BetBlocker
I-Gaming Industry Representative
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2019
- Location
- Scotland
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.
Your example doesn't work.
As you specifically say - a pub owner "sees" the same face and is specifically aware of how much they are drinking. They can specifically quantify how much that individual person is drinking and assess how that is impacting them physically. They can draw other rough conclusions about their health, mental state and finances from the direct interactions. They can observe behaviours over an extended period of time. The pub owner has more information than any an remote gambling operator has about the customer. The pub owner has several orders of magnitude more information than the two degrees removed affiliate.
An affiliate is not given nearly enough information to make any assessment of any player. Ordinarily they have no direct contact with the player and are given limited information, generally amalgamated with all their other players, about activity on their account. They have nothing with which to assess the affordability of any transaction for an individual and largely don't know about transactions individually till well after the fact (if at all). Their ability to assess or intervene in the situation is extremely limited and retroactive. Even where they were to try, ultimately it is the operator's decision whether to act or not.
A far more apt comparison would be to fault The Sun or Daily Record for alcohol addiction because some of their readers drank too much after seeing an advert on their site or in their paper. Or perhaps Whiskey Advocate Magazine because some of their readers will become alcoholics (given the closer comparison to a gambling affiliate as they are specifically targeting those who want to consume whiskey). While there is an argument that any advertisement of these products is morally reprehensible and should be stopped, if this is to be viewed as a legitimate position then communities like this one wouldn't exist full stop. There has to be some reasonable consideration given to the information available to the party being 'held responsible' before deciding that they should be expected to take direct action in any individual situation.
Interestingly, I would suggest that what's happened here is exactly affiliates trying to directly influence a responsible gambling issue from a broad 'industry wide' pov. In this instance they had information, didn't like what they saw and took action.
And in fact what you are suggesting in terms of the industry having to make assessments of the vulnerability of individuals proactively is exactly what the UKGC is current pushing operators to do as operators do have frontline contact with players (albeit not nearly as much opportunity to 'read' a player in social situations as a face-to-face interaction allows). I would certainly agree it's a work in progress that needs improvement and oversight, but steps are being taken in that direction.
I genuinely think looking to tar everyone in the industry with the same brush does nothing but discourage those parties who would try to protect players from stepping forward next time. What's the point in any affiliate taking the risks required to call out bad practice if they're all going to be shouted down as hypocrites or lumped in with the practices they are drawing attention to simply because they work in the same industry?
I guess some will always see it as black and white. Personally I have nothing but respect for Bryan and CM in what they've done here.
BB
Last edited: