Friday, April 23, 2004
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Hard Rock to pay fine for risqué ads

Gaming Control Board said drug and cheating references harmed state's image

A Hard Rock billboard on West Flamingo Road recently drew the attention of the state Gaming Control Board. REVIEW-JOURNAL FILES

Stuck between a rock and a hard place, the parent company of the Hard Rock Hotel agreed late Wednesday to pay $300,000 to the state Gaming Control Board to settle a recent three-count complaint stemming from the Las Vegas resort's alleged indecent and inappropriate advertising.

After several weeks of negotiations, Hard Rock Hotel President Kevin Kelley said Thursday his company agreed to pay the fine so it could maintain a good relationship with state gaming officials. The company had been considering a court battle over the matter.

"We want to work together with the Gaming Control Board in making the future path one that's a little bit more clear and a little bit more easy to navigate," Kelley said.

On Jan. 21, the three-member board said Hard Rock damaged the state's image and violated a 2002 agreement that required the often edge-pushing hotel-casino to weed out any "questionable elements" from its advertising campaigns.

After the company sponsored billboards and radio ads that referred to cheating at gaming, having sex all night and bigamists with a penchant for abusing prescription medication, regulators stepped in. The company has agreed to pay $100,000 for each violation of state gaming laws that require operators to exercise "decency, dignity, good taste, honesty and inoffensiveness" in their advertising and public relations efforts.

Wednesday's proposed settlement, which requires approval by the Nevada Gaming Commission, includes verbiage that indicates Hard Rock did not intentionally seek to promote casino cheating, drug use or other illegal activity.

It also includes a sentence that states the company's commercial free speech rights are "subject to constraints imposed by federal, state or local law; and that any violation thereof may reflect on the repute of the gaming industry in Nevada."

Allen Lichtenstein, general counselor for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, argued Thursday that's just not the case.

"You cannot yank a license or take any punitive action because someone is exercising their First Amendment rights. The courts have made that very clear," Lichtenstein said. "There are some commercial speech restrictions regarding truth in advertising and the like, but even in the case of a privileged license (such as those held by state-regulated gaming companies), the government can't become a censor on matters of taste."

University of Nevada, Las Vegas professor and casino industry expert Bill Thompson called the deal "a goodwill settlement" that should not have vast repercussions on Nevada gaming companies' advertising or business practices.

"This doesn't make the law any clearer," Thompson said. "I think maybe people are going to back away from the shock ads a bit ... but the effect won't be great because these ads are on the margin; they're not penetrating every recognition of Vegas."

Gaming Control Board Chairman Dennis Neilander said his board primarily objected to the drug and cheating remarks made in two Hard Rock ads. It was less concerned about the sexual nature of a third spot but was still troubled that Hard Rock bosses did not follow a previous agreement that they would internally limit their ads' sexually suggestive content.

Kelley said he hopes Hard Rock will be able to continue its often-edgy ad campaigns, though he added such efforts will be challenging until regulators and gaming companies work together to clarify exactly what is acceptable and what is not.

"The funny, irreverent compelling ads are something that speaks to our market and we're going to continue to do those, hopefully without getting ourselves in this type of situation going forward," Kelley said.

As for sexually themed or suggestive ads?

"I don't know. It just depends where it's appropriate, but there are other ways to get a point across through irreverent and comedic methods," Kelley said. "I think we've always done it in good taste and will continue to do this in good taste."

Though unrelated to the Hard Rock's troubles, the company's biggest rival for clients from the trendy, younger client set, the Palms, recently altered one of its most-prominent billboards at the request of sign owner Clear Channel Outdoor, whose sister company recently pulled Howard Stern's radio show from six U.S. markets after it was fined by the Federal Communications Commission for airing alleged indecent content.

Palms General Manager Jim Hughes said part of a billboard near the Las Vegas Beltway and Interstate 15 was recently taken down because the lower portion of its models' breasts were exposed beneath tight-fitting blouses.

The sign, which boasts the caption, "One resort. Too many temptations," now features the same female models wearing tops that fully cover their breasts. Outside of that change, Hughes said his company has no plans to change its sometimes risqué advertising strategy.

"We've never been contacted (about a complaint) by the Gaming Control Board and don't feel that we're doing anything wrong," Hughes said Thursday.

About 300 citizens last month lobbied the Nevada Gaming Commission to further penalize local hotel-casinos that sponsor indecent billboards.