62 / 76
62
// PUBLIC GAMING INTERNATIONAL // May/June 2016
age and promote them. My comparison sets the different models
alongside four different axes: the values, the products, the distri-
bution of the gaming services, and how we are using our profit,
which is the most important differentiator.
VALUES:
We need to clarify for ourselves and for everyone else
what we stand for. We comply with rules and obligations as do
many others in the commercial world. But government-lotteries
go much further than that. The heart of our business includes
social and environmental responsibilities as equal to our mission
to generate profit for good causes. Instead of maximizing profits
for shareholders, we want to optimize outcomes for all stakehold-
ers, which includes the general public. Our focus on long-term
shared value with society at large and stakeholder engagement is
something that is unique to our industry.
Responsible gaming, for instance, is a priority not because it is
required of us but because it is part of our DNA and commitment
to the values we share with society. Our competitors from Malta
and Gibraltar focus on profit maximization with little consider-
ation for the impact they have on society, or even the players.
Their promotional style is aggressive to the point of being irre-
sponsible. We should integrate the values of social responsibility,
integrity, and transparency into our brands as much as we can.
PRODUCTS:
Our goal is to provide a safe and secure desti-
nation for consumers who want to play recreational games-
of-chance. Our mission is to meet the needs of society, which
includes everyone, all consumers everywhere within our juris-
diction. To that end, we provide a wide portfolio of products.
Some of Lottery’s products are more profitable than others, but
all of them serve a purpose of meeting the needs of society for
a safe and legal option for consumers who want to play games-
of-chance. Maximizing profit by focusing aggressive promotions
on a limited number of highly profitable products is not our
way. You can look at the promotions of commercial betting op-
erators to see how that is exactly their method. It is not good for
society and it encourages problem gambling. They give bonuses
for additional plays, even giving away free product to entice new
players to play more.
As the president of the WLA, now is a good time to mention
the WLA Responsible Gaming Certification. The process of get-
ting certified informs us on how games should and should not be
promoted and teaches us the operational procedures for ensuring
that we stay true to our commitment to Responsible Gaming.
It includes a marketing and publicity code of conduct that are
applied to our advertising and promotional activities. It explains
the importance of requiring our stakeholders, commercial part-
ners, and external agencies to sign up and apply the same codes
of conduct. Raising the standards for the entire industry is a very
important part of our agenda.
(Examples of what should not be done are displayed on the
slides, from Unibet and Ladbrokes advertisements. These are cer-
tainly not the only offshore operators who employ these kinds of
super-aggressive promotional tactics.)
DISTRIBUTION AND GAMING SERVICES:
Lottery’s method
of distribution, relying on a wide network of retail stores, is all
about proximity to the community and service to our players.
This promotes shared values, collaboration with a large number
of small businesses, and a close affiliation with the welfare of
the communities that we serve. Offshore operators have very
few points of distribution, often only one, out of which they
promote online gambling, and focusing on high-density, lower
income population centers. This promotes profit maximization
with very little concern for the values or welfare of the commu-
nities where the players reside. And Lottery’s profits are shared
in the form of commissions to the retailers, whereas online op-
erators have no investment in and share no profits with the busi-
nesses of the community.
PROFITS:
To my mind, this is really the number one differ-
entiator. The profit of government-gaming is used to support
good causes as opposed to enriching shareholders. In Italy,
the UK, Australia, and other places, the licensees are private
companies which do garner a portion of the profits for private
shareholders. But the portion is very small, highly controlled,
and the entire model is still based on the goal of channeling
income to good causes and delivering optimal outcomes for so-
ciety. An estimated $78 billion U.S. dollars was distributed by
160 WLA members worldwide to good causes in 2014. Com-
mercial operators pay taxes, but the amount they pay is a tiny
fraction of the GGR—as low as 1% in some jurisdictions. And
lobbyists for offshore operators are working tirelessly to get the
taxes lowered everywhere. If the government-gaming model
that depends on monopoly protection breaks down, it could
result in $78 billion being transferred from good causes over to
private shareholders. At the very least, it will result in market
share being shifted from Lottery over to illegal operators. Is
that really what is best for society? That is the decision that
faces the shapers of public and regulatory policy. So, we need to
work tirelessly to make sure they understand the implications
of the decisions they are making!
■
Forging a Future … by Jean-Luc Moner-Banet
…
continued from page 28