Former Amaya Gaming CEO David Baazov is being sued by a Dubai investor who claims Baazov fraudulently used the investor’s name to build support for an Amaya takeover bid.
On Friday, La Presse reported that KBC Aldini Capital president Kalani Lal had filed a lawsuit in Dubai in January accusing Baazov and his longtime financial services partner Canaccord Genuity of fraudulently using Lal’s name and signature to boost Baazov’s late-2016 bid to acquire Amaya.
Last November, Amaya announced that Baazov, who had parted ways with the company several months earlier to defend himself against criminal charges of insider trading, had made a C$24 per share offer to buy a controlling stake in Amaya and take the company private.
To support his bid, Baazov filed papers with the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) stating that he’d lined up $3.65b in financial commitments from four investment firms, including the Dubai-based KBC Aldini Capital.
However, within a week of Amaya’s announcement, Lal informed CalvinAyre.com that “neither KBC Aldini nor any of its related entities are involved in this transaction.” The following day, Baazov retracted his claim regarding KBC Aldini’s involvement, and Baazov’s proposed Amaya acquisition quickly fell apart.
Knowledge of the KBC Aldini lawsuit came via Quebec securities regulator Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), which brought the insider trading charges against Baazov and two other Amaya-connected individuals in March 2016.
Last December, an AMF investigator contacted KBC’s Lal, who repeated his claim to have never heard of Baazov or Amaya prior to the SEC filings. Lal apparently asked Cannacord to provide him with a copy of the letter allegedly sent by KBC pledging its financial support, but Lal never received a copy.
The AMF report indicates that “KBC’s clientele is predominantly Muslim, meaning that KBC will never invest in a gaming business, otherwise it will lose all its customers.” Lal reportedly received many calls from KBC clients who’d heard about the alleged Amaya connection, and this had caused Lal “a lot of worries.”
Earlier this week, La Presse reported that the AMF’s raids on individuals connected with their Baazov investigation had uncovered a document in which Baazov allegedly agreed to hold the majority of his Amaya shares on behalf of his brother Ofer aka ‘Josh’ Baazov and Ofer’s longtime online gambling business partner Craig Levett. The AMF also claims to have email communications in which Ofer is referred to as Amaya’s real owner.
Baazov’s criminal trial is expected to get underway in November, but if this week is any barometer, we can expect a steady drip of damning information to leak out of the AMF offices in the weeks to follow.
Amaya, the parent company of online gambling giant PokerStars, rebranded as The Stars Group earlier this year, in what was widely viewed as a means of distancing the company from the increasingly negative media narrative surrounding its former CEO.
September 26, 2017
Labour Plan to Levy Tax on Gambling to Fund Treatment of Addicts
The United Kingdom has witnessed a significant rise in the number of problem gamblers in the recent times. According to a report published by the Gambling Commission, more than 2 million people in the UK are addicted to problem gambling or are at a risk of developing an addiction. The report reckons that the number of ‘above-16’ problem gamblers has increased by a third in the last three years, indicating that nearly 430,000 people are victims of this serious addiction.
This certainly suggests that the government isn’t doing enough to tackle the issue. The pace of change has been slow, and the government needs to be more proactive in addressing the issues. The risk of men becoming problem gambler is 7.5 times more than women. In the light of such rising gambling addiction, the government has finally taken a significant step to address the problem of problem gambling.
U.K. Labour plan’s tax
U.K.’s opposition Labour Party has now decided to impose a compulsory tax on gambling companies for the treatment of gambling addicts. Gambling companies are failing to favor a system that calls for 0.1 percent of profits as voluntary contributions. This amount should be utilized in helping people who bet in an uncontrollable manner. The deputy leader of the party, Tom Watson, will tell delegates about this levy at its annual conference on Tuesday in Brighton, southern England.
Mr. Watson believes that “gambling addiction is an illness” and it’s time to take the issue seriously. The party’s review will also look into the ability of NHS to provide the required mental health services to problem gamblers who have become prey to this addiction. The Gambling Commission’s report defined gambling addiction as “gambling to a degree that compromises, disrupts or damages family, personal or recreational pursuits”.
The Association of British Bookmakers expressed that it supports an approach that is based on evidence, thus facilitating the idea of Mr. Watson. Labour also says that the extra sum will be required to boost the capacity and infrastructure of hospitals. Moreover, the NHS also requires funds to hire extra staff outside the agency and extend social care to patients.
The party has vowed to increase spending on the NHS by hiking income tax by 5% for people who earn the highest. A winter bailout is also proposed to be funded through this. Gambling companies target low-income people or those who have quit gambling because it proves profitable for them. The new tax proposes to stop this abuse of power and trust.
This certainly suggests that the government isn’t doing enough to tackle the issue. The pace of change has been slow, and the government needs to be more proactive in addressing the issues. The risk of men becoming problem gambler is 7.5 times more than women. In the light of such rising gambling addiction, the government has finally taken a significant step to address the problem of problem gambling.
U.K. Labour plan’s tax
U.K.’s opposition Labour Party has now decided to impose a compulsory tax on gambling companies for the treatment of gambling addicts. Gambling companies are failing to favor a system that calls for 0.1 percent of profits as voluntary contributions. This amount should be utilized in helping people who bet in an uncontrollable manner. The deputy leader of the party, Tom Watson, will tell delegates about this levy at its annual conference on Tuesday in Brighton, southern England.
Mr. Watson believes that “gambling addiction is an illness” and it’s time to take the issue seriously. The party’s review will also look into the ability of NHS to provide the required mental health services to problem gamblers who have become prey to this addiction. The Gambling Commission’s report defined gambling addiction as “gambling to a degree that compromises, disrupts or damages family, personal or recreational pursuits”.
The Association of British Bookmakers expressed that it supports an approach that is based on evidence, thus facilitating the idea of Mr. Watson. Labour also says that the extra sum will be required to boost the capacity and infrastructure of hospitals. Moreover, the NHS also requires funds to hire extra staff outside the agency and extend social care to patients.
The party has vowed to increase spending on the NHS by hiking income tax by 5% for people who earn the highest. A winter bailout is also proposed to be funded through this. Gambling companies target low-income people or those who have quit gambling because it proves profitable for them. The new tax proposes to stop this abuse of power and trust.
September 25, 2017
How to fix match-fixing
In 267 AD Nicantinous and Demetrius, two teenage wrestlers, had reached the final bout in a prestigious competition in Egypt. Their fathers struck a deal. For the price of a donkey, Demetrius would “fall three times and yield”. The signed contract is the earliest surviving record of a sporting competition being stitched up for financial gain.
Today, match-fixing is a vast global enterprise. The pickings are rich. Around $2trn is wagered on sport each year, mostly with online bookmakers who enable punters to evade national anti-gambling laws. Around one game in 100 is thought to be manipulated across a range of sports.
Modern fixing is a more subtle affair than that of Nicantinous and Demetrius. It often involves manipulating the odds in live betting while a match is under way. Arranging for a cricketer to score poorly, say, or a footballer to be sent off at a certain point, or a tennis player to lose a particular game, allows bettors to predict how odds will move and lock in a profit much as insider traders beat the stockmarket. Athletes troubled by conscience can always tell themselves that a few wild swipes of a bat or a run of double faults are victimless crimes.
If punters willing to place illegal bets were the only victims, fixing might not matter so much. But they are not. Much of the profits go to violent gangsters. Among those defrauded are corrupt athletes’ innocent team-mates, legal bettors and ordinary fans, who pay to see a real contest, not a sham.
Sports administrators cannot be relied on to lead a clean-up. Some are themselves suspected of corruption—witness allegations of bribery in the choices of hosts for the football World Cup and Olympic games. And many seem to fear that revealing the scale of match-fixing would provoke a crisis of confidence. Little time or money is devoted to educating athletes about fixers’ methods, or to monitoring wagers to spot the suspicious betting patterns. Some of the cases that have come to light were uncovered by police investigating racketeering, not sports officials going after fixers. The governing body for tennis, dogged by suspicions of match-fixing, does not employ enough officials to have one at every professional event.
As more games are televised, more is bet on minor competitions, where players earn less and are therefore easier to corrupt. And as new sports gain popularity, the fixers will move in. They are already active in competitive video-gaming. Women’s cricket and football are likely to become targets, too.
Say it ain’t so
To squeeze the fixers, governments need to do two things. The first is to legalise gambling, which is banned in many countries. Fixers need deep, liquid betting markets to profit from their crooked bets. If honest punters turn to legal bookmakers, fixers will follow, and authorities will find it easier to spot them at their work. The second is to pass laws against match-fixing which recognise that the evidence may consist of statistical analysis. Many countries have no match-fixing laws at all. When one corrupt player is caught and banned, the moneymen simply move on to the next.
Billions of people follow sport for the pleasure of seeing skilled athletes strive for victory and to share in the thrill of a fair competition. If the fixers are allowed to run the show, it will cease to be worth watching.
Today, match-fixing is a vast global enterprise. The pickings are rich. Around $2trn is wagered on sport each year, mostly with online bookmakers who enable punters to evade national anti-gambling laws. Around one game in 100 is thought to be manipulated across a range of sports.
Modern fixing is a more subtle affair than that of Nicantinous and Demetrius. It often involves manipulating the odds in live betting while a match is under way. Arranging for a cricketer to score poorly, say, or a footballer to be sent off at a certain point, or a tennis player to lose a particular game, allows bettors to predict how odds will move and lock in a profit much as insider traders beat the stockmarket. Athletes troubled by conscience can always tell themselves that a few wild swipes of a bat or a run of double faults are victimless crimes.
If punters willing to place illegal bets were the only victims, fixing might not matter so much. But they are not. Much of the profits go to violent gangsters. Among those defrauded are corrupt athletes’ innocent team-mates, legal bettors and ordinary fans, who pay to see a real contest, not a sham.
Sports administrators cannot be relied on to lead a clean-up. Some are themselves suspected of corruption—witness allegations of bribery in the choices of hosts for the football World Cup and Olympic games. And many seem to fear that revealing the scale of match-fixing would provoke a crisis of confidence. Little time or money is devoted to educating athletes about fixers’ methods, or to monitoring wagers to spot the suspicious betting patterns. Some of the cases that have come to light were uncovered by police investigating racketeering, not sports officials going after fixers. The governing body for tennis, dogged by suspicions of match-fixing, does not employ enough officials to have one at every professional event.
As more games are televised, more is bet on minor competitions, where players earn less and are therefore easier to corrupt. And as new sports gain popularity, the fixers will move in. They are already active in competitive video-gaming. Women’s cricket and football are likely to become targets, too.
Say it ain’t so
To squeeze the fixers, governments need to do two things. The first is to legalise gambling, which is banned in many countries. Fixers need deep, liquid betting markets to profit from their crooked bets. If honest punters turn to legal bookmakers, fixers will follow, and authorities will find it easier to spot them at their work. The second is to pass laws against match-fixing which recognise that the evidence may consist of statistical analysis. Many countries have no match-fixing laws at all. When one corrupt player is caught and banned, the moneymen simply move on to the next.
Billions of people follow sport for the pleasure of seeing skilled athletes strive for victory and to share in the thrill of a fair competition. If the fixers are allowed to run the show, it will cease to be worth watching.
September 15, 2017
Innovation and technology hub announced by Ladbrokes Coral
Ladbrokes Coral have announced plans to unite its sports and technology teams to bring customers an continually improved betting experience.
Named LC2 and located at Here East, which formerly housed the London 2012 Olympic media team, on the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, 140 staff of both brands are charged with delivering a range of products such as CRM, ePOS and digital sportsbook platforms.
Graham Calder, Ladbrokes Coral CIO said: “With the creation of LC2 our goal is to deliver excellence for our customers by leveraging the best digital technology, to hire the best digital talent to build the best digital future.
“With our passion for sports, we can’t help but be inspired by the great sporting legacy that comes with being a part of the Olympic Park.”
Gavin Poole, CEO of Here East, added:, “As Here East continues to draw in innovators from more and more sectors, Ladbrokes Coral’s new digital product development centre fits well within the campus.
“Their newly joined up sport-technology team builds on Here East’s reputation as a centre of innovation for established companies and start-ups to collaborate, test new ideas, prototype new products and learn from each other’s expertise.”
Named LC2 and located at Here East, which formerly housed the London 2012 Olympic media team, on the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, 140 staff of both brands are charged with delivering a range of products such as CRM, ePOS and digital sportsbook platforms.
Graham Calder, Ladbrokes Coral CIO said: “With the creation of LC2 our goal is to deliver excellence for our customers by leveraging the best digital technology, to hire the best digital talent to build the best digital future.
“With our passion for sports, we can’t help but be inspired by the great sporting legacy that comes with being a part of the Olympic Park.”
Gavin Poole, CEO of Here East, added:, “As Here East continues to draw in innovators from more and more sectors, Ladbrokes Coral’s new digital product development centre fits well within the campus.
“Their newly joined up sport-technology team builds on Here East’s reputation as a centre of innovation for established companies and start-ups to collaborate, test new ideas, prototype new products and learn from each other’s expertise.”
August 31, 2017
Japan to limit online gambling
The Japanese government to limit the current online betting of racing events to help stem the concerns over gambling addiction, with the introduction of integrated resorts in the country for the first time which will happen sometime shortly after 2020 concerns over a rise in gambling addiction has risen.
At present gambling is allowed on horse, powerboat, bicycle and motorcycle racing and one of the measures will be to remove ATM machines from venues where betting is allowed to stop impulsive gambling.
“It is essential to carry out measures to prevent people from falling into unfortunate situations due to (gambling) addiction,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said.
Other measures to limit gambling addiction will be discussed following the report by the government which will be released later next month.
At present gambling is allowed on horse, powerboat, bicycle and motorcycle racing and one of the measures will be to remove ATM machines from venues where betting is allowed to stop impulsive gambling.
“It is essential to carry out measures to prevent people from falling into unfortunate situations due to (gambling) addiction,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said.
Other measures to limit gambling addiction will be discussed following the report by the government which will be released later next month.
888 to pay almost £8m for 'failing vulnerable customers' and addicts
Online gambling firm 888 has been ordered to pay of over £7.8m for not helping vulnerable customers to limit the damage of their gambling addictions.
The Gambling Commission on Thursday said that, due to a technical failure in 888’s systems, over 7,000 customers who had chosen to self-exclude from their casino, poker or sports betting platform were still granted access their accounts on 888’s bingo platform.
Self-exclusion is a facility offered by gambling sites for people who have decided that they wish to stop gambling – in some cases because they fear they have become addicted – for at least six months and wish to be supported in their decision to quit.
The commission said that in 888’s case, the issue went undetected for “a prolonged period of time” which meant that customers were able to deposit a cumulative total of £3.5m into their accounts, and then continue to gamble, for over 13 months.
888 did have a self-exclusion procedures in place, but their system was “not robust enough and failed to protect potentially vulnerable customers”, the commission said.
“Safeguarding consumers is not optional. This penalty package of just under £8m reflects the seriousness of 888’s failings to protect vulnerable customers,” said Sarah Harrison, chief executive of the commission.
In addition to the overarching charges, the commission also said that 888 had failed to recognise “visible signs of problem gambling behaviour displayed by an individual customer, which was so significant that it resulted in criminal activity”.
In that particular case, the customer staked over £1.3m, including £55,000 stolen from an employer.
Over more than a year, the customer placed a significant number of bets and gambled, on average, three to four hours a day.
“The lack of interaction with the customer, given the frequency, duration and sums of money involved in the gambling, raised serious concerns about 888’s safeguarding of customers at-risk of gambling harm,” the commission said.
"The 888 sanction package will ensure those affected don’t lose out, that the operator pays the price for its failings via a sum that will go to tackling gambling-related harm, and that independent assurance will be given to see that lessons are learnt,” Ms Harrison said.
The £7.8m sum includes repayment of the £3.5m of deposits made by those customer who had chosen to self-excluded and it also includes compensation of £62,000 to the employer from whom money was stolen in that one particular case.
The commission said that a further £4.25m would be paid to a socially responsible cause with the idea that it helps finance measures to clamp down on gambling-related harm.
For “future assurance”, the commission said that it had also ordered an independent audit of 888’s processes relating to customer protection.
888, in a statement, said that it fully cooperated with the commission throughout this process.
It said that it “regrets the historic failings highlighted by the review and accepts the conclusion of the review”.
It also listed a number of changes and improvements that have been put in place to prevent similar occurrences in future.
“The review process has pushed 888 to enhance its responsible gambling technology and policies and leaves it well placed to continue to succeed in an environment where it will engage with customers in a way that those customers and regulators will demand going forward,” the company said.
The Gambling Commission on Thursday said that, due to a technical failure in 888’s systems, over 7,000 customers who had chosen to self-exclude from their casino, poker or sports betting platform were still granted access their accounts on 888’s bingo platform.
Self-exclusion is a facility offered by gambling sites for people who have decided that they wish to stop gambling – in some cases because they fear they have become addicted – for at least six months and wish to be supported in their decision to quit.
The commission said that in 888’s case, the issue went undetected for “a prolonged period of time” which meant that customers were able to deposit a cumulative total of £3.5m into their accounts, and then continue to gamble, for over 13 months.
888 did have a self-exclusion procedures in place, but their system was “not robust enough and failed to protect potentially vulnerable customers”, the commission said.
“Safeguarding consumers is not optional. This penalty package of just under £8m reflects the seriousness of 888’s failings to protect vulnerable customers,” said Sarah Harrison, chief executive of the commission.
In addition to the overarching charges, the commission also said that 888 had failed to recognise “visible signs of problem gambling behaviour displayed by an individual customer, which was so significant that it resulted in criminal activity”.
In that particular case, the customer staked over £1.3m, including £55,000 stolen from an employer.
Over more than a year, the customer placed a significant number of bets and gambled, on average, three to four hours a day.
“The lack of interaction with the customer, given the frequency, duration and sums of money involved in the gambling, raised serious concerns about 888’s safeguarding of customers at-risk of gambling harm,” the commission said.
"The 888 sanction package will ensure those affected don’t lose out, that the operator pays the price for its failings via a sum that will go to tackling gambling-related harm, and that independent assurance will be given to see that lessons are learnt,” Ms Harrison said.
The £7.8m sum includes repayment of the £3.5m of deposits made by those customer who had chosen to self-excluded and it also includes compensation of £62,000 to the employer from whom money was stolen in that one particular case.
The commission said that a further £4.25m would be paid to a socially responsible cause with the idea that it helps finance measures to clamp down on gambling-related harm.
For “future assurance”, the commission said that it had also ordered an independent audit of 888’s processes relating to customer protection.
888, in a statement, said that it fully cooperated with the commission throughout this process.
It said that it “regrets the historic failings highlighted by the review and accepts the conclusion of the review”.
It also listed a number of changes and improvements that have been put in place to prevent similar occurrences in future.
“The review process has pushed 888 to enhance its responsible gambling technology and policies and leaves it well placed to continue to succeed in an environment where it will engage with customers in a way that those customers and regulators will demand going forward,” the company said.
Sports advertising could it be cut?
Could advertising on television especially around sporting events be curbed by the UK government? With the recent announcement from the UK Gambling Commission that as many as 2 million people were either problem gamblers or a risk of addiction and then the front page newspaper coverage of the dangers of gambling it could spell the end of current advertising during live sporting events that manage to air before the 9pm watershed time that normally gambling adverts are not allowed.
A storm is gathering. “We would be mad not to take notice of that growing background noise of concern,” says Clive Hawkswood, the chief executive of the Remote Gambling Association.
Soon there will be a review of sports betting advertising by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and many feel some new restrictions could come into force to please those campaigners that want a total ban on all gambling advertising.
There is already a president for banning all gambling adverts during sporting events, in Australia the Prime Minister said the government would move to ban all gambling advertising on television before 9pm.
Those opposed to gambling advertising say that it has got out of hand, too many adverts now during the breaks are gambling focused and with the gambling industry spending £1.4 billion on advertising since 2012 it is hard to disagree. Also opponents point to football clubs now having gambling firms as their shirt sponsors, in total 9 of the premier league teams have gambling companies as their lead shirt sponsor.
The popularity of sports in the UK and predominately football is a huge draw for a gambling company to have their brand recognised by the mass market, but is it time that gambling firms hold back a little before the government take measures against sports advertising?
A storm is gathering. “We would be mad not to take notice of that growing background noise of concern,” says Clive Hawkswood, the chief executive of the Remote Gambling Association.
Soon there will be a review of sports betting advertising by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and many feel some new restrictions could come into force to please those campaigners that want a total ban on all gambling advertising.
There is already a president for banning all gambling adverts during sporting events, in Australia the Prime Minister said the government would move to ban all gambling advertising on television before 9pm.
Those opposed to gambling advertising say that it has got out of hand, too many adverts now during the breaks are gambling focused and with the gambling industry spending £1.4 billion on advertising since 2012 it is hard to disagree. Also opponents point to football clubs now having gambling firms as their shirt sponsors, in total 9 of the premier league teams have gambling companies as their lead shirt sponsor.
The popularity of sports in the UK and predominately football is a huge draw for a gambling company to have their brand recognised by the mass market, but is it time that gambling firms hold back a little before the government take measures against sports advertising?
August 18, 2017
Japan start public hearings on Integrated Resorts
Japan has started month long open public hearings on the future of casino resorts in the country with comments accepted on how the government will shape how casinos with operate in the country.
Following the hearings the debate will move to lawmakers on what will be allowed and what will not, given that half of the nation is still opposed to the opening of casino resorts the coming month will be very interesting on how they will be restricted.
Some of the topics that will be covered in the hearings are the limit on casino space in resorts, tax rates on operators, a potential ban on ATM’s in casino resorts to limit impulsive gambling and a limit on the amount of visits local residents can make to a casino.
International operators who are eyeing the Japanese gaming market are concerned that their growth could be limited if the government make too many restrictions towards gaming.
During the hearings casino operators are also allowed to make observations and comments on the process which is held in Tokyo.
Many involved in the gaming industry application process to build integrated resorts fear the potential $25 billion a year revenues in Japan could be dramatically lower if too many restrictions are imposed.
Following the hearings the debate will move to lawmakers on what will be allowed and what will not, given that half of the nation is still opposed to the opening of casino resorts the coming month will be very interesting on how they will be restricted.
Some of the topics that will be covered in the hearings are the limit on casino space in resorts, tax rates on operators, a potential ban on ATM’s in casino resorts to limit impulsive gambling and a limit on the amount of visits local residents can make to a casino.
International operators who are eyeing the Japanese gaming market are concerned that their growth could be limited if the government make too many restrictions towards gaming.
During the hearings casino operators are also allowed to make observations and comments on the process which is held in Tokyo.
Many involved in the gaming industry application process to build integrated resorts fear the potential $25 billion a year revenues in Japan could be dramatically lower if too many restrictions are imposed.
Playtech BGT Sports momentum continues with BoyleSports extension
Playtech BGT Sports has agreed a deal to extend distribution of its self-service betting terminals (SSBTs) with BoyleSports.
As part of the agreement, another 325 of the terminals will be deployed within the Irish operator’s 225-strong estate, doubling the number to over 1,000 in the last 12 months.
Individual shop SSBT density will increase once the additional terminals have been installed, with many of the operator’s best performing shops hosting in excess of five SSBTs as they look to build upon their operating objective to offer their customers an all-encompassing service through a variety of modern mediums.
Dr. Armin Sageder, CEO of Playtech BGT Sports, said: “Our partnership with BoyleSports has been very successful since our initial deployment, and our second extension to the deal this year proves the strength of the product for the Irish customer base.
“Many shops will host more than four terminals, which illustrates that customers are seeing the tangible benefits of the machines, which have been shown to greatly add incremental revenue and increased margins, without the threat of cannibalisation to the over-the-counter product.”
Jenna Boyle, Head of Retail at BoyleSports, said: “Customer feedback for the increased offering provided by PBS’ SSBTs has required us to greatly increase the number of them across our estate to keep up with demand.
They have helped us generate record-breaking SSBT football betting turnover, and the significant incremental revenue each one generates has led to us making the decision to further increase the average density in our shop in order to further enhance our market leading retail offering.”
This agreement comes just four months after a similar deal extension, which saw PBS provide an additional 200 terminals to BoyleSports.
As part of the agreement, another 325 of the terminals will be deployed within the Irish operator’s 225-strong estate, doubling the number to over 1,000 in the last 12 months.
Individual shop SSBT density will increase once the additional terminals have been installed, with many of the operator’s best performing shops hosting in excess of five SSBTs as they look to build upon their operating objective to offer their customers an all-encompassing service through a variety of modern mediums.
Dr. Armin Sageder, CEO of Playtech BGT Sports, said: “Our partnership with BoyleSports has been very successful since our initial deployment, and our second extension to the deal this year proves the strength of the product for the Irish customer base.
“Many shops will host more than four terminals, which illustrates that customers are seeing the tangible benefits of the machines, which have been shown to greatly add incremental revenue and increased margins, without the threat of cannibalisation to the over-the-counter product.”
Jenna Boyle, Head of Retail at BoyleSports, said: “Customer feedback for the increased offering provided by PBS’ SSBTs has required us to greatly increase the number of them across our estate to keep up with demand.
They have helped us generate record-breaking SSBT football betting turnover, and the significant incremental revenue each one generates has led to us making the decision to further increase the average density in our shop in order to further enhance our market leading retail offering.”
This agreement comes just four months after a similar deal extension, which saw PBS provide an additional 200 terminals to BoyleSports.
August 17, 2017
The National Lottery found out the hard way how moronic consumers can be
You would think marketers would have worked it out by now. But many appear still to live in a perfect rose-tinted bubble in which communications are seen as a clarion call, brands are something that people want to fall in love with, and consumers are positive, upbeat citizens of the world who can’t wait to get inspired by purpose and consumption and buying stuff.
That’s how things probably look in most marketers’ Powerpoint presentations. But a dose of market orientation would change everything. You remember market orientation? It’s the core concept of marketing and can be neatly summarised with the mantra: ‘You are not the consumer’.
I prefer to take it further with clients and point out that they are, quite literally, the least qualified people on the planet to see their product or service the way that their consumers do. If you make the product you can’t see it from the customer perspective. Similarly, if you work in an agency your view of campaigns and brands and customers is total bollocks. You work from the comfortable part of the spear – the pointy end is totally different.
Campaigns are not clarion calls that unite a nation and change attitudes. They are little nudges that play on existing attitudes and interests and just do enough to turn the dial in our favour. Sure, we have our case studies where a single ad changed the world: Wonderbra, Guinness, Marmite and so on. But for these epic moments of impact there are thousands of channel-changing, page-turning, screen-swiping failures.
What’s more, these ads – the ones that interrupt the morning music or absorbing late night movie or interesting news feed – are despised. People hate advertising. They tolerate it but, offered a red button, would exterminate it tomorrow.
Brands aren’t loved by anyone either, other than the marketers who manage them. Most of these marketers live a virtual reality existence of brand love and corporate purpose. These marketers have forgotten that the fact they spend their lives working on a brand does not make up for the brief seconds of time it takes up in the consumer’s life.
Most brands are totally ignored. A few have a tiny dollop of salience, which proves enough to win market share. Still fewer have genuine meaning for customers. But this vision of consumers establishing relationships and love for brands is over-wrought marketing horseshit – the wet dreams of marketers that never actually hang out in the supermarket aisle, or listen in to call centre staff, or stand in the rain while consumers trundle past their hot new visual merchandising in that shiny big window that no-one notices.
Consumers are not consumers – only marketers think of them that way. They are people; people who view consumption, for the most part, as a mundane and necessary part of a much more interesting existence.
They don’t think that toilet paper is innovative. They don’t think their toothpaste says something about their personality. They don’t give a fuck about the brand purpose of the lightbulb they try, swearingly, to screw into the socket of their bathroom ceiling. And despite all the bright, aspirational, stock-art faces that populate marketing Powerpoint slides with the title ‘target consumer’, most of them are cynical and unpleasant. Many are total dickheads.
Now don’t take any of this to be negative. It’s realistic. And don’t assume that means campaigns and brands cannot work on consumers. Of course they can. But marketing enjoys a much harder task and less likely success rate than most would have you believe. A lot of it depends on not taking a rose-tinted view of everything, but using market orientation to understand the real situation.
Of course, that rarely happens. Instead we continue to ride our pink unicorns through the candy-coated world of marketing, building ridiculous campaigns that push for unrealistic brand goals from target consumers who do not actually exist outside of Powerpoint decks projected on a screen above a Starbucks somewhere off Charlotte Street.
Take, for example, the wonderful new work of The National Lottery and British Athletics at the London World Championships. In an attempt to “unite athletes and fans as one” the new “digitally led” campaign created an official hashtag for the British Athletics team: #Represent.
If you live in marketing land then the whole idea provides an inspirational, beautiful vision of athletics bringing together a nation and uniting people of all interests and orientations. You probably think the ad will work. You believe it will connect people to British athletics. You can see consumers being inspired by the #Represent campaign.
That’s why you also create a social media campaign in which these suddenly excited consumers can share their inspiration with others and demonstrate just how much they have united with British Athletics, as The National Lottery did. What could be better than a digital tool that allows people to select their favourite athlete, the one they connect with most, and add a personal message of inspiration and support on a board held by the sportsperson in question? And then, best of all, they can share it with other equally engaged fans and unite with them too. All in one massive, positive, entirely unrealistic vision conjured up by marketers who don’t get it.
What you get instead is a sudden reality shot from the real, cynical and entirely moronic world of the consumer. They don’t care about athletics. Or uniting with athletes. They really only care about having a laugh and being a dickhead.
And so the #Represent campaign became, for a few brief hours, before it was swiftly yanked from the public consciousness, a window into the gap between how marketing sees the world and how it really is. Rarely does the juxtaposition present itself so clearly.
Collected at the top are some of the (less offensive) messages that the #Represent campaign generated. I will not comment on them. Feel free to feel shock, anger, humour, disgust or any other emotion. But also feel the distinct separation of marketing and reality.
The messages are not pleasant but I encourage you to navigate them and take a long, hard whiff of market reality. Use them as strategic smelling salts the next time someone puts up an image of a smiling clip-art consumer, or talks about engagement or brand love or any of the other horseshit that pervades our industry.
Everything else might be wrong about the #Represent campaign, but the word itself is perfect.
That’s how things probably look in most marketers’ Powerpoint presentations. But a dose of market orientation would change everything. You remember market orientation? It’s the core concept of marketing and can be neatly summarised with the mantra: ‘You are not the consumer’.
I prefer to take it further with clients and point out that they are, quite literally, the least qualified people on the planet to see their product or service the way that their consumers do. If you make the product you can’t see it from the customer perspective. Similarly, if you work in an agency your view of campaigns and brands and customers is total bollocks. You work from the comfortable part of the spear – the pointy end is totally different.
Campaigns are not clarion calls that unite a nation and change attitudes. They are little nudges that play on existing attitudes and interests and just do enough to turn the dial in our favour. Sure, we have our case studies where a single ad changed the world: Wonderbra, Guinness, Marmite and so on. But for these epic moments of impact there are thousands of channel-changing, page-turning, screen-swiping failures.
What’s more, these ads – the ones that interrupt the morning music or absorbing late night movie or interesting news feed – are despised. People hate advertising. They tolerate it but, offered a red button, would exterminate it tomorrow.
Brands aren’t loved by anyone either, other than the marketers who manage them. Most of these marketers live a virtual reality existence of brand love and corporate purpose. These marketers have forgotten that the fact they spend their lives working on a brand does not make up for the brief seconds of time it takes up in the consumer’s life.
Most brands are totally ignored. A few have a tiny dollop of salience, which proves enough to win market share. Still fewer have genuine meaning for customers. But this vision of consumers establishing relationships and love for brands is over-wrought marketing horseshit – the wet dreams of marketers that never actually hang out in the supermarket aisle, or listen in to call centre staff, or stand in the rain while consumers trundle past their hot new visual merchandising in that shiny big window that no-one notices.
Consumers are not consumers – only marketers think of them that way. They are people; people who view consumption, for the most part, as a mundane and necessary part of a much more interesting existence.
They don’t think that toilet paper is innovative. They don’t think their toothpaste says something about their personality. They don’t give a fuck about the brand purpose of the lightbulb they try, swearingly, to screw into the socket of their bathroom ceiling. And despite all the bright, aspirational, stock-art faces that populate marketing Powerpoint slides with the title ‘target consumer’, most of them are cynical and unpleasant. Many are total dickheads.
Now don’t take any of this to be negative. It’s realistic. And don’t assume that means campaigns and brands cannot work on consumers. Of course they can. But marketing enjoys a much harder task and less likely success rate than most would have you believe. A lot of it depends on not taking a rose-tinted view of everything, but using market orientation to understand the real situation.
Of course, that rarely happens. Instead we continue to ride our pink unicorns through the candy-coated world of marketing, building ridiculous campaigns that push for unrealistic brand goals from target consumers who do not actually exist outside of Powerpoint decks projected on a screen above a Starbucks somewhere off Charlotte Street.
Take, for example, the wonderful new work of The National Lottery and British Athletics at the London World Championships. In an attempt to “unite athletes and fans as one” the new “digitally led” campaign created an official hashtag for the British Athletics team: #Represent.
If you live in marketing land then the whole idea provides an inspirational, beautiful vision of athletics bringing together a nation and uniting people of all interests and orientations. You probably think the ad will work. You believe it will connect people to British athletics. You can see consumers being inspired by the #Represent campaign.
That’s why you also create a social media campaign in which these suddenly excited consumers can share their inspiration with others and demonstrate just how much they have united with British Athletics, as The National Lottery did. What could be better than a digital tool that allows people to select their favourite athlete, the one they connect with most, and add a personal message of inspiration and support on a board held by the sportsperson in question? And then, best of all, they can share it with other equally engaged fans and unite with them too. All in one massive, positive, entirely unrealistic vision conjured up by marketers who don’t get it.
What you get instead is a sudden reality shot from the real, cynical and entirely moronic world of the consumer. They don’t care about athletics. Or uniting with athletes. They really only care about having a laugh and being a dickhead.
And so the #Represent campaign became, for a few brief hours, before it was swiftly yanked from the public consciousness, a window into the gap between how marketing sees the world and how it really is. Rarely does the juxtaposition present itself so clearly.
Collected at the top are some of the (less offensive) messages that the #Represent campaign generated. I will not comment on them. Feel free to feel shock, anger, humour, disgust or any other emotion. But also feel the distinct separation of marketing and reality.
The messages are not pleasant but I encourage you to navigate them and take a long, hard whiff of market reality. Use them as strategic smelling salts the next time someone puts up an image of a smiling clip-art consumer, or talks about engagement or brand love or any of the other horseshit that pervades our industry.
Everything else might be wrong about the #Represent campaign, but the word itself is perfect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)