WARNING Affiliates Who Target Problem Gamblers

[Harry_BKK]

There's no 'faux outrage' here at all. The bottom line is, you have people specifically aiming gambling at those who may be, or have been, in dire trouble through problematic expenditure. These people are no better than dealers who target schoolkids drugs, knowing that their activities are highly likely to mess their customer's lives up sooner or later. Or like people peddling fake vodka, a product made and sold outside the government's regulatory framework to avoid taxes and which has potentially life-changing health effects.

The pros and cons of the Gamstop system are not the issue at all, rather than the fact it's exposed some absolute scum who disgrace an industry that whilst isn't perfect is making efforts to assist the vulnerable in refraining from their habit. They're nothing more than amoral, greedy saboteurs who don't think regulation applies to them.

Geez Gazza, do I have to make myself clearer? .... How do players end up needing GAMSTOP???

The vast majority by signing up directly or via "ethically correct" affiliates at "ethically correct" and regulated casinos, isn't it? To use your drug dealer metaphor.....this thread is like the drug dealers complaining about other drug dealers flogging their stuff in front of an addiction help centre.

The amount of money flowing into casinos after GAMSTOP by signing up through such "ethically questionable" affiliate sites is totally negligible compared to what players have lost up to the moment where they needed GAMSTOP.

I am not accusing the gaming industry because I and all others here are part of it but we should openly acknowledge that we are all part of and responsible for this "razzmatazz".

Pretty much all addiction programs are geared towards treating an addict instead of being geared at preventing people to become an addict in the first place. That is one reason why IMO GAMSTOP is mainly a show program to "calm the masses".

 

[dunover]

Geez Gazza, do I have to make myself clearer? .... How do players end up needing GAMSTOP???

The vast majority by signing up directly or via "ethically correct" affiliates at "ethically correct" and regulated casinos, isn't it? To use your drug dealer metaphor.....this thread is like the drug dealers complaining about other drug dealers flogging their stuff in front of an addiction help centre.

The amount of money flowing into casinos after GAMSTOP by signing up through such "ethically questionable" affiliate sites is totally negligible compared to what players have lost up to the moment where they needed GAMSTOP.

I am not accusing the gaming industry because I and all others here are part of it but we should openly acknowledge that we are all part of and responsible for this "razzmatazz".

Pretty much all addiction programs are geared towards treating an addict instead of being geared at preventing people to become an addict in the first place. That is one reason why IMO GAMSTOP is mainly a show program to "calm the masses".

Geez Harry, have you never heard of the term 'with intent'??? For a very good reason it's quite a big thing in the legal systems and laws of most developed countries. Now do you get it?

 

[Harry_BKK]

Geez Harry, have you never heard of the term 'with intent'??? For a very good reason it's quite a big thing in the legal systems and laws of most developed countries. Now do you get it?

Geez Gazza, all affiliates advertise casino offers with the "intent" to get people to sign up and lose their money. There is no other reason as that is the basis for our income. Now, do you get it?

I do not question the ethics behind the people doing the GAMSTOP trap, it is immoral, no doubt. But we should clean in front of our houses first before complaining about the dirt in front of other people's houses. (old saying in my language)

 

[pinnit2014]

Just so I don't feel left out:

Geez.

 

[Borgie]

Geez @pinnit2014 you have to muscle in

 

[pinnit2014]

Geez @pinnit2014 you have to muscle in

The only thing i feel i can contribute, in terms of muscles, would the the eye rolling variety in homage to Harry.

 

[BetBlocker]

Geez Gazza, do I have to make myself clearer? .... How do players end up needing GAMSTOP???

Then surely what you're actually advocating banning gambling altogether because it causes harm to some people?

Many activities can be harmful to people. Yet we still allow engagement for two reasons:

i) Freedom - just because a subset of society can be harmed by an activity doesn't mean that all the rest of us should not be allowed to engage.

ii) Prohibitions do not work - any time we try to ban something all we do is drive it into the black market. We do not reduce or remove the demand for the band item/activity. We just allow a situation where criminals will exploit the demand without any oversight what-so-ever. Look at the still significant US and Australian online gambling markets.

Of course any group working within the gambling industry is likely ultimately to profit from addiction indirectly. The unidentified addict gets in trouble and we profit before anyone can or could get a hold on it. There is no pretty way to dress that up. But what's going on here isn't indirect in any way, shape or form.

Anyone who produces or distributes alcohol ultimately indirectly profits from alcohol addiction. They don't set out with the intention of facilitating alcohol addiction but it is a byproduct of what they sell. That's the truth. But I don't personally view the fact that Asda sells alcohol as immoral. If however Asda sent employees out with crates of vodka to hang around outside alcohol addiction rehab centres and try and sell to recovering addicts, that wouldn't just be immoral, it would be flatly evil. It would be singling out and specifically targeting those they know to be harmed by the product they are selling. Those who they know will have problems refusing the product.

And that is exactly what is going on here. The effectiveness of Gamstop isn't relevant to this conversation. The fact that the people conducting the types of Google searches that these affiliates are specifically trying to rank for are almost without question going to be those that at some point identified as having addiction issue is. In fact they are likely to be those people who Gamstop actually has worked for as they wouldn't need to search for 'non Gamstop Casinos' otherwise. These affiliates are not just generally advertising gambling to everyone, they are singling out addicts who have tried to seek help and plying them with the very thing that they struggle to control.

I'm sorry to hear that you think the outrage expressed over this issue is in any way disingenuous or cynically duplicitous. But honestly, I think you've mis-read the sentiments involved and the genuine anger and outrage that many of the people here have expressed. Perhaps you feel that it's hypocritical to get upset about gambling addiction if you profit from gambling in any way. It's not a position I agree with, but one that many would find valid. Personally though, I find the difference between generally marketing gambling and singling out addicts to be night and day.

BB

 

[bamberfishcake]

In short, Gamstop and its effectiveness is a different discussion to people targeting the weak and vulnerable.

In my book, a drug dealer sat at home waiting for punters is different to one waiting outside the rehab centre. Just saying ...... theres law and then theres morality and this is a morality issue.

Disclaiimer: I dont endorse drugs! Just Say No!

 

[Harry_BKK]

Then surely what you're actually advocating banning gambling altogether because it causes harm to some people?

Many activities can be harmful to people. Yet we still allow engagement for two reasons:

i) Freedom - just because a subset of society can be harmed by an activity doesn't mean that all the rest of us should not be allowed to engage.

ii) Prohibitions do not work - any time we try to ban something all we do is drive it into the black market. We do not reduce of remove the demand for the band item/activity. We just allow a situation where criminals will exploit the demand without any oversight what-so-ever. Look at the still significant US and Australian online gambling markets.

Of course any group working within the gambling industry is likely ultimately to profit from addiction indirectly. The unidentified addict gets in trouble and we profit before anyone can or could get a hold on it. There is no pretty way to dress that up. But what's going on here isn't indirect in any way, shape or form.

Anyone who produces or distributes alcohol ultimately indirectly profits from alcohol addiction. They don't set out with the intention of facilitating alcohol addiction but it is a byproduct of what they sell. That's the truth. But I don't personally view the fact that Asda sells alcohol as immoral. If however Asda sent employees out with crates of vodka to hang around outside alcohol addiction rehab centres and try and sell to recovering addicts, that wouldn't just be immoral, it would be flatly evil. It would be singling out and specifically targeting those they know to be harmed by the product they are selling. Those who they know will have problems refusing the product.

And that is exactly what is going on here. The effectiveness of Gamstop isn't relevant to this conversation. The fact that the people conducting the types of Google searches that these affiliates are specifically trying to rank for are almost without question going to be those that at some point identified as having addiction issue is. In fact they are likely to be those people who Gamstop actually has worked for as they wouldn't need to search for 'non Gamstop Casinos' otherwise. These affiliates are not just generally advertising gambling to everyone, they are singling out addicts who have tried to seek help and plying them with the very thing that they struggle to control.

I'm sorry to hear that you think the outrage expressed over this issue is in any way disingenuous or cynically duplicitous. But honestly, I think you've mis-read the sentiments involved and the genuine anger and outrage that many of the people here have expressed. Perhaps you feel that it's hypocritical to get upset about gambling addiction if you profit from gambling in any way. It's not a position I agree with, but one that many would find valid. Personally though, I find the difference between generally marketing gambling and singling out addicts to be night and day.

BB

Of course I don't advocate banning gambling altogether. It has been around since homo sapiens came along.

Personally, I have been gambling online since the very start, opening my first account in Dec 1997 on a laptop with a 9" screen, 2GB harddisk and a 56k modem. Hence, I think I have not only a relatively good overview where the industry was and where it is now but also as a player I have been through all highs and lows. In the beginning, sites didn't even have a warning or links to GA, it was the "Wild West" akin the Klondike Gold Rush.

The industry, including all peripheral contributors (e.g. affiliates), are starting to change in the right direction but until now most of it is rather cosmetic to "pacify the masses". I give you one example. Advertising tobacco is not allowed at sporting events, on TV etc. (addiction prevention) but the places are plastered with gambling site/alcohol adverts (addiction promotion). It will take another few decades until we will get to that point and realize that gambling addiction is on the same level as any other addiction. Until now, most think ..."Aah, having a flutter can't be bad".

Around the turn of the century, I did voluntary work in an addiction centre for about 4 years and have seen very clearly what addiction does to people. Needless to say, I despise affiliates who are targeting addicts.

A combination of GS and BB would be a step forward but I question myself why has the UKGC not thought of it themselves. Why launch a protection program with such blatant weaknesses? Is that the best they could come up with? Because if it is then the UKGC is pretty much a useless bunch of licence fee collectors.

 

[Mining Might]

@BetBlocker what an excellent and eloquent post, Nail on the head right there.

 

[BetBlocker]

The industry, including all peripheral contributors (e.g. affiliates), are starting to change in the right direction but until now most of it is rather cosmetic to "pacify the masses". I give you one example. Advertising tobacco is not allowed at sporting events, on TV etc. (addiction prevention) but the places are plastered with gambling site/alcohol adverts (addiction promotion). It will take another few decades until we will get to that point and realize that gambling addiction is on the same level as any other addiction. Until now, most think ..."Aah, having a flutter can't be bad".

We're totally in agreement about this. The issues with gambling addiction are far larger in scale than society has become cognisant of yet. The fact that everyone has a bookie/casino in their pocket at all times has changed the paradigm entirely and it's going to take at least a decade to see the full consequences of that. And I could not agree more - you cannot do anything without being confronted with gambling advertisement these days. Just about every site has some level of gambling advertisement and UK TV is covered in it.

A combination of GS and BB would be a step forward but I question myself why has the UKGC not thought of it themselves. Why launch a protection program with such blatant weaknesses? Is that the best they could come up with? Because if it is then the UKGC is pretty much a useless bunch of licence fee collectors.

I understand why some players feel let down by GamStop, but I think there is a differential between intent and public expectation here. The intent was to offer an additional tool to help people control their gambling. The expectation seems broadly to be a guarantee that the individual will not be able to access gambling again. As it goes GamStop does meet the intent - forums get a skewed sub-set of feedback where it is those the system hasn't worked for that are most vocal. BetBlocker's no different - our Play Store reviews are heavily populated by those users who have experienced difficulty but give no context as to the number of people using the service without issue. GamStop can and does work for a large number of people, but I would agree that there is work to be done to try and bring the intent of the system into closer alignment (perfect is not possible) with the expectation/demands of the public.

It's not my place to speak for the regulator so anything I say should be considered as unreliable rumour until the point in time that the UKGC choose to make their own position clear but my current understanding is that this line of thinking has already been considered within the appropriate departments and there may be movement in a similar direction to that which you suggest as/when appropriate public consultations have been concluded.

BB

 

[dunover]

Geez Gazza, all affiliates advertise casino offers with the "intent" to get people to sign up and lose their money. There is no other reason as that is the basis for our income. Now, do you get it? View attachment 112898

I do not question the ethics behind the people doing the GAMSTOP trap, it is immoral, no doubt. But we should clean in front of our houses first before complaining about the dirt in front of other people's houses. (old saying in my language)

When was that fact ever in dispute?

People, including us, earn money from the industry. Thanks for that revelation.

Can you read the thread title again - it seems you've forgotten it. It is about 'targeting' the vulnerable gamblers. There's no way you are so obtuse that you cannot see the difference here. I do not aim my pitch at problem gamblers. Nor do you presumably. Nor would any decent human being.

If you are suggesting that the responsible affiliate, promoting properly-regulated casinos is somehow of the same magnitude of vileness as these scumbags I can't really reason with you, an exercise in futility. We'll leave it a that then - I don't and will never accept that I'm the same as them, your misplaced altruism suggests you believe you are to some degree. That's just our differing perspective.

 

[geordiecolin]

Everyone who makes a living out of gamblers are making a living out of the vulnerable and problem gamblers by default. Those who argue otherwise are simply absolving themselves from guilt

 

[Nordog]

But its a difference in stopping when you know the gambler in question has a problem, these guys looks for gamblers that has tried to block themself and target them.

 

[chuchu59]

Good job Bryan.

 

[dunover]

 

[Mining Might]

You may be interested in a thread on a the gambling community forum.

Cliffs

1. Fruityslots slot streamers and affiliates, had a targeted page for non Gamstop casinos and explaining how to circumvent the restrictions.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

2. Fruityslots have admitted that it was wrong and removed the page blaming their SEO guy and content writer.

3. An affiliate manager has now asked them to withdraw all their sites and will no longer work with them.

Yet another terrible day in casino affiliation.

 

[dunover]

You may be interested in a thread on a the gambling community forum.

Cliffs

1. Fruityslots slot streamers and affiliates, had a targeted page for non Gamstop casinos and explaining how to circumvent the restrictions.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

2. Fruityslots have admitted that it was wrong and removed the page blaming their SEO guy and content writer.

3. An affiliate manager has now asked them to withdraw all their sites and will no longer work with them.

Yet another terrible day in casino affiliation.

Yes, interesting read and I'm glad at least one aff manager has had the nous to abandon these people. SEO and content writer, my arse! What webmaster allows people to publish stuff without checking first or has this tool got renegade employees?

 

[nutnut]

I think Harry's point is being missed by Dunover and probably on purpose.

Shoot me if I'm wrong Harry, but I think his point is you ALL contribute to making future gambling addicts. The idea it is disgusting to target problem gamblers whilst you legally create the next generation of problem gamblers is all bit.................ODD.

Whether you like it or not, as a affiliate your sole aim is to ENTICE people to sign up and lose money, when you'e in that gravy train you are part of the problem, maybe not the same level as targeting actual gamblers with problems but it's all connected at the end.

If you are that outraged by this I don't see how you can promote casinos in the first place, knowing that some of your sign ups will likely lead to a gambling problem.

I myself would happily do affiliate if I had the time, but if I was doing it I would realise I'm part of the problem. Least that what I picked up from Harrys post. Which I agree with 100%.

 

[nutnut]

Everyone who makes a living out of gamblers are making a living out of the vulnerable and problem gamblers by default. Those who argue otherwise are simply absolving themselves from guilt

Missed this post but makes my gibberish more concise. Spot on.

 

[colinsunderland]

Yes, interesting read and I'm glad at least one aff manager has had the nous to abandon these people. SEO and content writer, my arse! What webmaster allows people to publish stuff without checking first or has this tool got renegade employees?

Totally agree, they didn't know about GameStop, yet managed to write a very good article about circumventing it.
Also, FS say they get given a topic then, basically, copy other sites. So who gave them the topic?

Not seeing many casinos removed from these sites yet either.

 

[Casinomeister]

Well, I disagree lumping all webmasters together. Sure there are affiliates who may wish folks to "lose" in order to generate their share of the casino's revenue. There are others that hope that they are providing a useful product or service.

I look at it as someone running a specialty beer shop or a pub - sure drinking is a vice, but I would never pander to the addict, or someone who clearly has had too much to drink. I would hope that my beers would bring libatious pleasure. And that a pub would bring people together - like this forum does, to share ideas, to meet folks from around the world with common interests. Sure, folks would be drinking my beers, but if they were getting wasted and causing harm (to others or themselves) they would be asked to leave.

At Casinomeister, I understand the complexities of problem gambling with having a community. This is one reason why we have the quit gambling group, and I was one of the first portals anywhere that had a groups like this and a section on quitting gambling.

No pub or beer shop creates drinkers - people will drink anyway. And no website creates gamblers just the same. The mission behind Casinomeister is to give you the tools you need to make smart decisions when it comes to choosing online casinos. And this is a mission we've stuck with for 21 years.

 

[BetBlocker]

I think Harry's point is being missed by Dunover and probably on purpose.

.....

If you are that outraged by this I don't see how you can promote casinos in the first place, knowing that some of your sign ups will likely lead to a gambling problem.

No, I don't think he did at all. He's just not taking such a black/white view where anyone who works in the industry is immediately devoid of any right to feel outrage on any practice associated with problem gambling.

Should every pub, brewery or shop that sells alcohol shut up shop because they contribute to alcoholism? Should they simply be excluded from any discussion regarding management of alcohol addiction? Millions of adults all over the world engage with alcohol in an responsible manner every day. Should no-one promote or sell alcohol because a small subset cannot engage with it safely? Would it be wrong for a manufacturer or distributor of alcohol to find a business specifically trying to sell alcohol to children morally unacceptable? Is their opinion invalid or any action they take to stop this immediately suspect because they sell alcohol too?

I would suggest that anyone who considers marketing gambling should consider the social harm that can occur to a subset of the people that will see their material and should actively look to approach the entire endeavour from a position of minimising said harm where feasible. I'd actually go further than this and suggest that it is actually part of an industry looking to behave in an responsible fashion to call out those who would explicitly target the vulnerable.

Holding to the absolute where if you have made money from the gambling industry you are immediately categorised a hypocrite for holding any opinion on these sorts of practices would, if accepted as fact, result in these practice going on unchallenged. The simple fact is that often it is participants within the industry that call out the bad practices and shut these groups down.

BB

 

[nutnut]

No, I don't think he did at all. He's just not taking such a black/white view where anyone who works in the industry is immediately devoid of any right to feel outrage on any practice associated with problem gambling.

Should every pub, brewery or shop that sells alcohol shut up shop because they contribute to alcoholism? Should they simply be excluded from any discussion regarding management of alcohol addiction? Millions of adults all over the world engage with alcohol in an responsible manner every day. Should no-one promote or sell alcohol because a small subset cannot engage with it safely? Would it be wrong for a manufacturer or distributor of alcohol to find a business specifically trying to sell alcohol to children morally unacceptable? Is their opinion invalid or any action they take to stop this immediately suspect because they sell alcohol too?

I would suggest that anyone who considers marketing gambling should consider the social harm that can occur to a subset of the people that will see their material and should actively look to approach the entire endeavour from a position of minimising said harm where feasible. I'd actually go further than this and suggest that it is actually part of an industry looking to behave in an responsible fashion to call out those who would explicitly target the vulnerable.

Holding to the absolute where if you have made money from the gambling industry you are immediately categorised a hypocrite for holding any opinion on these sorts of practices would, if accepted as fact, result in these practice going on unchallenged. The simple fact is that often it is participants within the industry that call out the bad practices and shut these groups down.

BB

With your comparison, if you run that legal pub selling alcohol and you see same face come in everyday spending money in your pub you won't turn him away even if you suspect he has a problem. He he helping you make a living.

Same with legit affiliates, if you have a player deposit 500 a day and losing you won't contact the casino and say hey this play might have a problem. These are type of players you want signing up, not likes of me deposit £10 once a day or a couple of days.

The whole industry is a mess, yes social media, TV adverts, affiliates all play a equal role in encouraging more gambling.

Why is it only addicts are "vulnerable" I would argue we are all vulnerable in gambling because we all one rage loss away from doing our nuts.

Morally gambling is vile, but I love it and don't want it banned, but sure as hell won't defend the industry. It exists to take as much money as your willing to lose, it's not a nice or caring industry. It is what it is.

 

[bamberfishcake]

It is a strange industry. No other like it that I can think of.

Fact remains that if you target people in this way you are 'knowingly' preying on the weak and at some point, you will have considered your target market, not just opened up for business or generally advertised. I think thats the real difference.

Your right Nutnut, its easy to take the morale high ground and not look at your own actions but I guess to a lot of affiliates we are numbers, thats the business they are in and I get that. Direct traffic - Get rewards!

I just think this is one step too far - to target those particular people in that particular way.