Operators enjoyed a fantastic Cheltenham Festival last week.
It seemed like every favourite either fell at the final hurdle or was pipped to the post across a hugely favourable four days for bookmakers.
Usually treated as an acquisition tool, brands are happy to sustain a reasonable degree of loss at Cheltenham in exchange for the influx of new customers guaranteed each March. This year, though, the industry got its cake and ate it too.
But if there's one downside to so many losing betslips being cast asunder, it's the strengthening of the "us vs. them" feeling, creating a legacy of betting bitterness.
At Cheltenham, it's often in jest – "ah, we'll get them next time!" In other situations, however, harm to the industry's reputation is much more notable and, arguably, far more needless.
Just this month, the High Court in the UK ruled that Flutter Entertainment-owned Paddy Power must pay £1m ($1.2m) to a customer who won a "Monster Jackpot" back in October 2020.
Gloucestershire-based Corrine Durber won an exact jackpot of £1,097,132.71 but was later informed this was an error, and that she'd actually won the smaller "Daily Jackpot" of £20,265.14.
How, on one seemingly disparate and competing side of the business, can a big-name operator convince its customers it is a trustworthy brand, while at the same time refusing to pay a player who won fair and square?
And yet, almost five years later – and some legal costs down the line – Paddy Power's case did not even reach a full trial, with the Judge ordering it to pay Durber on the principle of "what you see is what you get."
The case is similar to one involving Betfred four years ago, when Lincolnshire-based Andy Green was awarded £1.7m after the operator had, again, claimed the jackpot was initially awarded in error.
With judges understandably not buying the 'it was only a mistake' defence, should operators just pay out?
Do not dismiss the value of reputation
Now, on the face of it, the industry could argue that, barring additional legal costs, there is no great downside to not paying out.
Rather than losing a seven-figure sum instantly, the organisation gets to delay any payment and perhaps better account for it in advance. There is always the chance it wins the case, too...
But there is one factor that will always be in play here – and, as intangible and easy-to-dismiss as it may seem, one that will always remain fundamental.
Reputation.
How much do tier-one operators spend on safer gambling initiatives? And how much do they spend on branding themselves as responsible organisations?
Both are rhetorical questions but, even in the practical sense, the answer is: A huge amount. How, on one seemingly disparate and competing side of the business, can a big-name operator convince its customers it is a trustworthy brand, while at the same time refusing to pay a player who won fair and square?
In the UK, every time an operator refuses to pay out – and let's not forget this practice is exactly what black-market operators are constantly lambasted for – it does not just damage a singular brand, it impacts the reputation of the industry as a whole
Here, we are not even discussing the limiting of winning sports betting accounts, we are simply talking about a refusal to pay a rightful prize.
Can there ever, from a business or PR perspective, truly be any justification for something like that?
In PR terms, a brand with a parent organisation that generated £3.79bn in revenue for 2024 globally – and £963m in the UK – not paying a winning customer £1m, before very publicly being told to in court, is nothing short of an outright disaster.
A disparity in culture
Compare this to how US land-based casinos run their operations. Not only are big jackpot wins a regular occurrence, they are celebrated both inside and outside the casino.
At Gambling Insider and Gaming America, we receive countless press releases about huge jackpots being won up and down the US. There is no refusal to pay out and there is no pretending it did not happen.
It is, in fact, quite the opposite.
In the UK, every time an operator refuses to pay out – and let's not forget this practice is exactly what black-market operators are constantly lambasted for – it does not just damage a singular brand, it impacts the reputation of the industry as a whole.
Flutter highlighted its history of awarding large winnings during its recent court case, including a £5.7m jackpot payout in 2024. But does that only serve to further highlight the inconsistent and questionable decision-making on this occasion?
Some years ago, I lauded Paddy Power's marketing prowess – something it continues to demonstrate to a very high standard.
But there is something so jarring about a brand (and the wider industry) putting so much effort into its marketing, investing so much in sustainable and responsible gambling, and then undermining it all in one fell swoop with cases like this.
Trust is extremely difficult to build and extremely easy to lose.
