The advertisement and story-line seems to be well positioned vis-A -vis the intended target market. The fact that the gambling setting is local / informal (someone's house) alludes to the fact that the principle of gambling (and not the particular type, e.g. slots vs. card-games or setting), matters. However, the main short-coming of the ad is the punch-line - if considered within the context of the story. The story depicts a gambler who loses virtually everything, whereas the punch-line states: "Winners know when to stop".
Against the background of this story, the introduction of the words 'winners' and 'stop', lack context. In fact, it creates sufficient ambiguity and impetus for the viewers to create their own meaning (particularly within the context of the story's priming effect), which may well include the opposite to the intended message, e.g. 'losers don't stop' or 'as long you are not winning, you can continue gambling. Not only does the subconscious mind thrive on such ambiguity and embedded meaning - any conscious resistance is also bypassed. Whilst unintended - the story and punch-line (which is out of context), by enticing the viewers to find their own meaning - are probably fostering a higher level of commitment and behavioural consequence to this personal meaning, than might comparably be offered (or intended) by the advertisement. In this sense then, the advertisement may have the opposite effect: not only may the punch-line not succeed in moving gamblers who win, to stop, but may in fact give losers the tacit 'license' to continue gambling, at least until such time that they win (with the odds being stacked against the punter, this may happen later rather than sooner!).
If the advertising agency intended for the word 'winners' to be interpreted in a more abstract fashion (in a non-monetary sense & including 'losers'), it would have been useful to place the word 'real' or 'true' before 'Winners...' This would serve to place losers and winners on the same par and elevate their behaviour into an abstract realm, thus appealing to both. Of course, the Responsible Gambling Programme faced a predicament in that it couldn't have portrayed a gambler who wins and then stops gambling immediately, as this would have reinforced the behaviour that gambling is rewarding rather than the notion of 'stopping'.
On balance, the story, without the punch-line would probably be more effective in portraying in a powerful fashion, the consequences of irresponsible gambling, whilst also leaving enough scope for the appropriate personal meaning to be 'read' into it by the viewer. For example, the fact that it ends with a 'for sale' sign on the unfortunate gambler's house (as opposed to the gambler already having lost the house) makes it open ended enough for a 'personalised' end to be constructed by the viewer. In other words, it carries the meaning that the gambler in the story can still 'bounce-back' and hopefully builds a new life, free of gambling, based on lessons learned. Moreover, it would carry a sufficient 'warning' for gamblers who are still 'up on their luck' to be mindful of the precarious and probably temporary nature of their windfalls.
Lesson for the Advertising Agency: "The meaning of the communication is indeed the effect".
