First it was the TAB. Now it's Betfair receiving a censure.

And all because of advertising.

The claims against the TAB Ltd and Betfair ads have run the gauntlet of defamation, innuendo, 'misquoting', and finally - misleading and deceptive conduct. Given the threat of legal proceedings and official reprimands one can only wonder what in-house counsel signed off on the campaigns and what ground the companies thought they are making (except in terms of media comment) by so flagrantly challenging advertising standards (and trade practices law).

If this is war (and it certainly seems to have assumed the guise) then the TAB and Betfair ads have been somewhat less than an outright success in terms of 'fair advertising'.

But let's look at how the ad game has played out so far:

On April 21 2004, Darren Beadman threatened legal action over a controversial ad which appeared nationwide in the Australian Financial Review and the Australian two days after the shock defeat of Lonhro in the Queen Elizabeth Stakes. The advertisement said: "Will Darren Beadman jump off Lonhro?" Then underneath appeared the words: "Ask for a price with internet betting exchanges. TAB calls on Australia to ban betting exchanges."

The advertisement drew a comparison to the scandal in England when a jockey allegedly jumped off a horse (who was a firm favourite) and that had allegedly been backed to lose with betting exchanges.

The TAB's response to the ads content was somewhat baffling: "It's not about casting aspersions ...There is no innuendo. It doesn't suggest anything at all in terms of Darren doing anything (untoward) with Lonhro or any other horse."

Betfair's response was, I would suggest, perhaps closer to the mark on this occasion: "[The advertisement] was as inaccurate as it is offensive. It suggests that betting Lonhro to lose would only have been possible with an exchange".

The story didn't end there. There was another TAB Ltd ad about cricket results being corrupted, then another that was said to "deceive" the public through a "mischaracterisation" of the views of problem gambling campaigner Reverend Chester Carter (who is on record as being equally opposed to the TAB's own Internet operation as he is to other forms of internet wagering), and then, in a bizarre twist, the Prime Minister was "misquoted" in yet another TAB ad which seemed to suggest the Federal Government was directly opposed to betting exchanges. Betfair's response (not surprisingly) was: "[the ad in question] seriously manipulates and distorts the PM's words to suit the TAB argument to ban betting exchanges."

The TAB ads played to advertising's traditional (albeit at times dangerous) role of manipulating public perception. TAB Ltd went as close as possible to the line before falling on the knives of legal action and in doing so achieved their objectives of pushing the topic of betting exchanges to the top of the pile on radio talk-back shows, headline news in every newspaper, copious amounts of chat room debate, planting the seeds of doubt in the general public's mind (forgetting for one moment that the company behind the ads is also 100% about "the evils" of gambling.)

At this point Betfair had absorbed a few blows (and no doubt Mark Davies was wondering what exactly the benefits were of being communications manager for the company) but as most businesses would know - the best way to deal with such negative PR in a war of this nature is to ensure information continues to flow to all stake holders in a timely and open manner and ensure that every action that's taken is above board (and transparently so) as the public and the media have an unhealthy obsession with dragging a company's name through the mud once concerns have been raised, particularly when a company is not Australian-owned and deals in a product/service that ignites such passionate public debate due to its wider social implications.

So what happened next? On 1 December 2004 in a judgment published in the UK, Betfair was censured by the Advertising Standards Authority for three complaints of misleading advertising on the BBC's The Money Programme by bookmaker Geoff Banks. According to the Racing Post the complaint "related to a national press advertisement (which itself used evidence put forward on BBC's The Money Programme) claiming a £2 punter betting on Betfair 10 minutes before the start of each race at Goodwood on May 18 would have collected £334 from the winners, compared with £187 at starting price". In its judgment, the ASA noted The Money Programme was the source of the comparisons, but held Betfair "responsible for the wording of the advertisement".

It was, in retrospect, as much a third party error as Betfair's but in the way it has been reported it was one the betting exchange could ill afford to make. It may not be considered 'an equal playing field' by some but a large percentage of people have a vested interest in ensuring that Betfair do not succeed.

In terms of comparison the TAB Ltd series of ads were an abysmal example of 'fair advertising'. Yet one expects that in spite of this they themselves will made suitable noise about the UK judgment as it relates to Betfair; a weary observer could perhaps say that it is just another trading of blows in this entrenched battle where an announcement of an early victory seems unlikely.

Given the way the media have been reporting on the matter (and some of the race clubs) it might be useful to quote Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor) who spoke at the Law for Journalists Conference in London on 26 November 2004 . Speaking about freedom of information he said:

"The benefits of open government are clear: transparency, accountability, honesty. That's the kind of government which people want to see ... Openness and transparency lead to better decision-making. Greater accountability will improve standards. As journalists you have a clear part to play here. You are the prism through which the public will often look at open government.

"The media in all its forms - television, radio, advertising, newspapers, the internet - now penetrates all our lives every day in a way that would have been impossible thirty years or more ago.

"With that increased influence comes an increased responsibility. Freedom of information can mean that the relationship between the government and the people, and between the media and the people, can be different. Can be better. Can be more open. More transparent. More honest.

"Those are objectives worth striving for.

"And we both have a job to do.

"We as politicians in government. You as journalists in the media.

"Not for the benefit of government. Not even for the benefit of the media. But for the benefit of the public."

His words are as applicable to advertising/marketing as they are to journalism. We sometimes forget who the recipient/reader of media/ads are: the general public. It's those people we should be looking after. Deliberate mis-statement in the media and in advertising for political (and commercial) gain (which the TAB Ltd vs. Betfair debate is all about - make no mistake about that) helps the public not one iota.