BETTER CHANGE
compliant but there is no benefi t to the business, there is no benefi t to the customer as more often than not they simply migrate to a different provider and the process starts again, and I can even go as far to say there is no benefi t to society as we are not tackling gambling harm, we are simply moving it somewhere else. Great examples I have seen through our work have been when operators utilise the power of their brand for player safety. They understand why their customers have chosen them and make them feel valued, even if there is an element of their play that needs to be addressed. Giving the player choice and educating them so that they can make an informed decision on safer gambling tools or products is another great example, as this gives the player control and does not make them feel like they are being dictated to. The best example I can give you, though, is to make sure any interaction with the customer is relevant to their situation. A scripted interaction that talks about self- exclusion, mental health and even suicide delivered to someone who may have just dipped their toe into risky play is a sure-fi re way to lose them. It’s compliant; you have probably gone beyond what you need to do, but the outcome is a negative one for all concerned.
it comes to player safety. This is a very noble gesture, of course, and I have been privy to more talks and presentations than I care to remember on the dangers of gambling and how it can have devastating effects on the individual. I have seen industry professionals, almost through a feeling of shame or guilt, agree that we must do more than simply tick boxes in terms of keeping players safe, but what wasn’t recognised then is that player protection is a two-way street. The gambling industry needs to play its part, of course, but so does the player. It is simply not practical or sustainable for gambling operators to severely limit or block access to gambling for the majority of their customers in the hope that it may catch a few players who may be struggling. I saw the challenge to the term beyond compliance as symbolic of how the industry has moved on, how it does do more than it previously has done to protect its players, but most importantly of all how it demonstrates a confi dence from the gambling industry that they are doing the right things.
Of course, I still had to answer the question! Before I share my response with you, let me explain the context behind the statement. Often, when we are presenting at Better Change, we point out the shift in thinking required to move from a restrictive and reactive position on player safety to the more proactive and enabling concept of Positive Play. In this example, I had displayed a number of examples
22 OCTOBER 2025
of restrictive practices and matched them with the alternative. Positive Play behaviour. Here I listed tick box compliance as the restrictive measure and beyond compliance as the Positive Play example. To answer the question put to me, I explained that this was about the motivation behind our actions as opposed to us simply doing more than what was required for extra kudos or credit. If we are to be completely honest with ourselves, especially in areas where regulation has been reviewed (or indeed introduced), the primary motivation to comply with safer gambling regulation has been out of fear of consequence. You can understand it too, given some of the eyewatering settlements that have been issued in recent years. But the evolution of some of the leading operators in terms of compliance, and the point I was expressing in my presentation, is that we need to go beyond compliance in terms of what motivates us to act. Are we basing our decision-making on what we need to do to stay out of trouble with the regulator, or are we putting the needs of the customer fi rst? In my experience and through working closely with a number of operators, I fi nd the latter to be the most benefi cial. It’s not about doing more, it’s about doing the right thing. Far too often, through overly invasive interactions or by making the customer feel they have done something wrong, operators are losing customers as soon as they reach out to them. Sure, they will be
We don’t need to do more than what is expected, but by putting the customer fi rst, we are likely to exceed their expectations, building long-term value and sustainable business.
Play Positively 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.
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
