Key Ideas
The gambling industry can be compared with the alcohol, tobacco, and other "dangerous consumption" industries in terms of legislation's evolution. Thus, gambling industry operators tend to utilize the experience of the tobacco industry in lobbying for their own interests.
In numbers, gambling is dominated by electronic gambling machines and casinos (not sports gambling) - at least in Australia.
Informational strategy can be best described, as shaping (distorting and selecting) the evidence base in the favor of private interests. An example could be arguing that the prohibition of gambling would lead to gambling moving to unregulated websites.
A potential threat from information strategy is the normalization of gambling.
Choosing certain facts about gambling, it is easy to forget/deliberately overlook the continuous growth in, for example, sports betting participation.
Finding the facts that fit the argument is one of the goals of internal research of gambling providers.
Policy substitution strategy is characterized by promoting positive things, like responsible gambling, as part of the advertisement. That strategy also promotes facts that are peripheral to the problem, in comparison to the issue that matters.
Constituency fragmentation and destabilization strategy aims at protecting the interests of, for example, land-based oligopolies from increased regulation.
The financial incentive is a tricky strategy that shows the positive financial effects of gambling providers on taxation, employment, and other financial support that gambling providers contribute to societies.
Sports sponsorships, as well as a variety of other gambling funding projects, tend to divert attention from banning sports gambling operators from advertisements.
The one strategy that is unique for the gambling industry, as opposed to the tobacco industry, is CSR (corporate social responsibility). The most typical example is "responsible gambling".
The positive social contribution lay at the heart of the argument for the CSR strategy.
CSR is also a reputation tool that brings access to policymakers.
One of the threats for policymakers is the co-regulation model, where gambling providers are seen as collaborators, not risky entities aiming at maximizing profits. It is important to remember that gambling providers are powerful and motivated lobbyists for public policies.
Policymakers can be compromised by gambling providers through financial support/donations to political parties.
Citations
Tobacco industry operators previously utilized six strategies: "Information strategy; Financial incentive strategy; Constituency building strategy; Policy substitution strategy; Legal strategy; and Constituency fragmentation and destabilization strategy."
Arguments of four types were found to be utilized: "Regulatory redundancy; Insufficient evidence; Negative Unintended Consequences; and Legal"
"Responsible gambling was framed in terms of the individual's responsibility to avoid harm and to act responsibly ... also reinforcing an individual choice/blame model for problem gambling, rather than a consumer protection, harm prevention perspective that would lead to bans on gambling advertising"
"Substituting what look like feasible strategies diverted attention from harsher outcomes."
Gambling industry "declaring A$1,294,501 in donations (an underestimate) to Australian political parties in 2015-16."
"Gambling taxes are a lucrative on-going source of State/Territory government revenue."
"In public policy deliberations, information asymmetry exists between the GI, government and community. The GI has inside information from its own research and data."
The aim of policymakers should be at reaching the "fair balance between the wellbeing of the community, the regulatory burden and financial implications imposed on industry"
