Using sex as the analogy, we have a pretty good body of evidence showing that people actually do change their proclivities based on exposure to adult content. Something might give a person the “ick” for a long time, but a certain amount of unskippable ads can normalize it enough to provoke curiosity. One thing leads to another and they end up with a preference, and potentially an addiction.
This immersive strategy to promote gambling — panels talking about it at intermission, live betting updates during gameplay, superstars doing commercials — is all intended to normalize gambling behavior for people who aren’t yet engaged. It follows the same method. Normalize through repetition… generate curiosity… offer an easy open door to walk through… ramp up the intensity of engagement… capitalize on a now highly immersed consumer. A certain number of those people are going to go over to addiction, even though at one point they’d have said they would have no interest in gambling (or as we’ve seen repeatedly in this thread, that they’re “too smart” to become addicted).
I've done a lot of work for marketing companies so I'm familiar with basic persuasion – tugging on heartstrings, creating urgency, identifying a problem, etc. But the immersive strategy you're describing is a magnitude beyond anything I've worked with. The sheer volume of ads requires a budget I couldn't even imagine. My professional side is curious about operating on such a massive scale – is there a higher level of content and strategy, or are they just carpet-bombing the hell out of every broadcast? My guess is the relentless gambling advertising we're seeing reflects equal parts analytics and blind dart-throwing. Budgets may be infinite, however strategic thinking is not.
Personally, being immersed in gambling ads pisses me off. I used to be neutral, but after watching gambling hijack hockey my 'ick' reaction is stronger than ever. We've had multiple threads about gambling ads on this board; the vast majority of people sound as turned off as I am. I'm not disputing your point that people's proclivities can switch – clearly gambling ads convert new customers or companies wouldn't invest in them – but at the same time they're generating interest, they're also generating a strong negative backlash. Back to the sex analogy, even personal proclivities can become too much if there are no limits. But enough about my dating life...
Will the NHL ever decide gambling ads have become 'too much'? Maybe, if there's a big enough scandal. For now, the league seems to be enjoying its own gambling addiction.