BETTER CHANGE
A game of roulette or a spin on a slot machine isn’t quite the same as strapping yourself to a rocket with the thrust of 14 jumbo jets, but you can’t do either without the element of risk. Better Change’s Engagement Director, Rob Mabbett, reports.
I
have been following the Artemis II mission to the moon and back over the past few days, completely transfi xed by the sheer scale of the ambition of such a project (combined, of course, with the drama of igniting an Olympic swimming pool’s worth of rocket fuel)! I know we see rocket launches all the time; in fact, trips to the International Space Station barely get a mention in the media these days, but something about this mission captured a global audience’s imagination. A return to the moon after 40 years, as well as the fact that we are sending humans further away from the earth than we have ever been, has kept audiences all over the world captivated.
There are no shortcuts either; anyone who was watching the build-up to the launch would have seen on a couple of occasions that a small glitch could have meant a delay or postponement to another day. There was no compromise; everything had to be working perfectly within the two-hour launch window for takeoff to happen. Flying a rocket to the moon carries a signifi cant risk, of course, but everything within the team at NASA’s power was done to keep that risk at an acceptable level. This is something that translates into the world of business too, and appetite for risk plays a signifi cant part in decision-making. It is particularly pertinent in our industry of gambling as well because it is not only the risk in our business that we have to manage, but also the appetite for risk of our consumers. I know a game of roulette or a spin on a slot machine is not quite the same as strapping yourself to a rocket with the thrust of 14 jumbo jets, but you can’t do either without risk. Understanding player risk is important in running a compliant and commercially successful business. Safer gambling should be about enabling play, not closing it down. We can all eliminate risk through restrictions, blocks or exclusions, but this would damage our businesses and the industry. Whilst a small minority of players do need support to stop gambling, many others would rather control their gambling than stop altogether. Far too often, through work we do with operators, we see customers disengage with operators following an interaction or request for information, and if it is not the customer’s intention to stop gambling, then they simply move elsewhere. This could be sent to another operator where the process will start again, or it may be to less regulated companies, which
increases the risk to the consumer signifi cantly. I genuinely believe that gambling is safest with responsible operators in a well-regulated environment, and at Better Change, we support operators in navigating the regulatory landscape to ensure compliance, but also provide the best experience possible for your customers. As people who enjoy gambling ourselves, we understand that a certain element of risk is a key component of what makes gambling fun and that education around gambling and increasing gambling literacy amongst our colleagues and customers is imperative to supporting people in making informed decisions. It is also important that our interactions with customers are human, that we connect and engage with them in the right way, so that the business relationship is valued and that there is trust. That does not mean that we have to physically speak with all of our customers all of the time, but it does mean that our messaging, automated or otherwise, has to be well considered.
The advancements in technology, particularly in AI, have raised the question on several occasions as to whether interactions with customers can be fully automated. I believe they can be in the future, but I do not think it is happening anytime soon. The reason for that is that we are not in a position to surrender that level of decision-making or control. I am a huge advocate for the use of AI as an enabler, as a tool to help us do things better and as a way for us to process large amounts of data, but I am not an advocate of AI doing the work for us. As it stands currently, especially where the safety of people is concerned, the tolerance for AI mistakes is exceptionally low, and that’s a good thing. For
Rob Mabbett
Rob joined Better Change from the charity Gordon Moody where he spent 5 years running their international gambling helpline “Gambling Therapy” as well as helping to raise their profi le and ensure suffi cient treatment spaces were available in their residential treatment centres to meet demand. With over 12 years industry experience, including being a previous winner of the Racing Post and SiS Betting Shop Manager of the Year award, Rob brings a unique insight into the prevention and treatment of gambling harm and is keen to focus his efforts further upstream as we aim to prevent against gambling harm at Better Change through Positive Play.
example, there are hundreds of traffi c accidents every day caused by driver error, but if a self-driving car powered with AI were to crash, it would make headlines. Ask yourself honestly, would you get into the passenger seat of a self-driving car now? Probably not, but I am sure you will concede that eventually they will be the norm. Using AI to analyse our data, to be able to review all interactions and not just a sample, to be able to track and evaluate player behaviour, provides us with the opportunity to understand our customers better than ever before, helping us to improve how we serve their needs, keeping our businesses compliant without taking away the fun and entertainment people get from our products.
There will be many whose motivation for the advancement of technology, such as AI, is to replace work done by humans. My fear around this is not some dystopian rise of the machines but instead that we lower standards to accommodate AI. You only have to look at some of the content on social media or the terrible imagery that is produced where someone has thought that it was ok for public consumption, and over time, as we accept the factual inaccuracies or the obvious mistakes, platforms that helped to connect us and inform us become dumping grounds for automated trash. We can’t let how we interact with our customers go the same way. Instead, we should be looking at technology to empower and enable the workforce as opposed to replacing it.
Play Positively! And yes, before you ask, these are my own
words. Rob
APRIL 2026 19
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
