search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
BETTER CHANGE


Does anyone know how our customers feel about all this?


Better Change’s engagement director, Rob Mabbett, explains why Better Change’s approach to safer gambling is very different from the norm.


H


ow has 2025 been for you so far? It feels like January’s trip to Barcelona for ICE was only a couple of weeks ago but already the daffodils are in full bloom and the fi rst real signs of spring are around us (unless you are based in Gibraltar where the weather has been horrendous apparently!).


It has been a busy start to the year here at Better Change but we have made a conscious effort to work with some of our clients to get out and about and experience what life is like on the front line. These have included learn to play sessions in casinos, visits to adult gaming centres and bingo venues, bookmakers and even a trip to the races. Working as a consultancy you are often a step removed from where the action is and it is important for us to dip our toe in now and again and understand what is happening in the real world as well as reading up on the latest developments in our industry, this helps us to ensure our services are targeted to the needs of the consumer. It is now 7 years since I last took a bet when working for an operator which doesn’t seem that long ago but when you consider the changes to stakes, advertising, the impact of the pandemic, the ban on credit cards, new guidance on interacting and


28 APRIL 2025


fi nancial risk checks as well as throwing in a gambling act review on top, it might as well have been a lifetime away. This remember is just the UK, in the last decade we have seen most of Europe regulate as well as the emergence of new markets in North America, South America, Asia and Africa, it’s been quite a journey and one where the customer journey has changed considerably. If you have been a regular reader of our column, you will have seen that Better Change’s approach to safer gambling is very different from the norm. We look at the whole of the customer base instead of solely focussing on the minority that experience harm and to do this we need to understand the customers motivation to gamble, how they use their own methods or use safer gambling tools to keep themselves safe and believe it or not, what they actually enjoy about gambling. Preventing gambling harm should not be about preventing gambling and as providers of gambling products either in venues or online we should be actively encouraging and promoting Positive Play. It is unfortunate therefore that it would seem that policy makers around the world do not share this view based on the continual tightening of regulations and prohibiting of certain gambling products or


mechanisms, but why? Given that gambling in a regulated market provides entertainment, employment and revenue for the economy, surely this is something that governments would champion, especially in these economically challenged times. I believe the reason for this having seen the latest gambling act review in the UK from start to fi nish is that if you put yourself in the position of a government minister who is looking at this with little to no knowledge of gambling the industry must look terrifying! It is a well-established fact in business as well as other walks of life that detractors and those that complain shout louder than advocates. This has certainly been true of the process in the UK where for the past 5 years or so campaign groups, lobbyists and those that have been affected by gambling harm have dominated the public space to such an extent that it felt like government were backed into a corner and forced to implement policy that appeases these groups as opposed to being evidence based. This is because throughout the review the opinions of regular, recreational gambler were missing and the gaps were fi lled with speculation or anti-gambling rhetoric (replace not harmed by gambling to not harmed by


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