Opinion: Making self-exclusion work for all

We are now in an age where most of the industry’s leading operators have willingly embraced their social responsibility obligations, many seeing it as a commercial, moral and ethical boon. However, implementation on the ground is fragmented and generally on a per-operator basis.

A player who recognises they have a problem and elects to self-exclude from an operator, will simply find another operator the moment they feel the urge, and the cycle starts again. Industry-wide self-exclusion seeks to close the loop-hole.

In theory, it makes sense. If a player has an addiction, voluntary, piecemeal self-exclusion has limited value or success in today’s cross-channel world where the boundaries between retail, remote and region are more and more blurred. In practice, while this approach can and does work, ‘cold turkey’ is not always the best way of dealing with a problem which is often the physical manifestation of a complex psychological issue.

We know that many of those who self-exclude do not stop, they simply move to another operator. In the case of gambling addiction, the opportunities for getting a fix are fairly extensive, ranging from ‘borrowing’ another’s identity, to betting with ‘friends’, or, most likely, less scrupulous remote operators based outside the UK.

We know too that a ‘gambling problem’ can be different things to different people. For example, the customer who has no concerns about their betting on sports, but wants to stay away from particular shops and their FOBTs, or the player who enjoys poker but loses control at the roulette table. Does either of these warrant a full self-exclusion? And how many will be inclined to ‘opt out’ if tackling the lesser problem area curtails their greater enjoyment of other types of gambling?

Exclusion or rehabilitation

We know also from the same shared experience and knowledge that often the initial act of self-exclusion is only an acknowledgement of a problem – it is often the subsequent activity that can be the trigger for rehabilitation. Having admitted a problem, it then makes it easier to accept help and support – either by repeat exposure to information or interaction with the operator.

In the case of that small number of operators who are willing to share information, knowing that a customer has self-excluded elsewhere allows them to support that individual in a way that is specific to that customer. Were this information to be shared and made available to all operators, not only would the industry be taking that first important step to harmonisation, it would more importantly, be creating a framework of industry-wide ‘behind the scenes’ support that ultimately would be of greater benefit to the customer than a ‘cold turkey’ blanket ban.

It would also provide the regulator with transparency on their operators’ approach to responsible gambling, by being able to draw comparisons between them and, working with experts, identify the most effective practices.

Customer insight

More valuable still, such a knowledge base could provide a real insight into a field where conclusions are sometimes based upon assumptions, very small sample sizes or extreme experiences and news headlines. Working with specialist support groups, charities and clinical practitioners, this could be a real opportunity to identify triggers, causes, tipping points and profiles to develop a programme that seeks to prevent rather than cure.

Industry-wide self-exclusion sounds like the next logical step but it is likely to have the opposite effect. It will identify and then remove a problem gambler from the radar. It will appear to be working as the numbers of individuals self-excluding will fall but, as a wise man once said, ‘beware false knowledge, it is more dangerous than ignorance’. The problem will still be there, it will simply cease to be visible.

Conversely, however, adopting an industry-wide problem gambling database has the potential to revolutionise the industry’s

responsible gambling approach by creating a framework of proactive and effective monitoring, intervention, support and education.