Gala Coral’s media release detailing figures for the most recent quarter, contained a number of questionable assertions.
Firstly, it claimed that the small number of shops they are considering closing will result in a reduction in payments to racing via the levy. There is no evidence that the exact number of shops has any bearing on the total turnover of racing bets. Gala Coral actually added 57 shops, 251 machines and £4 million in machine revenue in comparison to the same period last year.
Secondly, and far more seriously, they refer to a Gambling Commission report ("Gambling behavior in England and Scotland" produced by Natcen) which is based on headline findings from 2012 Health Surveys. Gala Coral claims that: "This report states that problem gamblers typically use seven different gambling products, of which FOBTs are the sixth most commonly used." This falsely makes it sound as though there are five products that are used more by problem gamblers than FOBTs.
The report, referring to activities rather than products, identifies 18 different gambling activities, but does not identify the "typical seven products". The report shows five activities that have higher percentages of problem gambling prevalence rates than FOBTs, but this is not the full story. Each of those activities - spread betting, poker played in pubs or clubs, non-online betting on events other than sports or racing, betting exchange and any activity other the 18 other activities, has a far lower overall participation than FOBTs.
The report does not quantify the most important measurements of at-risk and problem gambling behavior, which are time spent and cash spent per activity. Put simply, FOBTs have a higher cash spend than any of the other 17 activities, and a far higher spend per problem gambler than any of the other 17 activities. The more thorough British Gambling Prevalence Surveys (now discontinued) enabled secondary research which showed that the amount spent on FOBTs by problem gamblers and at-risk gamblers was greater than on several of the other leading licensed activities combined.
It misunderstands the nature of problem gambling to presume that because an addict gambles on a number of different products, they have the same problem with all of the products that they gamble on. It would also be wrong to imply that because they gamble on a number of different products, this somehow proves the problem is with the individual, as the bookmakers like to imply. A FOBT addict might buy a weekly lottery ticket, but their addiction has been caused – and their addictive behaviour is limited to – FOBTs.
But the player-centric narrative for problem gambling suits Gala Coral, who state that: "Problem gambling is complex and is about the person not the specific product." This narrative absolves them of responsibility for their products, such as FOBTs, and allows them to put the onus of responsibility on the individual. Everyone knows that accessibility, marketing and content makes a difference to a gambler’s experience and engagement. Problem gamblers are a sub-group of gamblers. It is absurd that anyone can get away with asserting that problem gambling is not in part about specific products.
Finally, the Gala Coral release refers to international comparisons of problem gambling. There has been no adequate research to determine if contact methodologies and cultural propensities to respond and disclose vary internationally. Headline levels of problem gambling are irrelevant in assessing FOBT problem gambling.
Carl Leaver, CEO of Gala Coral, was quoted in a Sunday Times article claiming that singling out betting terminals "is doing a disservice to problem gamblers". The exact opposite is true - maintaining the FOBT status quo is a disservice to problem gamblers. Mr. Leaver was previously a trustee of the Responsible Gambling Trust (RGT). With the history of RGT trustees with this mindset the continued willingness of Government to wait for RGT research on FOBTs becomes harder to justify.
The track record of bookmakers is that they have made misleading claims to Government through their trade association, the Association of British Bookmakers. The
Campaignhas produced evidence to expose these claims, including reports by
NERA,
Landman Economicsand our own
Fact Check. The Campaign view is that all misleading assertions to Government could also mislead investors.