Online casino comparison sites (affiliates) play a crucial role in the regulated market ecosystem but are often left out of discussions about, nor given the chance to contribute to, regulatory frameworks. In some markets, regulators are even looking to ban affiliates – Finland, I’m talking about you.
This is strange given that comparison sites are the front line for educating players about responsible gambling and which brands to gamble with, making us a major driver of traffic to licensed online casinos in any given market.
For many players, comparison sites are the first port of call to find out more about online casino play and, of course, to discover brands to play at. That’s why operators lean on us so heavily for customer acquisition.
Ban affiliates from the market and you remove a significant touchpoint with players and a chance to educate them about safe gaming. You also remove the opportunity to push players to licensed brands – most players are not aware casinos need licences in the first instance.
Driving channelisation
Even in markets where comparison sites are permitted to operate, channelisation remains an issue with both Sweden and the Netherlands being good examples of rates falling below expectations. Why would you remove a channel through which to drive players to licensed operators?
Even without being given a seat at the table, affiliates can have a positive impact on channelisation, so just imagine what could be achieved if we were asked to actively participate in shaping regulations by sharing our knowledge and experience.
I often wonder why this hasn’t happened and why the people and companies that operate comparison sites are not seen as playing a significant role in the success of market regulation.
I think it could be due to the negative perception that surrounds us, which likely stems from unsavoury behaviour from a small number of sites over the years. Even today, there are comparison sites aimed specifically at self-excluded players and pushing brands that are not on GamStop and other self-exclusion registers.
This is abhorrent (and worryingly prevalent), but you can’t tarnish all comparison sites with the same brush. In the UK market alone, we have some truly great companies – from publicly listed giants to independents that genuinely care about players and, indeed, the industry we are working in.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but from Comparasino’s perspective, we want to contribute to conversations about responsible gambling, current challenges, player preferences and indeed the regulatory frameworks that govern the market.
A voice that needs to be heard
Without a voice in the conversation, we can’t share our thoughts on the impact regulatory changes might have on the market from the perspective of comparison sites, nor can we share our insights on what is and isn’t working or put forward ideas for how improvements can be made.
I think all regulators fear the black market and are concerned about how to strike the right balance between protecting players and ensuring online casinos can still deliver the experience consumers are seeking. If they can’t, they know some players will go to unlicensed brands instead.
But this is a balance many are not getting right. Let’s take the UK market, for example. Operators understand they need to be incredibly conservative with their welcome bonuses over fears they incentivise players to gamble beyond their means.
Over the past few years, this has led to most online casinos offering the same 100% deposit match up to £100 plus 20 or so free spins.
Doing away with bonus offers?
There is so little choice when it comes to bonus offers that it should come as no surprise that players are being drawn to unlicensed brands offering 500% matches and hundreds of free spins – remember, a lot of players aren’t even aware that online casinos need to be licensed in the first place.
For me, the issue is not with the bonus offer itself but rather the wagering requirements attached to it. If there’s one way to encourage players to gamble beyond their means, it’s to impose a requirement for them to wager their own money to unlock cash from a bonus.
The solution? Limit wagering requirements or do away with them entirely – at Comparasino, we are seeing more demand for no- and low-wagering casinos and some savvy brands like PlayOJO, Heart Bingo and The Pools now offer these promotions to new players.
This allows them to differentiate from their rivals while ultimately taking a more responsible approach to bonusing – so a win-win for brand, player and the comparison site as it means we can offer players searching for no- and low-wagering bonuses more choice.
I truly believe this sort of insight would be valuable to regulators and would help them strengthen player protections while ensuring consumer choice and a viable market for all stakeholders.
Playing by the same rules
Another reason for bringing affiliates into the conversation around regulations is that we are increasingly having to play by the same rules as operators, especially when it comes to marketing.
At Comparasino, we see ourselves as a brand in the same way that our online casino partners do and this means we undertake marketing activity to drive brand awareness and ensure consumers know about the services we offer.
Historically, comparison sites played mostly in the search engine results pages, but now, many are going beyond Google. We take a broad approach to marketing across SEO, paid media and out of home including radio and billboard ads.
We always undertake comprehensive research ahead of any marketing campaign to understand what rules or limitations are in place, but a lot of the time, requirements are written for operators and it can be unclear as to how they are applied to comparison sites (beyond the obvious).
Reputable affiliates will always want to work within the codes and requirements set but that can be tough when we’ve had no input into those rules. Nor is there an easy way of applying them to how we go about marketing our brands.
No oranges left to squeeze
Tightening regulations are impacting markets across the world, with all stakeholders really starting to feel the pinch. I’ve talked a lot about the UK market so far, but you don’t have to look much further afield for other examples of this.
For example, the Netherlands recently lost LiveScore Bet ahead of an increase to its tax rate. Flutter’s Tombola also left the market blaming the hike and new deposit limits that came into force in October.
If operators are feeling the squeeze, so too are the affiliates that send players to their brands – the commercial agreements we work to now are nowhere near as solid as they were just a few years ago and at a time when the cost of running a comparison business is higher than ever.
This can see some companies have a very serious discussion with the devil on their shoulder – do they keep pushing players (that they have invested significant sums in acquiring) to licensed sites that pay poorly or work with unlicensed sites offering much better deals?
For some comparison sites, this decision can come down to ensuring the viability of their business and while I would never compromise my morals for money, I can see why some are left with no other choice but to venture over to the dark side.
Of course, this is not what any of us want – and by any of us, I mean comparison sites, online casino brands and the regulators that oversee the markets we work in.
A way forward, together
This is why it’s important to bring comparison site operators into regulatory conversations, and I think the best way of doing this is through a trade body that represents us – I know there have been attempts at this before, but they have never really gained much traction.
These articles usually end with a pithy final paragraph, but this time I’d like to wrap up by asking if regulators would indeed like input from comparison sites and, fellow site operators, whether forming a body to ensure our voice gets heard is something you would support?
Over to you.
Original article: https://igamingbusiness.com/marketing-affiliates/affiliates/affiliates-seat-at-the-table-regulations/
