BETTER CHANGE STATESIDE
when, but I think that the current wording of the Gambling Commission’s Code of Practice should allow a bit more flexibility and imagination. It says:
‘Licensees must make an annual financial
contribution to … deliver or support research into the prevention and
treatment of gambling- related harms, harm
prevention approaches and treatment for those harmed by gambling’
For me the key area to expand and invest in is harm
prevention approaches. Preventing, and crucially averting, harm. There are two areas where I am calling for change.
One: embrace partnership working. The UK Gambling Commission (GC) formed a view that problem gambling charities were too close to, and too much influenced by, people and operators in the sector and they outlawed any direct involvement. I think that in doing so they ‘threw the baby out with the bathwater’. People with common goals do better if they work in collaboration not competition, but this hard-line attitude makes this difficult. I’ve always believed that there is more to unite us than to divide us and that building on common ground is the way to go. It is perfectly possible to be employed in the industry and to care deeply about player protection, and many working for problem gambling charities have seen this at first hand. The solution? Encourage the meeting of minds, the sharing of ideas and joint ventures. This is the thinking that lies behind the establishment
of Better Change, back in 2020. Better Change has its origins from within the gambling industry, people who saw the risks and the challenges. They made the switch from product delivery to player protection but didn’t turn against gambling. The company ethos is to develop partnerships with operators and work together to raise standards through innovative social responsibility strategies and providing robust safer gambling tools designed to maximise player protection. The aim is to support the industry to deliver strong, sustainable outcomes. Not an ‘us and them’ attitude, or a parent–child relationship, but an approach built on mutual respect.
Two: invest in helping people where they are. These are still tough times, especially in the casino sector, with a lot of ground to make up following the pandemic. It’s hard for industry compliance professionals to argue the
case for funding for additional safer gambling initiatives within their businesses, when at first glance those initiatives will lose customers and reduce revenues. But if ‘a stitch in time saves nine’, then right within the business, where individuals are gambling right now, is perhaps the most powerful place to act. An example from the retail casino sector. Metropolitan Gaming (MG) has invested in a Safer Gambling Manager in every venue to lead on fulfilling the company’s social responsibility obligations and embedding a safer gambling culture within the venue. They also work with venue KYC managers to assess the gambling affordability of customers. What’s more, on every shift, MG designate Safer Gambling Ambassadors (SGAs). The SGAs are a presence on the gaming floor, looking at customers gambling trends and behaviours, assessing affordability, engaging, interacting and intervening and signposting to support. To put it more simply, checking that customers are OK and offering them help and support when needed. Other good operators will have their own approach to the same challenges, but the crucial point is that these things cost. Isn’t it time to give credit for internal expenditure on safer gambling initiatives that give customers a reality check, help them to gain insight into their gambling habits, and equip them with tools to help them manage their behaviour? There is absolutely a place for education in gambling risks for the population at large, or interested individuals, but those at most risk must be those already gambling. Preventing harm is a great primary aim, but averting harm is right up there too. How would this work? I would build on the requirement on the industry to fund ‘harm prevention approaches.’ I would increase the expectation of the percentage of GGY given to promote safer gambling in its widest sense but give licensed operators credit for what they do in house to keep customers safe. This would build expectations beyond basic regulatory compliance and encourage the development of more pro-active work with customers. By allowing operators to bank this additional safer gambling expenditure in the RET pot, Just as an aside, there’s nothing set in stone about the
term RET. Language changes. There’s no mention of Safer Gambling in the Act – the term used was Social Responsibility, but that idea has been refined and developed. It has moved on. The GC has the power to expand on what initiatives and interventions it will recognise. This could encourage the creation of posts that are supernumerary to the employees on the gaming floor by counting the cost of them towards the sum contributed to ‘new RET’ by operators. The regulator would be providing a nudge and thereby contributing to the greater good. Would there be a risk of this being exploited? Well, there is always a risk, but the powers vested in the regulator, and the obligations placed on licensed operators, mean that they must be honest in their reporting and the risk to their licences just isn’t worth taking. Besides which, the truth is that many people working in the industry genuinely want to avoid harm to their customers. I think that the Commission would be pushing at an open door and the eventual winners would be the gambling public.
AUGUST 2022 29
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
