By Dan Waugh, Principal Consultant, Regulus Partners
One of the fundamental characteristics of gambling is its
simplicity. Its rules are constant and its outcomes unambiguous – there are no
shades of grey between red and black – only the occasional hint of green. We win
or we lose and we are left in no doubt as to why.
Perhaps this basic law of gambling has conditioned those who
work in and around it to expect the same thing from real life. This at least
would explain the reaction from many parties to the publication of the
Responsible Gambling Trust’s suite of reports into harm and B2 gaming machines
(aka FOBTs).
There was a palpable air of dissatisfaction when the
research was presented and discussed at last week’s Responsible Gambling Trust
Harm Minimisation Conference. The bookmaking industry had been hoping for
exoneration; its critics for vindication. Neither side got exactly what it wanted.
The reports – which drew on an unprecedented array of
machine and player data – contained a trove of insights into how people behave
in relation to gaming machines. It was fascinating, thought-provoking,
stimulating stuff.
Damningly though, it wasn’t simple or conclusive. There was
no instant gratification; no unarguable implications for policy. Instead – as
is the nature of good research - there were further questions for the data and
the call for more and different data to be assessed.
If there were feelings of disappointment with this outcome, its
roots lie in the curious compact which spawned the research. Quite simply, the
research was part of a Westminster fudge – a means of dealing with political
concerns not wholly related to the subject matter. The RGT’s acceptance of its
role within this fudge was presumably the price it was willing to pay in order
not simply to justify the expense of the project – but more critically to add
political weight to calls for the gambling industry to provide access to its
data.
While Derek Webb’s Campaign for Fairer Gambling has drawn
attention to concerns of harm in relation to B2 machines, it seems probable
that the main societal (and so political) issue is far more visible and
visceral. The way that machines have changed the economics of the betting shop
(combined with the passing of the old demand test) has led to their clustering
on Britain’s high streets – sometimes with the same operator running several
shops within spitting distance of one another.
At the same time that the shops have become more visible,
their character has also changed. The shift from over-the-counter bets on
horse-racing to machine play has eroded the betting shop’s perceived value to
communities. Indeed, some of the most damaging attacks on the industry have
come from those who loved it best – from the ranks of customers and employees.
The question of maximum stake sizes is at best tangential to
these concerns – indeed there may be some validity to the claim that a
reduction of stakes on B2s (in isolation) might lead to an increase in
clustering.
Then there is the matter of lobbying by the rest of the
land-based gambling industry, who seem opposed to the B2 principally because
they cannot have them (or in the case of casinos, that they alone cannot have
them). There is perhaps a degree of envy here but more powerfully a sense of
affronted logic.
The maximum stake sizes on the main machine categories in
Great Britain proceed as follows: 10p for D, £1 for C, £2 for B4 and B3, £5 for
B1…..and oh, £100 for B2. It is the position of the stakes on B2 in relation to
the other machine categories (and the phenomenal success of these machines)
that irks here. It is this which underpins the BACTA position that if machines
with £100 maximum stakes aren’t harmful, then all licensed gambling operators
should be allowed them.
The logic is simple to grasp – but it is only logical viewed
through the prism of industry self-interest. Government is unlikely to see that the
answer to the FOBT issue lies in their further expansion. It may be ‘unfair’ but
life – as with gambling – is unfair.
It is difficult to believe that B2 machines would have been
encompassed within the Gambling Act 2005 had the framers of the legislation
known then what we know now – but the genie escaped from that particular bottle
some time ago. As Professor Peter Collins wrote in 2003: “It is always easy to
relax regulations and increase the availability of commercial gambling
opportunities, it is extremely difficult to cut back the supply if it is
decided that, for whatever reason, there is too much gambling”.
The fact that the research did not provide the resolution
that some had hoped for need not negate its value – if we are prepared to
engage with it in a spirit of honest inquiry. This means resisting the urge to
draw selectively on its findings in order to support pre-existing positions
(and critically being mature enough to know that absence of evidence is not the
same as evidence of absence). It means being prepared to embrace uncertainty
and ambiguity; to ask questions in order to feed curiosity rather than as
thinly veiled means of making statements or scoring points (as happened all too
often at last week’s conference).
It also means ensuring that research is used appropriately,
rather than being harnessed to the needs of politicians. It will be interesting
to see whether the pleas of NatCen’s Heather Wardle are heeded - to institute a
long-term programme of progressive research in place of these large-scale but
ad hoc studies.
Carl Sagan, the astrophysicist wrote: “It seems to me what
is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most
sceptical scrutiny of all hypotheses...and at the same time a great openness to
new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some tension. But if you
are able to exercise only one of these modes, whichever one it is, you’re in
deep trouble.”
Consumer behaviour in relation to gambling isn’t rocket
science but it is complex. The RGT research offers the entire gambling industry
a glimpse of the shape of things to come. How the industry embraces this new
age of disclosure and regulatory data-driven policy-making is likely to
influence its ability to stay out of further trouble.
I do look forward to and enjoy reading Dan's blogs, they are insightful and thought provoking. I do agree with him that there is a sense of uncertainty within the gambling industry and in my opinion this is based principally on the consistent 'bookie bashing' (and importantly how the industry responds) and, perhaps what may be more impactful to the industry, is the upcoming General Election in May.
ReplyDeleteMy sense looking at the gambling industry, is there is an opportunity at the moment being afforded to it following the RGT conference. Even Matthew Hill from the Gambling Commission said the industry needs to 'look at itself and use the data from the research wisely'. This and Dan's blog got me thinking of the parallels between the National Lottery and other forms of gambling.
Ask most people, they think the Lottery is a cause for good in the UK because of all the funding it provides to community groups up and down the Country. According to Wikipedia 28% of lottery revenue goes towards good causes, along with all the unclaimed prizes. Obviously the land-based gambling industry cannot give way such a high percentage of revenues from gambling, as its cost base is far higher than Camelot. However increasing their funding allocation to the Responsible Gambling Trust and directly funding community organisations working with problem gamblers may help to soften the criticism and actually help to bring about more certainty for the industry. Any uncertainty that does exist has been created by the industry itself I feel and by some of its practises.
An example of these practises would be the ‘clustering of betting shops’. I get the commercial model and would say it is similar to coffee shops or charity shops clustering, it’s a demand driven market. But with gambling being a risky activity and all the scrutiny the industry it is under, why doesn’t a leader step forward and propose something new and bold such as publically stating that their company will have only one betting shop in a town and % of their profits will go to good causes (a decent %, not the minimum or a tokenistic amount).
The practises that have led to the uncertainly within the industry, can in my view be ‘undone’ just as they way they were created. Then perhaps as Dan says the damaging attacks on the industry that have come from those who loved it best could also be turned around.