There has been a strange silence from the industry pro FOBT campaigners on the recent BBC three-part series '
Britain at the Bookies
'. Could it be that Coral has let in an own goal by allowing the cameras in?
Whilst a few temporary sports and race betting winners were featured, the overall picture was one of depressing gambling addiction. A dog racing gambler and a betting shop gambler spoke about their substantial lifetime losses, whilst young FOBT players, just starting out in gambling, huddled around the machines displaying signs of addictive and problematic gambling behaviour.
In the first broadcast one FOBT gambler called Stuart, on benefits of £140 per fortnight, explained his “system” of trying to win £5 in each of the 11 betting shops in Huddersfield’s town centre. Even though he is a self-confessed FOBT addict, his gambling strategy indicates multiple sessions of play during his two week payment cycle, with potentially small average losses per session.
This demonstrates how flawed the bookmaker’s position is when they assert the “average loss per session is just £5” and imply that FOBT gambling is not problematic. It is the total loss, relative to the affordability of the loss, which measures the direct financial harm on both individuals and society. With the average estimated FOBT loss per year per gambler now being around £1,600, new 18 year-old FOBT gamblers are signing up to an average lifetime loss of around £100,000.
The FOBT addict in the last broadcast admitted to committing crime to feed his addiction. Is it likely that the losses he was shown incurring in the Britwell shop in Slough were from after-tax earnings? Neither of the two FOBT addicts spoke about any other form of gambling or about anything other than roulette on FOBTs.
There was no staff intervention in Huddersfield to deter the FOBT addict shown. Staff intervention in Britwell was a couple of free caffeinated beverages and an “Are you OK?” All too common FOBT addict behavior, such as abusive language and banging and kicking the machine, eventually got him barred. Luckily for the bookies, this occurred after he had gone broke. The Campaign wonders if this barring would have happened if the cameras were not around?
This is not a criticism of the staff as they are being given impossible, contradictory tasks. How are preventing FOBT harm to the vulnerable and maximizing FOBT revenues compatible?
Coral is one of the five bookmakers in the Senet Group which claims to advocate “responsible gambling”. Examples are newspaper and shop window advertising of the message “When the FUN stops – STOP” and TV advertising with a twist on the song Bad Betty. If only it was as easy as “Bad Betty Bam-ba-lam!”
Are the bookmakers now spending more annually on “responsible gambling” PR and marketing than they are on funding research, education and treatment?
When hearing that his bosses had agreed casino games could not be advertised in the shop window, the manager of the Huddersfield shop reacted with the question: “How will we get the punters on the machines?” He knows that as FOBT gamblers go broke, new players need to be found. The industry calls it “recycling” players - and this is the reason bookmakers hold in shop free play tournaments. They haven’t offered to ban these!
The manager of the new Slough branch wanted to offer free bets as part of her opening celebration, but was told not to as it was “Gambling Awareness Week” to promote responsible gambling. So if free bets don’t fit with raising awareness of “responsible gambling” then why are they being offered at any time?
An online-only Coral offer was a £5 bet at odds of 5 to 1 on a virtual certainty for new remote account customers. However, no information was provided on the terms and conditions. Usually these types of promotions require substantial turnover before withdrawal of funds is allowed, significantly diminishing the true equity value of the offer. A rigorously enforced rational interpretation of the “fair and open” licensing objective of the 2005 Gambling Act would prevent misleading offers based on onerous terms and conditions.
The Coral executive in charge of shop locations pulled out the tired old chestnut that the most profitable shops are not in deprived areas. So why would Coral want to open a new shop on the deprived Britwell estate in Slough? And why did Coral apply for a new shop in Hayes, Hillingdon? This application was withdrawn based on local objections due to its proximity to a YMCA and the vulnerable residents there.
Whilst Coral will continue to puff its credentials through PR and the Senet Group, the BBC outing was probably a Bad Betty for Coral. This will not impede the Ladbrokes merger though, as Ladbrokes understand the business they are in just as well as Coral does.