[ad_1]
British gaming companies are barely on their stems. Last year, they mobilized about 14.5 billion pounds of US punters. That's 72% more than the 8.4 billion pounds they'd made a decade ago, according to Gaming Commission figures.
But you can not believe it because of their chorus of unhappy announcements. These speak of difficult times but closed stores.
Last week, William Hill announced he would close a quarter of his 2,300 bookstores, potentially putting 4,500 employees on the street. GVC, owner of Ladbrokes and Coral, warned that nearly 1,000 store closures would cost 5,000 positions, while Betfred thinks it might be necessary to close another 500.
And this before reaching all independent channels. That's it and up to about half of the 8,500 British bookmakers, with about 20,000 potential jobs in the West.
Businesses quickly reported the government. They attribute the decision to reduce the maximum stake to "FOBTs" – fast, high-potential slot machines. These have been reduced from £ 100 to £ 2, according to conventional slot machines. Bookmakers say it has undermined their business model and left them no choice but to withdraw.
There is no doubt that FOBTs have made a significant contribution to operators' incomes. They also allowed them to reduce the costs of their stores, reducing the number of employees needed to take over-the-counter bets. At their peak, FOBTs accounted for nearly 60% of store profits.
But it is also important to remember where this custom comes from. From the start, machines were controversial. Due to their high stakes and the change in the taxation of wagering bets between the turnover and the gross profits in 2001, they were able to offer extremely immersive casino games.
Companies have always resisted the idea that FOBTs were the "crack" choice of problem gamblers – people whose immoderate habits can destroy their finances and the lives of those around them. But the data suggests that they strongly attracted only these people. Although problem gamblers account for less than 1% of the adult population, according to prevalence surveys, they would account for 25% of FOBT machine revenue, according to research by Jim Orford, a professor at the University of Ottawa. University of Birmingham. and an expert at play.
Another worry is that bookmakers have been heavily concentrated in the most disadvantaged areas. Problem gamblers with little money at the beginning are much more likely to end up in real trouble – those that lead to debt, family separation and crime.
The bookmakers could have tried to find a compromise by offering a maximum bet of £ 20 or £ 30 to the test, which might have saved more jobs. Instead, they stood firm for the status quo or bankruptcy.
William Hill claims that there has been a "significant drop" in gaming machine revenues since April, when the betting limit was put into effect. Although this is clearly wrong for them, it is hardly surprising. Any strategy to reduce problem gambling would reduce the overall activity of the products concerned in the short term.
What is less clear, is if the industry as a whole has suffered a lot, despite all the bleating. Many companies are actively switching physical customers to their more structurally profitable online sites, where no such restrictions exist. Ladbrokes Coral has even challenged shop staff to convert customers online if they want to avoid being noticed in the next wave of job cuts.
One of the peculiarities of the debate about gambling in Britain is that, although everyone agrees that there is a problem, they can not stand up for anything. agreement on the root cause. Activists believe that this is in the products themselves – and especially in the conjunction of "addictive" software and the type of games on offer – continuous casino type games.
Companies prefer to root the problem in the individual, arguing that only a small number of irresponsible addicts have a problem. Remedies are information, treatments and technological solutions that promote abstinence, such as blocking software. Last week, five major groups of book manufacturers announced their willingness to provide £ 60 million to fund research and treatment of gambling addiction.
This disagreement is not over. Businesses may have lost the argument that their products should not be regulated more closely. But they persist with a model that relies heavily on a relatively small number of "big players" – a significant proportion of whom may be problem gamblers. There is little appetite for a more sustainable approach that encourages broader participation, less immersive products and modest stakes.
The front line will now go from bookmakers to online services, real engines of the prosperity of gaming companies and employing few people. It's a war with more than one campaign.
Source link
