld that is seeing drugs and organised crime filtering into sport. Even our politicians have the snouts in the troth and can't act in the sports or societies best interest to get this vermin off our screens. For example: Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said a couple of days ago the government cannot impose a total ban on gambling advertising during sport broadcasts because TV networks are finding it ''harder and harder'' to secure revenue. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/tv-revenue-at-risk-with-total-ad-ban-conroy-20130527-2n6e4.html This from a man that has reduced the licence fee received by the Australian Government by 50% over the last few years in a time when all Australians (except seemingly pollies) are tightening their belts. http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_312206 If ever there is a case for scrapping the anti siphoning legislation, it's this. Do we have to suffer at the hands of leeching bookmakers because the networks paid too much in an environment where those free to air networks receive a generous advantage by being the only ones allowed to hold broadcasting rights to listed sports. It puts the whole social benefit test (which is the basis for the anti siphoning list) into serious doubt and a big cost to society. As long as Senator Conroy receives his free tickets to the AFL Grand Final, Australian Open Tennis, Test Cricket, Formula One, Soccer World Cup and other sporting events as a guest of those TV networks then I suppose we sports fans will be used as a political pawn to justify his increasing power and influence, despite never doing anything. From: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/afl-tops-list-of-politician-freebies-20120831-255z4.html "Communications Minister Senator Conroy is a well-known sports fan but also sets vital regulations that significantly affect media companies and the major sporting codes, including what games will be reserved for free-to-air TV. As well as accepting his cache of AFL tickets, Senator Conroy went to the Australian Open tennis courtesy of Channel Seven and attended Test cricket thanks to Channel Nine. Channel Ten paid for him to go to the formula one grand prix, while SBS stumped up tickets for the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa."