PR: LARGEST ONLINE GAMBLING PLAYER SURVEY GOES LIVE TODAY

[Mousey]

There are a couple of the questions that aggravated me. Let's see... remember the one that let you have only one answer... "I play until..." and there were several choices like, I lose it all, I win big, I make a profit, etc. so what about: I play until I've either lost my $50 or make a profit? I don't deposit with the intent of blowing it all. But then again, even though I usually lose these days, I prefer to win, thank you, and will certainly withdraw when I do. I don't even remember what I finally chose as nothing was the correct answer.

There was another one in a similar vein with no correct answer (for me) but I can't remember what it is at the moment.

It also did not ask how much I deposited per week/month. It asked how much I lose. Well... which week are we talking about?

[lots0]

Boring annoying surveys never get completed, unless the person is getting paid to take it or has a vested interest in the survey or the results of the survey.

Unfortunately, I think this survey is one of those surveys that is boring and annoying.

Please don’t get me wrong, I think the goal of the study as stated by eCOGRA is a good and valid one. I just think the methodology is all wrong.

How many players do think will take the time and effort to complete this survey? Not many I think.

I was thinking about promoting the survey on one of my websites, but after reviewing it, I don’t believe that very many of my players would take the time or effort to complete the survey.

Just a suggestion, if you want free information from people, make it fun and interesting for them and they will tell you anything you want to know (and a bunch of stuff you don't want to know...) But if you make it boring and annoying, like I feel the survey currently is and I’ll be willing to give odds the survey gets less than a 5% completion rate among players.

I do hope I am wrong, I would love to see the results of a survey like this that were reliable. As a matter of fact I am willing to pay for valid online gambling related surveys and studies.

[TheGooner]

The survey was not irrelevant ...
It was a blatant exercise in self promotion ...

This survey is no more than a publicity drive - with very non-neutral wording that is desgined to show that eCOGRA is important ...

Questions like ...
- Have you ever been cheated ?
- Do you think the industry is well regulated.
- Did you realise that eCOGRA ... (blah blah blah).
- Do you think that the industry needs more regulation from government / eCOGRA ..
- Would you look for an eCOGRA badge in future ...

Read the questions again and see the very simple path that the questions lead - and how a majority of respondants will simply click the boxes that eCOGRa want.

eCOGRA are a merchant funded organisation that are trying to establish themselves as some sort of quasi-authority where they have no mandate.


And with 888.con on board as a prime example of operators with the eCOGRA badge it's obvious that it's simply big business trying to stake out a protected patch.

They have some of the worst SPAMMING, scraping, and blackhat advertising on the net - and in no way can their practices be seen as ethical.


I'd say fill out the questionaire and deliberately VOTE NO - whenever they pop-up the pro-eCOGRA questions.

[jetset]

If this was a *publicity stunt* it looks like an awfully expensive way to get column inches to me - commissioning a huge qualitative and quantitative survey such as this with highly experienced independent research teams is a major international undertaking that cannot be so casually dismissed imo.

I am therefore unconvinced by this claim by Gooner and will stick with my own opinion that this is a genuine global attempt to establish what the players think, using the largest response sample ever attempted to give the survey maximum accuracy.

Typically, the questions in a research project such as this are devised by the research teams involved, not the body commissioning the survey. This is an important professional requirement to maintain the integrity of a survey.

Most if not all research initiatives have to be paid for by someone, and that is usually the body most interested in the opinions being sought. In this case eCOGRA.

Gooner's preoccupation with the 888.com issue which has been such a bone of contention in the affiliate world is possibly explained by his own position as a webmaster primarily interested in sportsbook betting, but using that legitimate frustration to make unproved claims of adverse motives on the part of eCOGRA in commissioning this study is neither fair nor appropriate imo.

Players will draw their own conclusions from a study of the many and varied topics covered in this survey, but my personal assessment is that it is very much a player-oriented survey conducted by people who know what they are doing with the real objective of harvesting and analysing genuine player views.

I would therefore recommend that players make their views known through the medium of this study without holding anything back.

[Vesuvio]

Typically, the questions in a research project such as this are devised by the research teams involved, not the body commissioning the survey. This is an important professional requirement to maintain the integrity of a survey.

I have to agree with Gooner here. Questions like, "Did you realise that eCOGRA visits its seal-holders personally?", would never occur to anyone wanting to conduct a general survey of the on-line gambling industry. They're a form of marketing.

Gooner's preoccupation with the 888.com issue which has been such a bone of contention in the affiliate world is possibly explained by his own position as a webmaster primarily interested in sportsbook betting, but using that legitimate frustration to make unproved claims of adverse motives on the part of eCOGRA in commissioning this study is neither fair nor appropriate imo.

You should stick to the points raised, Jetset, rather than trying to dismiss them on the basis of the poster's motivation. 888.com's behaviour on the internet does seem indefensible from what I know of it, but there are plenty of reasons for not trusting eCOGRA from a player perspective too. They've come down in favour of a casino (also 888.com, as it happens) on the basis of general "abuse" terms. If that became standard eCOGRA might as well cease to exist today. I also had the same experience in my own case, except that eCOGRA didn't even attempt to justify their position or give any indication of how they reached their verdict. Fortunately Casinomeister was around and the casino finally reversed their decision.

Players will draw their own conclusions from a study of the many and varied topics covered in this survey, but my personal assessment is that it is very much a player-oriented survey conducted by people who know what they are doing with the real objective of harvesting and analysing genuine player views.

As mentioned in previous posts, the fact that many of the questions are unanswerable tends to suggest they don't really know what they're doing. I was forced to answer one question about how much I play at on-line casinos as "for a set period of time", which is a nonsense. I tend to play however long it takes to meet the wagering requirement of whichever bonus I'm playing. That's such standard behaviour at on-line casinos that it's unacceptable to ignore it in a survey like this. Particularly if you're an organisation whose main function (from a player perspective) is to deal with disputes over bonuses.

That said, I don't think there'll be a lack of responses to this survey I just hope thay actually take the comments seriously rather than attempting a PR blitz. If they do eCOGRA might even become a worthwhile organisation.

[sdaddy]

Thanks, CM. I got this in today. Time will tell if eCOGRA takes this player feedback into account.

[TheGooner]

THe problem I had with the survey was not 888.con (despite JetSet jumping all over that sentence) but simply that the survey does not appear to be written in neutral terms.

The questions are written in a very "leading way" ... that takes the responder on a path designed to get a positive response to eCOGRA based questions.

People will click at least one or two because they'll think they're expected too - even though that had no idea / and still have no idea as to whether it really happens ...

If the survey seriously wanted to know whether people were aware of eCOGRA activities in approving the casino then they would have asked something like :

What procedures do you think eCOGRA takes in approving a casino?

That is a neutral question ...

Not supplying a point by point statement of actions that seems to be targetted at providing positive PR for eCOGRA. That is polling propaganda designed to be exploited in later questions.

---------------

Look at it this way ...

After asking about cheating, scamming bots, lack of regulation, slow payments etc ... they then lay it on thick as to all the validation that eCOGRA do ...

And then in the last question (the money) they ask ..
"Would you look for an eCOGRA approved badge in future?"


That's the big money question - and I expect large adverts to say 75% of survey repondants said they'd look for an eCOGRA badge before signing up.

Wow - what a surprise ....
(Not)

I could write a survey that points out :

- eCOGRA is financed by big money casinos.
- eCOGRA has no issues with it's biggest funder despite the many problems that regular players and affiliates have with it
- eCOGRA effectively sells its "approved badge" for lump sum payments ..

so ... "Would you look for an eCOGRA approved badge in future?"

I'd expect less than 10% to answer that same question the same way ...


And THAT is my problem with the survey.
yes -it's professional - very professional - but it's not neutral.

[jetset]

The problems with 888.com have been affiliate oriented, and that has placed eCOGRA on a collision course with affiliates due to its refusal to become directly embroiled in affiliate issues.

The reasons for this have been regurgitated over and over again (in fact every time eCOGRA makes a move, however positive, 888.com is brought into the attacks on it, usually by webmasters) and I'm certainly not going to go off at a tangent with yet another exploration of this well-trodden area.

There have been many affiliate complaints about 888.com yet, at least so I am told by Beveridge, not one player complaint relating to the issues raised, and players are eCOGRA's central interest.

Back on topic, let's have a look at Gooner's "neutral" suggestions here:

- eCOGRA is financed by big money casinos.

Not true. eCOGRA is funded by three competing software providers - Ongame, 888.com and Microgaming. It is controlled in an operational sense by three independent directors Hirst, Galston and Catania.

- eCOGRA has no issues with it's biggest funder despite the many problems that regular players and affiliates have with it

See above - there have been no unresolved player complaints to eCOGRA concerning 888.com. Furthermore, despite it's determination not to get embroiled in affiliate issues, eCOGRA suggested to 888.com that it sets up a dedicated complaint channel for aggrieved affiliates and appoint managers with authority to negotiate with complainants who take the time and trouble to use it.

888.com has published that dispute channel widely and as far as I am aware has taken action on legitimate complaints about it's activities.

It seems to me that many affiliates continue to attack eCOGRA in a quest for leverage against 888.com, without themselves actually taking the practical step of using the 888.com dispute channel with a specific issue and establishing a productive dialogue.

Have you done so, Gooner?

- eCOGRA effectively sells its "approved badge" for lump sum payments ..

False. Casinos do not pay lump sums [they don't pay a cent to eCOGRA for anything, in fact] to display the "Play It Safe" seal. It has to be earned by compliance with the standards and requirements of eCOGRA, undergoing an initial on-site inspection and subsequent regular review and monitoring. Where a casino is not compliant it bears the non-eCOGRA cost of introducing systems and changes to make it compliant.

As a general comment, I think that anyone who has tried to set up a regulatory or mediating organisation will know that it is almost impossible to keep everyone happy, and that can lead to long-lasting enmity, bias and attacks at every perceived opportunity.

I would go so far as to say that once the UK Commission is up and running it will at times face opposition and bitter criticism on its decisions and views on the wide field where it operates - especially player disputes, where the intention at present seems to be to outsource this function.

There will always be those who disagree with judgements (especially when these concern their particular and personal issues) and imo one of the strengths of an organisation like eCOGRA is that it has shown by example that it is prepared to entertain appeals and if necessary revisit rulings. Yet in the strange world of online gambling, even that attribute has been attacked by some.

It is therefore not difficult to cherry pick a few instances where decisions have been contentious, at the same time ignoring the literally hundreds of decisions that have not been the subject of further dispute and are resolved on a regular and fair basis at eCOGRA following player complaints.

Decisions will not automatically favour a complaining player, because the organisation has to operate in an even-handed and professional manner with strict regard for the T&C's in dispute and as agreed before wagering by both casino and player.

I hope that this thread is not destined to descend into yet another trashing session on an organisation that truly does way more good than harm.

I also hope that players will not be sidetracked here, but will visit the survey to make their own judgements on the value of the questions and whether they feel it would be useful to participate in it as a player.

To suggest that this major undertaking is no more than a PR exercise is stretching credibility to breaking point imo, and smacks of throwing any mud, real or imagined, in order to trash a useful outfit by implying that its latest initiative is based on ulterior motives.

[Zoozie]

The survey was not irrelevant ...
It was a blatant exercise in self promotion ...

Nicely put, I was left with the exact same feeling. I fail to see what parts of the survey will contribute with anything usefull for eCOGRA.

I also believe the participants are biased which means the scientific results are useless. It is a boring survey and people that bother to participate for
free are most likely those very interested in the industry. And these people allready know what eCOGRA is and hence no need for the self promotion.

Some of the question was also plain stupid. Do you believe past events on the roulette will effect future events etc. (or something similar).
This is an insult to most players (I hope...). And why do eCOGRA want to know how many players are retarded? It sounds like something the
casinos want to know so they can exploit it with new games preying on these.

Zoozie

[Vesuvio]

Back on topic, let's have a look at Gooner's "neutral" suggestions here:

The only neutral suggestion Gooner makes is the question: "What procedures do you think eCOGRA takes in approving a casino?" The others are deliberately tendential, to mirror the questions asked in the survey. Do you dispute that they're leading questions?

There will always be those who disagree with judgements (especially when these concern their particular and personal issues) and imo one of the strengths of an organisation like eCOGRA is that it has shown by example that it is prepared to entertain appeals and if necessary revisit rulings. Yet in the strange world of online gambling, even that attribute has been attacked by some.

Sounds great, but I don't see any appeal process mentioned at the eCOGRA site. All I can see is: "Following our investigations, if we conclude that you do not have a valid grievance we will inform you and cease eCOGRA's involvement in the dispute."

Tex Rees' response to my request that she re-examined her decision in my case mirrored the above: "We will not be reconsidering our approach to your query. As per my previous response, it is our opinion that your dispute is invalid."

It's worth saying that as well as having no appeals process there's not really any process for dealing with original complaints. The player should, I'd have thought, receive an indication of what action was taken by eCOGRA, what the casino response was, be given a chance to respond, then given a full justification for the final decision. As it stands eCOGRA feel it's ok simply to say they find in favour of the casino.