Standing Tall: The Gaming Sector Needs to Rethink Its Narrative

## Standing Tall: The Gaming Sector Needs to Rethink Its Narrative – iGB

The “Standing Tall” gathering, hosted by Clear and Concise Media, brought together leaders in the industry to talk about the harsh criticism from some groups and the careful examination of the Gambling Act. The main point was the need for a new and more encouraging communication plan.

**Homepage > Sustainable Gaming > Standing Tall: The Gaming Sector Needs to Rethink Its Narrative**

Standing Tall: The Gaming Sector Needs to Rethink Its Narrative

The “Standing Tall” conference returned after a year of pandemic-related closures, with the future of the UK gaming sector uncertain. The main point was that the industry needs to invest resources in improving its message, stop making excuses, and highlight its achievements.

A small but vocal group of lawmakers are calling for a complete change to the rules, while a dedicated group of activists have taken the fight outside of Parliament and gained support from media across the political spectrum.

Therefore, it was surprising when the keynote speaker, John O’Reilly, CEO of Rank Group, stood up and stated that the discussion was not about the public. He said that politicians don’t see gaming reform as a way to win votes and that most lawmakers don’t have strong opinions about the industry.

Despite this, O’Reilly believes that the review is “long overdue.” Some valid concerns need to be addressed, and some rules are outdated.

While he conceded in the 2005 Gambling Act that he opposed certain provisions, such as the elimination of all limitations on gambling advertising, he continued to emphasize that the spread of B3 machines would result in concentrations of betting shops on the main thoroughfare. He further stated that casino legislation was also scarcely addressed, with the industry’s primary regulations originating from the 1960s.

However, O’Reilly differed with the idea that the 2005 Act was “analog legislation for a digital era.” He clarified that the legislation had undergone substantial alterations in recent times, under challenging circumstances. He indicated that this was primarily due to the regulatory bodies. The Gambling Commission’s industry specialists were replaced, with an emphasis on strengthening controls.

On the operator side, they had incorporated safer gambling into their strategies, and despite this positive shift, the forceful language and discourse directed at the industry “clearly did not align with the data.” Based on news reports, it was simple to assume that problem gambling rates were escalating, rather than decreasing as recent Commission data revealed.

He highlighted that even William Hill offering sausage and egg muffins was denounced in The Guardian as a nefarious scheme to keep customers in betting shops for extended periods. “I don’t know about you, but I can devour a sausage and egg McMuffin in 45 seconds.”

Fourth Clause Moment

In the end, he hopes the evaluation won’t “regress” and permit the sector and commission to progress from the uncertainty of recent times. “It will take five to ten years for the sector and authorities to recover and concentrate on providing entertainment,” he stated.

Nevertheless, as YouGov disclosed in subsequent discussions, public opinion of the sector is not hopeful. Oliver Roe, global head of YouGov’s leisure and entertainment division, highlighted that this scenario has continued. Even if the poll had been conducted ten or even twenty years ago, the outcomes would have been very similar.

The group agreed that the sector needs to send a more positive message. There has been excessive apologizing and insufficient discussion of the positive alterations that have been implemented in recent years.

Camilla Wright of Red Knot Communications argued that the sector requires a “Clause Four moment,” similar to when Labour revised its constitution, eliminating its commitment to industry nationalization. Wright pointed out that this wasn’t seen as a pressing matter when it was announced, but it marked a clear break with the past and demonstrated to the public that the party was changing.

She and other group members acknowledged that it’s unclear what that would be.

**Regulatory Deficiency**
The situation has been aggravated by the sector and the Gambling Commission moving at different paces when it comes to reform. Group members agreed that this has resulted in an increasingly hostile environment between operators and regulators.

Kirsty Caldwell, a delegate from Bates Mattingley Consulting, indicated that the gaming industry’s hesitation in acknowledging its difficulties is partly responsible for the current state of affairs. She emphasized the Information Commissioner’s Office’s cautious approval of creating a unified customer perspective – the office stated that while this is the ultimate objective, additional investigation is required regarding its legal viability.

The Gambling Commission welcomed the declaration, while the industry failed to emphasize the obstacles it might encounter. In the end, Charles Cohen from the Trust department stated, “The industry is unable to defend itself.”

Stephen Kettley from the legal firm Wiggin stated that operators and providers need to clarify to regulators and policymakers how their enterprises function. The Commission also needs to play a role in supporting education and training, particularly on best practices – currently, errors are publicly revealed, while successes are rarely recognized. Caldwell added that this has created a “culture of apprehension” between operators and regulators.

Kettley added that the best the industry can hope for is that its detractors can make a fair evaluation, as it will never receive a positive assessment, regardless of the steps it takes to improve.

The gathering concluded with a conversation on environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG).

A few individuals are concerned that ESG might restrict capital market investment in the sector, although a group of specialists highlighted that being labeled a “sin industry” doesn’t always negatively impact a company’s ESG standing. British American Tobacco generally scores well in ESG indices, and oil and gas behemoths like Shell and BP also sit at the top.

The group of specialists emphasized that these indices are still in their early stages, making it difficult to determine if the ratings are accurate. They stated that the rating agencies are too dispersed to provide a clear image of which firms are the most accountable.

In the end, reputation is paramount. The main takeaway is that the gambling sector has been diligently striving to rapidly elevate standards, but it’s struggling to effectively convey this. As one representative forcefully stated from the audience, “Why are we always making apologies?”

In an age where key safe gambling messaging has shifted from “When the fun stops, stop” to “Take time to think,” the broader messaging transformation is long overdue.

Sign up for the iGaming news bulletin.

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *