INSIGHT IAGA SUMMIT WASHINGTON DC - MAY 28-30
the last decade, which is consistent with societal factors, whereby there’s less overall tolerance to free speech, and idea of live and let live. Another factor is the behaviour of the market itself and I think the British gambling industry is to a large extent the author of its own problems.
Online gambling has never been illegal in Britain, but we missed the big opportunity when new legislation was established in 2005, in which it was not a licence requirement to be based in Great Britain. Tere was instead a mutual recognition system in place, which meant that if you were licensed in another part of the EU, or a white list jurisdiction, you could happily market into Great Britain.
My view is that this scenario led to lower standards being adopted and online industry growing up with really low parental supervision, which led to poor standards of customer care.
If you look at what's gone wrong in Great Britain some of the critics will say it’s due to the industry’s predatory nature. My view is that it’s not about that. It’s due to the fact the industry hasn't given sufficient thought to customer care and customer service. In a high growth phase in which operator attention was focused primarily on player sign-ups, harm prevention was an aspect linked to a subset of poor standards of customer care.
“Probably the most potentially significant element of the Gambling Act review is the creation of a new levy. The
proposed new tax would fund services for the treatment of gambling disorders, with the provision for prevention services and, critically, for
research. So, starting next year there'll be a huge amount of funding available for research. My concern, which is the
concern of a lot of people, is that research funding will be misused. It will be allocated to those with prior biases against gambling to propel successively greater
restrictions, such as the ones mentioned in the panel summary, including banning the sale of alcohol in casinos.” Dan Waugh
We're seeing bans on marketing and advertising across a number of countries, especially in the EU. Do you think that type of ban is a stepping stone towards an overall gambling ban? And do you create additional harms by imposing marketing and advertising bans?
Te evidence that links advertising and gambling harm is relatively thin. I think where it's strongest is the intuitive notion that for those people attempting to recover from a gambling disorder and seeking to abstain, a preponderance of advertising can be unhelpful and can undermine recovery. I think there's no reason to dispute those findings.
Equally, the same principle applies to other things. If you are attempting to recover from an alcohol use disorder, alcohol advertising is unhelpful. If you're attempting to recover from eating disorders, certain food advertising could be unhelpful. If you're attempting to control your finances, credit card advertising is not very helpful.
So I think there are some legitimate concerns around advertising, but I don't think they're exclusive to gambling. And I think if you take the view that you're morally disposed or indisposed to a particular activity for any given reason, you probably don't want to see it advertised. If you are concerned about climate change, you don't want automobile manufacturers or airlines advertising their products, right? You don't want to do anything that might stimulate these activities if you're not disposed towards them.
Once advertising is banned, and tobacco is an obvious example, it's a signal that it's no longer socially acceptable. Tere is a stigma attached to any activity that you can't advertise freely. So I tend to think advertising bans are pursued more for reasons of symbolism than anything else. I also don't think we’ve seen any evidence that advertising restrictions have resulted in changes in the prevalence of gambling disorders. However, if you hold a radical public health school of thought, and you see gambling itself as being inherently harmful, then banning advertising seems logical because you don't want anybody involved in this activity. Advertising bans make a lot of sense in this context, given the idea that we don’t need to evaluate it because it's self-evident it’ll be effective.
How useful do you find this kind of session? You're holding a panel about a big issue - but your panel are gambling advocates in a room filled with industry stalwarts. How useful do you think this kind of discussion is to all the protagonists in the room?
I think any one discussion in isolation has very limited value. So the question is, we have 45 minutes to discuss an interesting subject and that’s not nearly long enough. Everybody will leave the stage thinking, “I wish I'd had more time.” People in the audience will say, “I wish I'd been up there so they could address my question.” We just have to accept this as a starting point. It's not a panacea. Te critical thing is how do we continue this conversation afterwards? Some of that happens informally because we meet people we didn't know at conferences like the IAGA Summit. We have interesting exchanges, both in the conference itself and outside during the social events, and we form connections and relationships and those allow us to build upon them afterwards via email or at future meetings.
I think there's a question for IAGA, and for other conference organisers, in terms of how you structure that interaction. How do you make sure that these debates, the really fascinating conversations we have at the conference, have a life beyond the event? So that's a challenge for everyone, but I think particularly for conference organisers.
What are you personally look to achieve by attending the IAGA Summit?
I think what I value most from the IAGA Summit is building new relationships, learning new insights and being challenged. It's an opportunity to challenge your own thinking by listening to others and learning from them.
I think IAGA is particularly good at this. I know in Belfast last year IAGA invited Matt Zarb Cousins, who has a very different view on the industry. So, I think IAGA has done a lot to bring people together who perhaps don't share the consensus view of gambling lawyers, for example. And that's testament to the strength of IAGA and the strength of this conference, that they are genuinely stimulate debate.
WIRE / PULSE / INSIGHT / REPORTS P63
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160
