One of the objectives of the Gambling Act is to ensure that young and vulnerable people are not harmed by gambling. Of course, there is an inherent conflict of interest from a gambling operator’s perspective in ensuring this objective is adhered to; whilst also fulfilling a statutory duty to their shareholders to maximise revenue.
In 1998, Focal Research investigatedVideo Lottery Terminals (VLTs) in Nova Scotia - gambling machines with similar characteristics to Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs). Focal found that 55% of VLT revenues were from “problem VLT players,” who comprised about one-sixth of the 5.75% of adults classed as “regular players” (those that played once a month or more). Problem VLT players thus comprised about 0.92% of all adults.
The authors observed: “It is obvious that success in helping Problem Players to reduce their expenditures will have a substantial impact on the total revenue Nova Scotia derives from VL play. If Problem Players’ expenditure was similar to that noted for Frequent Players, there would be a reduction in total revenues from VL gambling of approximately 35% to 40%.”
Recent research produced by the industry-funded Responsible Gambling Trust indicated that 37% of regular fixed odds betting terminal (FOBT) players exhibited signs of problematic gambling. With this in mind, it is not unreasonable to assume that Professor Jim Orford’s estimates are accurate, and that at least 23% of the revenue on FOBTs comes from problem gamblers.
If those who are “at risk” are included, then that figure extends to more than 40%.
Since FOBTs have become an issue of public concern, the bookmakers have been very keen to demonstrate to both the government and the public that they are in the best position to prevent problem gambling, and that they have the expertise to do so. Trust in the industry to prevent problem gambling even comes from the regulator, the Gambling Commission, which takes the view that the bookmakers genuinely want to be socially responsible.
Seven years after the Gambling Act was enacted and FOBTs were legitimised, it is convenient that their sudden desire to be socially responsible has coincided with the relentless publicity of the issues that FOBTs are causing.
But in practice, could it be that the bookmakers only wish to “appear” to be socially responsible? This seems to be enough for the Gambling Commission. The creation of the Senet Group, an industry-funded and controlled “watchdog” that is supposed to “promote responsible gambling standards”, has promised an end to window marketing of FOBTs, but has not recommended reducing the £100 a spin stake – precisely the issue that has caused public concern.
Promotions via text message, free play vouchers and tournaments that are run to entice customers on to the addictive machines, look set to continue in this brave new Senet era.
It is interesting that the Senet Group has effectively aped the structure of the industry-funded alcohol watchdog, the Portman Group. The Campaign for Fairer Gambling believes that to ensure social responsibility, gambling operators need effective regulation. An operator’s primary interest is in improving on the previous quarter’s profits, not in protecting the young and the vulnerable from harm.
But even if the premise that they did care about problem gambling was accepted, it is clear that the industry does not understand enough about the addiction to have any meaningful impact in curtailing it. An example arose on Twitter recently, when William Hill’s head of public affairs Andrew Lyman claimed that the comparison between a cocaine addiction and a FOBT addiction was “
emotive and wrong because there is no physical dependency”.
Of course, if Mr. Lyman had read the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), he would have known that problem gambling is now considered an addiction, on a par with drugs and alcohol. Research by
Dr. Mark Potenza has found that brain imaging from problem gamblers correlates very closely with those of cocaine addicts.
Entrusting the bookmakers with the protection of the vulnerable is both naïve and misguided. What is required is a regulator and a government that will act in the interest of the British public,
73% of whom want the maximum stake on FOBTs to be reduced.