STEVE RUDDOCK: Brianne, why don’t you tell everybody how you ended up in the wonderful world of gambling.
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (00:00:17): I know, right? Something quite unexpected. So, my background is in government affairs. I have a degree in political science and world religions, and truth be told, I was in DC and I was lobbying on behalf of a small business program. I was very happy. I was working with Congress, the White House, the Small Business Administration, and then life happens, right? Life kind of has its unique way of kind of upending the trajectory you think you’re going to be on. And I needed to go back home to Massachusetts to be with my family. And so, back to the drawing board, right? You’re in DC, the hub of government affairs. What now? Little did I know, there was this tiny nonprofit now known as the Mass Council on Gaming and Health, formerly the Mass Council on Compulsive Gambling, that had just secured enough private funding from the gaming industry.
(00:01:13): Now, their focus was obviously on problem and responsible gambling policy, and it was very much one of those inflection points of whether we even need a GR program. What would that look like? At the time, Massachusetts didn’t even actually have any casinos stood up. This was back in 2013. Problem gambling had just been newly defined in the DSM-5. For those that may not know, that’s kind of the clinical bible, so to speak, that tells us what kind of addictions there are and how they’re treated. Anyway, they took a chance on me. I took a chance on them, a gamble, so to speak, and I guess you could say the rest is history. From there, I found myself back in DC in 2018, right around the time of PASPA, serving as the first-ever legislative director for Keith White at the National Council, where I went from dealing with a few states to all 50, Puerto Rico, and Guam. After a few years, I went over to Epic Risk Management, where we went global, and I worked across the world in this area. And now, here I am, two and a half years into having my own firm. I do work continuously across the US and the globe. And pretty much my personal and professional passion is trying to elevate the discourse around problem and responsible gambling policy.
STEVE RUDDOCK: So one of the things I really like about you when you’re on, whether you’re speaking at front of the Mass Gaming Commission or if it’s more prepared testimony, is you’re very balanced with your talking points. So it tends to be a very polarized discussion when problem gambling comes up, but you seem to be able to look at it from the operator’s perspective, the customer’s perspective, and also with some empathy towards the opposite side’s argument, which is I think probably the hardest part which, because sometimes when people say things you don’t necessarily agree with, you just dismiss it out of hand. But you seem to do a pretty good job of, okay, so I understand that you feel that way, but here’s what’s going on. How do you get to that point? Or what is it about you that allows you to do that? And before you answer that, though, do you gamble?
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (00:04:35): I do gamble, and now there’s going to be a whole bunch of people who go, “The problem gambling woman gambles!” Yes, I do gamble, and I feel that it adds value to my work. Thank you for your very kind words. I really do intentionally and strategically strive for balance. I take the responsibility that is before me of giving guidance to regulatory agencies, policymakers, and the industry very seriously. I’m very upfront with almost every client or individual I work with. I’m not the woman you’re going to hire to tell you you’re great. I’m the woman you hire to tell you how you’re going to get better. And I think that that’s through a balanced approach. We have to look at this from all the different angles, but yes, I do gamble, and I gamble intentionally so I can better understand the products, how they’re designed, how they’re meant to be engaged with maybe some of those gaps in them, what leaves them more vulnerable or lends itself to have higher rates of problematic play or engagement.
(00:05:46): I think most recently, I was quoted talking about how, yes, in fact, the lottery is gambling, but there is so much that is still misunderstood about gambling in general, let alone gambling and problem gambling. So look, because I don’t come from this from a place of experience where I have suffered harm, I don’t have someone immediately in my family. I think that sometimes, it allows me to offer multiple sides. I take no objection, and I completely understand and appreciate an individual who might be giving testimony, who has experienced harm, would see it in one very distinct light. I can see how an operator who develops and loves and gives everything to these products might be defensive when someone is accusing their product of creating harm when that might not really be the intent. It just might be an unintended consequence. So, I hope what I bring is an understanding and an appreciation for how this ecosystem needs to work.
(00:07:01): The regulators sometimes have to be a little aggressive. The operators have to understand, intended or not, your product might be causing a little bit more harm the way it’s being deployed and individuals who have suffered harm. Yes, this was your experience. It is very real. It is very important, but that might not be the case for everyone. So I’m kind of famous for a line. Prohibition does not get rid of addiction, and I believe that, I believe we need to do more, but I don’t think some of the narrative around, well, we just can’t have it, is going to actually solve any of the problems that we all, I believe do care about. How do we minimize the amount of harm that exists and will continue to exist? Just how do we mitigate the amount of harm? But getting rid of gambling isn’t going to ever get rid of gambling addiction. People like to gamble, legally or not.
STEVE RUDDOCK (00:08:06): It’s one of those things-I’ll do my usual, I’ll just do like a martial arts reference. If you watch Cobra Kai, you don’t quote the way Cobra Kai is run. Yeah, that’s not what you want to do. But you also see with Miyagi-do that. You have a lot of unintended bad consequences that come out, like, yes, you want this idyllic version of what martial arts training is, but unfortunately, you’re dealing with real people, and in the show, it’s teenagers, so you’re not going to get anything idyllic. You’re going to get things and problems that surface that you really can’t handle. One of the things that I kind of probably harp on too much, and some people think I’m really criticizing them, but I’m not, is understanding what the unintended consequences of these policies that people are requesting actually have. You have to; the way I look at it is, I mean, one of my, I’ll just call it a superpower, is as soon as somebody gives me an idea, I immediately try to punch holes in it. And some people get very annoyed with me. Sometimes, my wife does. But yeah, it’s one of those things that I just do. I immediately say, well, yeah, you could do that, but if you do that, what if X happens? Right? So, with a lot of the policies that you see enacted, how do you feel they rate on the scale of usefulness? And then what do you think is sitting on the sideline that is super useful that people aren’t doing?
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (00:10:06): Look, we’ve seen the gamut, right? We’ve seen things that are, I believe, well intended; let me start with this. What I always try to bring to the conversation is an unfiltered discussion around what is the intent here? What is the goal? But my issue is I’m starting to see this common trend where we’re passing regulations or legislation that makes people feel good. It makes them feel like they’re doing something. Yes, I’m addressing problem gambling, and two things are going to happen. They don’t put any considerations or metrics into deciding or using judgment if this was efficacious or if this did anything. Most of the time, when I’ll say, well, what is success here? Do you just want to feel like you did something, or do you actually want to do something? And if you actually want to do something, what is the success here?
(00:11:11): What was the thing you wanted to do? And if we get 90% there, are we on the right path? Do we have to get a hundred percent? Is it 50? What is it? So, I’m starting to see a lot of things about disclosures. Right now, I’ve been talking about problems and responsible gambling policy since before it was the cool or important thing, right back in the day when we had 25 different helplines. It’s not uncommon for us to still see regulations being discussed. We’re debating legislation about what we should be posting on ads. And because gambling often operates in a silo, we’re missing the wider point. What is the point or the intent behind posting? Because if we get into that discussion, then we would start talking about the font size and the placement or all the other disclaimers and disclosures that are on an ad.
(00:12:09): So it’s really well intended to post a helpline. I get it. Everybody would probably agree, but because nobody is discussing it further than that, I feel like they’ve made their point. We’re not exactly going anywhere. Yeah, there are some discussions about how helplines are going up, and I live and breathe this. I can attest that yes, in fact, more people are suffering harm because there are more products in the market, but this policy needs more. I don’t believe everything has to be very complicated, and I don’t think we have to debate it for years. We do eventually have to make a decision, but man, oh man, Steve, it’s really starting to bug me that we can even get the posting of a number decided across the US in what form and for what reason. And is that phone number really important for the demographic you’re worried about?
(00:13:00): I don’t know. Nobody’s talking about the demographic. You’re worried about why you need to post a number. So I’m very frustrated in that respect that I think everybody feels like they’re doing the right thing, really. We’re not moving the needle. What do I think sideline right now? I think because it’s so widely misunderstood by regulators and lawmakers about how data is used to drive things like iGaming and sports spreading or at least mobile, they’re missing how to require that same data to be analyzed or used for good. I’m going to talk about the round table heard around the world for a minute. I was asked to give some further context on a mask and commission hearing on limiting. Limiting happens for players because they’re analyzing the data, right? They’re analyzing that data. And I said from my perspective, we could analyze that data more, I believe, as an industry to people who might be going down the wrong path.
(00:14:07): Maybe they’re not full-blown I have or meet the criteria for gambling addiction, but they could really have an unhealthy relationship with the amount of time, the amount of money they’re gambling at large. We do not see any mention of analyzing data to understand the player with the intent of potentially limiting their ability to continue to gamble because signs point to this not going in the right path. I believe the use of data analysis and AI for problem and responsible gambling is missing more than it should be. At least in the US, We do see other jurisdictions. I talk a lot more about this, but from my perspective here, that’s the glaring gap in our policies.
STEVE RUDDOCK (00:14:59): Yeah, it’s such a tricky one, too, because unless it’s universal, it doesn’t work, right? Then, the person just goes to another sports book, and unless I have a thesis, it probably has a lot of holes. And if it was me looking at it, I’d be asking a lot of questions. But in general you have to get somebody new to gambling to make an affirmative statement of what problem gambling looks like. And as they start to turn towards that, you can then say you can point to it. You can’t do it after the fact because the person has been conditioned for a certain amount of time to No, no, this is normal for me. I’m fine. I’ve been doing this without incidents. Yeah, I’ve racked up a little debt, but it’s a big deal; everybody has debt. But if they had that affirmative statement at the beginning where you’re not going to catch everybody, right?
(00:15:59): It’s not a fail-safe, but you could then say to that person very gently like, Hey man, it looks like you’re kind of acting like that person you said you wouldn’t act like. So that’s my thesis. So problem gambling is it has to start very early. And I’ve said this with Jamie Salsburg a few times, right now, I feel like it’s a Vermont highway, so there’s an exit every 50 miles, and what we need is an off-ramp every mile so that you don’t go, I have to get to that exit before I can get out of here. You can get off at any point you want.
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (00:16:43): I’m going to actually complicate your thesis a little bit in the sense that what we need to also understand is that the definition of problem gambling for you and me could be completely different. I could not have been more excited. Now, excited is not really the right word because it was a very sobering, humble moment to see a man of such high profile talk about his relationship with gambling. I’m talking about Phil Mickelson, but the one thing when Phil came out and tweeted that I believe has been like that unspoken component, a gambling nobody really talks enough about, is that it’s not just about the money. I might have a problem with my gambling because I can’t put it down at the dinner table and ask my kids how their day was. And so not only do we need those off-ramps every mile, we need to understand that I might need to use it at the mile marker, not because I can’t pay my mortgage or my electric bill, but because I’ve become so consumed that it’s out of balance with the rest of my life.
(00:17:56): And I think, as an industry, we have to be willing to accept, and this is a hard one to ask, and I’m very empathetic about it. We have to understand that we are propelled by getting people to engage and retain. We’ve very much seen a migration from how do we go and get customers to how do we retain them? We might have to swallow the fact that even if financially someone looks like they can afford this, maybe when we see how much time they’re on a platform, it might not be best for them. Maybe we’ve got to stop sending that 300th push notification or text message so they can go to the pool with their kids for a bit. You know what I mean? So I a hundred percent agree with you. I think that we have to just do a better job of understanding the definition of problem gambling and that not everybody is going to meet that definition in the same way. Phil Mickelson can afford all of his bills, to my best knowledge, but he still said his life significantly improved and his relationships when he let it go; I believe that’s the type of discourse we need to be having. When we discuss those policies you asked about until we start to really define it, we’re all kind of guilty of that warm and fuzzy feeling.
STEVE RUDDOCK (00:19:18): Yeah, Jamie says that a lot, right? He says that it’s the escape of gambling. It is kind of like a vicious cycle. So, if you miss your kids’ sporting events, then you miss a birthday party. And now, internally, you feel bad about that when the gambling is done; this is what I constantly say that you’re not a problem gambler 24 hours a day. You understand? Wow, I shouldn’t have done that. Just like everybody else, when you do something you regret, but then you start feeling bad about it, what’s your typical escape? Well, it’s gambling. So what do you do when you feel bad? You go back to gambling, and you try to get that euphoric high if you can win, but it doesn’t last because then you come home, and you’re like, oh, your concert was tonight. Oh, sorry. I always said that one of the scariest things I think I’ve ever heard somebody say, it was a couple of days before Christmas; I was playing cards at Foxwoods, so this would’ve been like, oh, 2003, somewhere in that timeframe. And a gentleman at the table pulls more money out of his pocket, which is typical at a poker table, and he says, mumbles something about that’s money for his kid’s bicycle. And it is always stuck with me that he’s thinking, I’m going to get my kid a better bicycle as I think what was going through his head. But I’m like, you’re doing what now? And to your point, it’s not just that. It’s what are you doing to that relationship, and why are you here right now and not with your wife or whoever and trying to buy that bicycle? Why are you here when this is supposed to be your priority?
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (00:21:17): Exactly. And I think that gets to the exact nucleus of gambling addiction or problem gambling. You can have an unhealthy or problematic relationship with gambling but not have an addiction, just like you can with alcohol or smoking. Although, arguably, smoking is never good or safe. You can gamble, and you can drink alcohol in a safe manner, but the truth is, it’s behavioral. So you’re making a choice. You’re choosing a behavior to prioritize gambling over your child. You are choosing to listen to your ego or that drive that you can make more money and suppress the fact that you could lose it. I mean, there is so much about just human behavior. There’s a reason that motivational interviewing and CBT are most effective in trying to treat family addiction. We don’t have to go clinical here in this discussion, but the truth is you have to understand human behavior, human behavior, and how it relates to the desire to gamble.
(00:22:21): And we gamble in many aspects of our lives. I mean, it is not just about gambling through going to a casino, playing poker, sports betting. We take gambles all the time, and everybody has unique risk threats. Some are more conservative, while others are more prone to take risks. I’m not inclined to jump off of a building and go skydiving. Some people love that, right? It’s everybody has their own approaches and behaviors. The same pertains to gambling addiction. For me, it’s just how the products either incentivize or try to curb; I don’t want to call it exploiting; I really don’t believe it’s always exploiting, but how do they leverage? How are these products leveraging human behavior to increase engagement and participation, or in this case, we’re talking about over-participation oversaturation in one’s life? How do we strike that balance to create a flourishing business and to make sure that people are, I don’t know, given those offerings, given those exits when needed?
(00:23:30): I think this because we still very much talk about this in the wrong way, and we conflate responsible gambling problem gambling. If you and I were out right now with a bunch of our friends and we’re having some drinks and I decide I’m going to sit the next round out, I’m just going to have a glass of water, I don’t think anybody would have to sit me down and be like, Brianne, do you have a problem with your drinking? It would be like, Hey, good on you. It’s a glass. Nobody would make a thing about it. Right? Now, what happens? Somebody takes a cool off, and everybody’s talking about, like, well, does this mean this person has a problem? Do I cut them off? Do I send them all the RG resources, or technically, what they mean is the problem gambling resources? Now, are you stigmatizing or signaling someone who needs a break, but maybe someone who uses cool off really has a problem? I mean, we have a lot we need to figure out, and we need to do a lot better.
STEVE RUDDOCK (00:24:35): I saw a really good statement one time. It was from somebody in the eSports industry, Cody Luongo, who does the Sharpr newsletter, and he said that when you say my product is about entertainment, he has a really good baseline of how you figure that out. Is it entertaining without the money involved? Would people do it if there wasn’t a chance to win money? And I always see this when I am at the casino, so cards are a very entertaining thing for me. Blackjack, to me, is not entertaining at all, but to some people, it is. Slots, to me, just aren’t fun. But I understand that some people derive some kind of enjoyment from that. So it’s almost like I would like to see if you had these games, if people will play them anyway. Not a lot of people play poker.
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (00:25:39): But I think we’re going to start to see that with this new, it’s not new, but sweepstakes and free play games and how do they leverage them? I mean, what the engagement is in the free sector and then how that translates into the play, I believe, is a nice window into exactly what you’re talking about. I mean, obviously, I think people do like it, find some entertainment, and will migrate it over to up the ante, so to speak. I think it’s just figuring out if you need that extra skin or the money to get that fulfillment or if could do it for nothing. I have a family member who absolutely loves slots similar to you. I don’t understand it. I don’t derive much enjoyment or entertainment from it, but they loved it so much they got us that machine out of commission to bring in their house and would just play it with fake money. I was like, okay, you really do just love this thrill.
(00:26:49): Not my cup of tea. But I think your point’s really well made. I think that that is also what needs to be asked about by prevention groups and others. When we’re talking about exposure for kids, kids are really the hot topic in problem gambling right now. All the mainstream media pieces, problem gambling, it’s about the kids. What is it about the kids? The kids have access to a lot of these things. Free play. I mean, there’s no point in denying it here. I was one of the most vocal critics of the Nickelodeon “Pick ‘em” free game. I love it. It didn’t cost any money. They could win prizes. But in my mind it was something we should have talked more about from a grooming aspect. The kids really need to know all the lingo and the language really need, but many argued it was fun and it was harmless. And now we could debate the harm versus harmless. But I think you’re exactly right, Steve. It comes down to how much entertainment and enjoyment is arrived if I remove that element of money that’s to be won or lost from the situation.
STEVE RUDDOCK (00:28:03): So a good example of that, especially with kids, I would say, is bingo.
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (00:28:08): Yes.
STEVE RUDDOCK (00:28:09): Bingo. It’s a gambling game, especially when there are prizes involved. A lot of people will play it with no money; they’ll just play it for fun. But it’s one of those things where my take on this is exposure is fine as long as it’s not a thumb-on-the-scale exposure. So if you’re playing bingo and it’s at some, you’re at a camp or something, you’re playing bingo, and pretty much everybody’s going to win a prize, you’re setting a very unreal expectation for how this game actually works. But if you’re doing it standard, then you’re setting a real expectation. The kids start to understand, oh, I’m not going to win every time. This was a problem with my kids with raffles because my family reunion has a raffle or my old family reunion, but we don’t do it anymore. And there was a kid’s raffle, and there weren’t a lot of kids, and so they would always win something.
(00:29:14): So we went to another thing, I think, like a pancake fest or something, and they didn’t win, and it threw them for a loop. They did not understand how that happened because I didn’t realize it at the time, but that raffle had set an unreal expectation of how these things work. So I think when there’s a thumb on the scale element, I’ll say this about freemium games, I’m always a little concerned that the payouts aren’t correct in the free play part of it, and then they become correct when actual money is put down. I don’t know how prevalent that is anymore, but I know it was ten years ago. One of the scariest things other than that guy with the bicycle I’ve heard was a G2E chat where a guy who did free-play games was talking about the freemium model, and he was like, oh yeah, less than 1% of the customers convert, and he is like one person is responsible for, and he gave this crazy number, and he was saying it was a good thing. And I was like, wait a minute. One person is basically driving all your revenue out of a hundred thousand users. That doesn’t sound like a good.
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (00:30:35): Model. And I have been a little forthcoming in public that I have very similar sentiments, Steve, that I am worried that the business model right now is built on a few, and I can imagine the panel because you and I go to conferences and panels all over the world, you hear all different angles of this. But it’s basically, I imagine the argument was don’t worry. You don’t need to see a high conversion rate because it’s only going to take one or two to achieve your revenue goals. I get it. I can hear the panel without being there.
(00:31:14): I’m very worried that that is the overarching business model right now, freemium in the iCasino, I am starting to become a little nervous, not panicked, not sounding off the alarm bells, but we’re starting to see the truth in how few people, the majority of revenue is being built. And that comes into things like, why aren’t we talking more about the IP programs? Why aren’t we talking more about these free games and converting over? I consider them a supplier. They’re suppliers, so how did they factor into rates of harm? Why are we talking about compensation for employees that really do drive customer engagement with the platforms? Excuse me? Are there some inherent vulnerabilities to the way that the business is being designed right now that could be leading to increased scrutiny around responsible gambling? So we can keep talking about logos and we can keep talking about self-exclusion or advertising, but are we missing it? We don’t do enough to talk about the basic design of the industry. That, to me, is going to be when we start to see a change in the rate of gambling-related harm, and I’m going to use that term; I think it’s encompassing problematic play and gambling addiction. And again, abolishing it doesn’t take care of either of those people who are going to gamble.
STEVE RUDDOCK (00:32:53): And you see that even just, I would say, with bonuses or I don’t really care about these things, they don’t happen a ton. And the people who complain about them, I feel, are missing the actual point of it, which is when they refund bets because of some freak accident or something. My problem isn’t that you’re giving that person the unreal expectation. You’re giving the person who’s getting their second chance bet this unreal expectation. You’re giving the person the $500 bonus bet when they deposit 500. They’re like, well, I’m only down 300. Well, no, you’re down more than 300 because you lost 500. It’s just that you happen to get bonus money that covers some of that. So I think those types of things are way and the VIP programs I won’t even get into. I’ve written about it. I find those bizarre, at least the way the current iterations of them.
(00:33:55): I’m sure there are specific ways that they can be done decently. And honestly, if you’re doing it really well, then it’s probably a responsible gambling tool because you’re identifying your biggest players and having some type of personal relationship with them. But as it stands now, I mean some of the stories all I think when I see it is how did you let somebody place an $80,000 bet on Jontay Porter’s totals? How did you let some DFS player bet $20 million? Let’s forget about what he was doing. How did that happen? I don’t even understand how that happened. How did we not
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (00:34:36): Ask for sorts of funds? How did we not ask about further context? I mean, I’m hearing about instances where people are being approached about VIP and they’ve never even opened an account. I mean, what is the barrier to entry here? When I think about what is an appropriate VIP, you want at least a little bit of information, a little bit of history, or a relationship that’s existed in the book before you try and convert them over. I mean, some of the trends we’re seeing are not ideal. And when we talk about what are true existential threats to the industry, this is what I’m talking about. Policymakers are just dying to figure out how to minimize the amount of damage here. And I have to tell you, I think VIP is probably like a sitting duck.
STEVE RUDDOCK (00:35:35): And honestly, it’s a self-inflicted wound, right? You’re looking at, I mean, I don’t like to cast dispersions on lawmakers. It’s a very difficult job, but they are looking for wins. And when you serve them something, and you say, listen, nobody is going to care about this. So it’s one of the things I’ve been talking about with the advertisement restrictions is people don’t believe that this will happen. And I was like, nobody is going to go to their congressmen and go, I really wish you wouldn’t have done that. I enjoyed the sports betting ads. There isn’t a person in the universe that is going to take that position. So when you actually just serve them up a policy win of this sort, and it just screams to the base, especially depending on which side of the aisle and really any side of the aisle, if you are a Democrat, you’re going to speak to people about social harms. If you’re a Republican, you went up to the Christian conservative base to begin with. So you’re kind of just serving it up perfectly for all of these different people.
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (00:36:52): I think that’s an interesting scenario here. It’s like we’re saying the quiet part out loud. We’re handing them the reasons on a gold platter. And as much as I’ve seen some new data and surveys about how there’s been a downturn in the amount of money, but not enough that people are seeing that, and by the way, sure, national ads might be down by at large, influencers are still popping up every day. We’re talking about it on everything. I give presentations about basically the migration of how we went from just casinos to the way we talk about casinos and lottery to the way we talk and interact with gambling all the time. You’ve got pizza companies, telephone companies, everybody who can get in on the actions, so to speak, has, and all of that is in the face of these policymakers. And to your point, the public doesn’t go to policymakers when they’re feeling good.
(00:37:55): I mean, it’s kind of like being a doctor, right? You’d love to see people when they’re feeling great and it’s preventative care, but not of 10 times. You see, when they’re sick, policymakers feel the exact same type of pressure. They get negative feedback about something that’s happening, and they are responding in very few instances of gambling policy. Have we ever seen it be done in a proactive manner? Arguably, in Maryland, Massachusetts, and some instances of New York, have we seen proactive policies to address problem gambling? In every other instance, it’s reacting. Reacting to either something that happened with the industry or reacting to the public outcry. That’s exactly what’s happening right now with advertising. It’s all going to be reactionary.
STEVE RUDDOCK (00:38:47): I mean, to that point, so some of my listeners may not know this, but I basically credit you for allowing affiliates into Massachusetts. I don’t think without you explaining the situation to them. I think if they had a different RGPG person on that, it could have turned out very differently. But it is, it’s something that when the policymakers are looking at this, their job is to know a little bit about a lot of things. I have not found one aspect of the gambling industry that isn’t extremely complicated and nuanced, and there are so many parts of this industry that I don’t know anything about.
(00:39:40): I know what the word is, and I don’t really understand anything else about it. If you asked me what the risk team does in a sports book, I’d be like, well, they kind of do the odds for the, I don’t know. I have no idea how that works. I just don’t have the time to get into it. If you ask me what are the gaming laws in Wyoming, I’d be like, I really don’t want to speak to that. I don’t know. I’d have to go look it up. And then I probably spend a few days kind of digging into the history of it and everything else. But it seems like when the industry’s going in front of the policymakers, they’re expecting that they’re talking to somebody who completely understands what they’re saying. And at the end of the day, they’re like, what was that word he used? I don’t know; what did she say? I have no idea what that is. And I think it throws him for a loop.
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (00:40:41): I think so, and I mean, I do feel for regulators because sometimes we’re talking about people who are appointed who may not have any gambling experience. So now they’re in this position of authority with an industry that they have no visibility into, and now they’re expected to regulate it. And I think that sometimes it’s very well intended that they want to show an act of good faith to bring the industry to state their case. But then, of course, the industry gets defensive, and obviously, they have their own agenda that they want it to be possible. I feel as though I am very privileged to hopefully be that balanced approach commentator about it, because I do know how it works on the inside. While yes I have established, I believe, my brand around the problem and responsible gambling policy, I have actively pursued trying to better understand all of the policies and the way the industry works.
(00:41:45): Because you cannot just give advice around this issue if you only understand that, similar to the fact that everything else doesn’t operate in a silo or a vacuum, neither does problem and responsible gambling policy, and I feel as though I’m better positioned to advise regulators on matters of like, yes, can affiliates be problematic if you don’t license them, if you don’t have basic criteria? But actually, that’s not where most people are complaining about advertising. Now, that’s hard for an affiliate to articulate. Naturally defensive, and regulators are just getting public feedback and thinking, oh my gosh, I got to shut this down because that’s the only option we have here. Everything is not binary. And I think sometimes it takes someone who has no proverbial skin on either side in the game to be like, let’s talk about this. Let’s just pull off the Band-Aid and figure out exactly what’s going on. Now, ultimately, they weren’t allowed to do a rev share in Massachusetts about this. That does seem to be a new trend. It remains controversial across the globe if rev share models are more predatory than a click-for rate. Nonetheless, you have to understand that while I do strive for balance here, I’m sure it’s no surprise that there are plenty of people who don’t love or accuse me of being an industry sym.
(00:43:20): Look, I’m unapologetic. I’m not going to be everybody’s cup of tea or everyone’s friend, but when I train advocates, there’s something I say, and I really mean it, and I have to lead by example. Don’t ever lie or exaggerate because you feel it somehow gets your issue a stamp of more importance, or it will come to the top of the pile. Look, you’re talking about addiction, whatever. There are lots of causes out there. Childhood cancer, homelessness, right? You are one of the many. I feel the same way about regulations. You just got to go in and be like, look, here’s the truth of the matter. It’s your decision to make. But regulators deserve to have someone who can come in and present both sides and hopefully the most balanced, unbiased way. So, back to your very, very first question, I work very intentionally to try to see all angles because I don’t believe any of this is binary. I don’t believe anything is inherently predatory to create addiction, and everything is as rose-colored glasses as the industry would love us to see, right? There are two sides to all of this. It’s just how we find the best compromise.
STEVE RUDDOCK (00:44:39): Yeah, there’s definitely a class of, let’s say, activists in the space who, I pretend that they’re looking out for people, but what they really want is prohibition, and they won’t come out and say it. They’re like, no, no, no, I don’t want prohibition. It’s just I want this one policy that’s going to do absolutely nothing. So then when it does nothing, I can come back and tell you, look, that didn’t work, so we got to go another step. And I feel that way about the player prop bans. I don’t even understand what we’re doing because whether player X is on Fresno State, I have a free throw bet on him, or I have a bet on Fresno State when he misses the free throw. If I’m an asshole better, I’m going to be mad. It doesn’t matter if it’s his team bet, and it doesn’t matter if I placed the bet legally or illegally offshore.
STEVE RUDDOCK (00:45:41): So it’s a situation where we’ve created a solution to a problem that doesn’t address the problem, and now, when it doesn’t, what does the NCAA do next? They shouldn’t be betting on any college sports. Then that does become a black market concern for me. Like the player prop thing, whatever, somebody really, somebody needs to bet on a random college player that bet, yeah, go ahead, go find Bovada and whatever. But when it’s every college, then that’s a problem.
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (00:46:12): Yeah. I mean, I am a little bit nervous myself to see if this really does achieve the goal here. No doubt, throughout my work, I have seen an increase in the amount of harassment both on social media and in the stadium on these kids, and I’m worried it’s so hard to be a student. It’s really hard to be a student-athlete. Now, add in seeing yourself on TV with lines or having people yell at you, or I’ve got a few college kids I work with who get Venmo requests, I even have one pro that I work with who gets Venmo requests on the regular from angry betters. Would I love to see this curbed? Yeah, it’s no secret. I was very nervous when we were talking about legalization, when we were talking about college betting. And for me, I didn’t think in-state bans were going to actually achieve anything. As I saw it, we opened Pandora’s box when the first state legalized college betting because social media doesn’t understand state jurisdictions.
(00:47:20): I have not seen a lot of evidence. Now it’s going to be impossible to find, right? What does the black market experience when we prohibit something? Is there really a surge? I do, although, say that if this is the row we’re headed down, the component that has to be there is enforcement. We have to get serious about holding people who are bad actors accountable. I know a lot of people are against this. It would’ve been the prop band, that is; it would’ve been a good first step to say what would happen if we just take enforcement really seriously. But again, talk about the boogeyman in the room. Where’s the DOJ?
(00:48:08): Not to bring up another iffy subject, but like the excise tax, right? It was supposed to address illegal gambling. It’s never really been utilized in that way. A lot of states are doing absolutely nothing for enforcement. Now we’re talking about increased concerns of harassment for kids. Did you see the NCAA data they had put out, like 4,000 threats were turned over. I’d love to see some data about how many of those were acted on. How many of those were really found to be worthy of prosecution? Were the states stepping up for me? That’s the type of information we need before we take a policy to the next level. And that is, by and large, missing from all of this. Nobody is actually asking the questions of, okay, cool, 50,000 threats increased to women. 4,000 turned over. What happened to those 4,000? Can we show that something was favorable in this case? Did harassment decrease after there was action on those 4,000 instances? Then we don’t have to ban anything. So, for me, again, I don’t think it’s cut and dry, but I’ve been worried about this issue since we opened up college. But banning college betting doesn’t seem pragmatic. That’s not happening, Steve. I’d be shocked, nor do I think I would jump on that bandwagon.
STEVE RUDDOCK (00:49:37): Do you know who Karl Pilkington is from the Ricky Gervais Show? He did a show called “An Idiot Abroad.” They asked him, what would your superpower be? And I think we need this in every legislative hearing, is he said he would be bullshit, man. And he said, when somebody says something, he would just fly in through the window and go, that’s bullshit. And then he would leave. I think we need that person not just for the industry but for, like you were saying, there’s a group that is very exaggerating when they speak about things, and they pick up on these little bits of information that are just floating around the internet and shoot it out as if it’s gospel. And then what ends up happening is the conversation gets so muddy that nobody’s really, you get derailed because you’re trying to solve a problem, but now you’re arguing over data points and where’d you get that from? And what do you mean? Well, we have this, I mean, the whole cannibalization thing is a great example of that where I don’t know, but your guess is as good as mine. I don’t know. I see data both ways. Oh, well, if you start in 2009, it says this, or you start in 2011, it says this. If you only count these states, it says this. And then we expect, like we’re saying, some poor lawmaker to go, oh, yeah. Well, this is obviously the correct analysis here when it’s like nobody really knows.
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (00:51:27): And here’s the thing, Steve, because I have lobbied in so many of the states, I want you to imagine that scenario and think about this poor lawmaker who’s trying to synthesize all of this information that is, in some cases, bullshit. Some of it is agenda-serving, right? And imagine that when the 90 days of the session are over, he’s going to go home and run his CPA firm, or he’s going to go home and he’s going to be a farmer. I mean, you’re talking about your average men and women who are just trying to serve their state to actually make decisions around things that they have very, very if not, working knowledge of how these laws and how these debates are starting to play out around things like cannibalization. For those of us who are on the GR side, the irony and, almost sometimes the frustration and laughing ability that comes with this.
(00:52:26): I mean, they are doing the best that they can, but you’re just like, do you even understand this? We live it day in and day out and we can’t tell you what is right or wrong here. And it always really reaches such a fun point when everybody starts bringing up the poster boards. That, to me, is the moment of moments in the hearings, whether it’s the person giving the testimony, whether it’s the opposing side, or whether it’s the legislator, and everybody’s got their poster boards screaming about their graphs. And really, you know what this comes down to? It comes down to the risk. The risk a state wants to take and the behaviors of the policymakers -what is their risk threshold of believing anyone was all of these sides? I have to tell you, 2025, −26, −27; my money is on very interesting legislative years or sessions and years here. I think the cannibalization is only getting started, my friend.
STEVE RUDDOCK (00:53:29): It’s always been there. It’s always going to be there. And there’s really no way to debunk it because there’s always, I think Craig Billings made a really good point when he said, yes, market-wide. There isn’t cannibalization, but that’s like saying, I understand that the breadwinner in your family has lost their job, but the economy’s doing great. I don’t know what your problem is. It’s very individual. When you get down to corporations, when you get down to corporations who have public shareholders, when you have all these different things floating around, and when you have corporations who can influence the government, and you have other competitors of theirs who can’t have the same clout. I mean, this was what I saw in California all those years ago with poker. There’s a handful of tribes there who singularly can decide if something is going to go through. So you really, they don’t get the deal they like, and this isn’t a slight on them or anything. It’s just the way it is. I think it was Catherine Spilde who said it, who runs the San Diego State; if you dig a billion-dollar hole in the ground and employ 3000 people, you should have a pretty good say on what happens with gambling in the area. And that’s what I think people don’t understand. They also don’t understand the amount of clout a labor union has, the amount of clout small businesses have. These are the people who vote,
(00:55:17): And when you march up a hundred of them at a hearing they were going to do in Illinois, then the hearing gets canceled because, you know what? I don’t need this kind of nonsense in my life over online casino games is pretty much how I feel. Every lawmaker looks at it. I feel like it’s almost like trial balloons. They send one up. If there’s any pushback, they’re like, oh, hold on, let me pull that back down. If there’s no pushback, they’re like, Hey, let’s have a hearing.
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (00:55:47): So, I do not want to give away my secrets about the trade, but I see that. So if I want to take a new policy or an idea or something that I’ve learned from another market out for a ride, I don’t run into the press and make a statement about it, right? Maybe there’s a conference I’m speaking or a private meeting. You send up a test balloon. How was that reception? Where did I get pushback? Did I, Or was it received? Well, in the realm of government affairs, it is not uncommon to have to send up test balloons, whether it be a few words, a position, or a hearing. You want to go in very intentionally and strategically so that when you do have to rip off that Band-Aid, you know exactly if that Mac truck is coming at you or if you’ve got the gold medal on the horizon. There’s only so much political capital to go around, and every time you make a decision, you are expending some of that, or you’re building it.
(00:56:55): For us in government affairs, it’s about having that political capital. Who has the most, how diverse is it, and do you spend it all at once? Where do you spend it a little at a time? Yes, taking on unions and jobs and understanding how all that plays out is going to be incredibly important, especially as the industry has aspirations to have very expansive traction here. If they don’t go the way they do with sports betting, they’re going to need a new narrative, and someone’s going to have to figure out how to address the unions. Because right now, that’s the biggest risk to all of this. I didn’t even have to get into the tax policy aspect. I thought I was going to have to talk about live dealer games. Evidence shows that they carry an increased risk of attracting riskier players. Talk about a business model that’s worrisome and a lot of states are proposing a lesser tax rate for live dealers because they create jobs, but is that balanced out by the social costs that a state is going to incur if live dealers are more engaged in than the RNG counterparts? Maybe not, but honestly, cannibalization just took off like wildfire. I guess I’ll have that debate in the next coming.
STEVE RUDDOCK (00:58:15): Years. Well, I mean, and to the test balloon point, I think one of the greatest instances of a test balloon was when Pennsylvania legalized everything sports betting was a late ad because it was just getting going at the Supreme Court and all that. So like, Hey, you know what? Let’s throw it in there. And Pennsylvania’s sports betting tax rate is 36%. And for anybody who doesn’t know how they arrived at that, I was told by the person who basically wrote the bill that they just picked the number halfway between the slot and the table game tax rate and put it in there. And because it wasn’t legal yet, nobody in the industry pushed back. They said if they had any kind of pushback, they would’ve changed it, but nobody pushed back. They’re like, oh, I guess nobody cares about that. That’s how much of a test balloon you might get in certain jurisdictions about things.
(00:59:08): They’ll just do something. And if you miss it, you miss it. I remember when Pennsylvania passed that law, which was a thousand pages, and I had the CEO of an online gaming company messaged me a passage of it, and he’s like, do you know what this means? So, there were certain passages in the law that nobody knew what they were. Nobody could understand what anybody was saying. And it’s just like, well, we need to get this done now because Pennsylvania needed money. Honestly, that’s how I look at every state coming up: it starts with money, and it pretty much ends with money. Ends with money.
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (00:59:45): I, that’s how we get sports betting so quickly, Steve. Everybody’s budgets were hurting. Everybody was bored and thought, let’s pass sports betting. I’m a huge West Wing fan. I know listeners might not be shocked to hear this, but that says there are two things. You don’t want to see how they’re made-laws and sausage. There is a reason we call it pork, pork barrel. That’s definitely what was in the Pennsylvania thousand-page bill. The driver here we need to understand is always going to be money. And money carries influence. Money carries the ability to write those laws. Money, money, money is going to drive all of this. And most of the time there is nothing by way of evidence to drive these decisions, which is why I kind of go into the discussions, not thinking I’m going to come out making friends or enemies. What’s the objective here? Yeah, I’m not surprised about Pennsylvania. I’m pretty sure we could say the same about almost every other state.
STEVE RUDDOCK (01:00:52): It’s a very interesting dynamic that I don’t think a lot of people understand, so I’ve been saying this a lot lately: if you’re expecting logic to come out of state legislatures, you’re sad. You’re going to be very disappointed because most of the things that they do aren’t based on logic, and people don’t get, there’s horse trading going on behind the scenes like, oh, I’m kind of on the fence on this. I really have that other bill that I’m looking for a looking for a couple extra votes to get that passed. Like, oh, well, if you add in this extra RG funding, and a lot of that, whenever there are those amendments, they’re just trying to get votes, and half the time it just backfires, and they lose other supporters that were already there. But it is just such a convoluted nightmare that everybody thinks it makes sense to legalize and regulate this thing that I can already do. It’s like, yes, it does, but that’s not how any of this works.
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (01:02:02): I think of all of the proposed legislation, like day trading, right? We’re just going to get traded for something else, and it’s who can get the best rate. When do you sell it, and when are we buying it? Honestly, everybody gives their forecast, right? We’ll start in a couple of months’ time, when all of us in government affairs are going to end up on webinars, and people are going to ask us what’s happening in 2025. And you know what? The truth of the matter is? Yes, we can give some information if we’ve done our jobs well, we know what seems likely and what doesn’t, but nothing is for certain. There is no guarantee. You get one legislator who has something that becomes personal over the holidays and it could be a complete game changer for what gets put on the docket. Their mortal enemy ends up in office, and now, all of a sudden, your issue is never going to see the light of day. These things have to be considered when we’re talking about policy and as it relates to problem gambling, addiction policy, or just general gaming policy. The one thing that I think the industry and the problem gambling industry do a really bad job at I’m just going to pick on everybody, is that we forget about how this issue falls in the wider political context.
(01:03:25): We’re like a blip. Yes, a lot of money comes from the industry, but there are too many other things that are not in our control and are at play that are considered far more important to the wider public that have to take precedence.
STEVE RUDDOCK (01:03:42): There was a wild, it was a recent article, and it said, sports betting tax revenue is behind phishing license tax revenue nationally. It was like something crazy, but we expect it to be this big deal that everybody cares about. It was when PASPA was overturned because it was just in the news cycle. But I think now, and you’re starting to see the fallback of, it’s not just sunshine and puppy dogs. There are some dark sides to gambling expansions.
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (01:04:19): Fatigue has sit in. It’s kind of like you have kids. I have kids. You remember when we come home from the hospital with this cute little baby and you’re like, we got this. We’ve got you. There’s no manual. We’re super stoked. And then you find out that this baby gets up every 90 minutes, and you’re no longer sleeping, but it’s crying. It has needs; I feel like we’ve hit the six-month realm of infancy. It’s just six years. We’re all so tired. And now somebody’s like, well, do you want another, you want to do this again? Do you want to not sleep some more? And you’re kind of like, no, I don’t want to do this right now. You need to survive to three or four when you get a night’s sleep. And then you might think about it. I very much talk about sports betting and iGaming like, you’re in the infancy stage of parenthood. We’ve got our infant. We’re all sleep-deprived. We don’t want another right now.
STEVE RUDDOCK (01:05:23): That’s a really good analogy. And then you find out, oh wait, my infant is anemic, and I have to feed it prune juice. And then it throws up prune juice-and prune juice stains! And there’s all these crazy things that happen after the fact. Not that that ever happened to one of my kids, but I just made that up on the spot.
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (01:05:39): No, absolutely not. We don’t have lots of horror stories that we can relate to advertising gone wrong or VIPs or how expensive children are. And now we’re talking about the social costs. No, there’s no parallels here. Yeah. I think that policymakers, it all seemed well in God when they came home from the hospital, and now they’re thinking, I’ve got to deal with some of this. Are we prepared as a family, as a community to take this on? And I kind of think of the federal government like your grandparents, not your parents, but the grandparents. Well, if you had just done this, or if you just put them outside for 20 minutes, you wouldn’t have why. Right? There’s that grandparent looming about. Am I going to get criticized, and I just want to shower and sleep? I very much think that, right now, our appetite is not there because fatigue is upon us.
STEVE RUDDOCK (01:06:38): All right. So before I let you go, some pretty big news today. You have the, well, why don’t you tell me about it?
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (01:06:47): Yes, thank you. We’re very excited about this announcement. Cambridge Research Institute, this is the nonprofit arm of Cambridge Behavioral Health, announced today the inception of our military committee, where we’re bringing together a variety of stakeholders within the gambling industry to hopefully drive awareness, research, attention, and advocacy efforts into doing more collectively to address problematic gambling or gambling-related harm. In our military and our veteran communities. All of us have firsthand experience either serving ourselves or being a spouse to someone who has served. So these are our family members, and we know that they are disproportionately affected by gambling-related harm. And these are individuals who give everything to serve and protect us. Right now, by and large, no one is really addressing this issue head-on, and we feel that we are uniquely placed to do so. We are thrilled to make this announcement. If there are any listeners who have a unique interest or perspective in this, we would love to hear from you. We’re only going to get better about committing to research and advocacy and serving those. We’re going to do some training and education. We offer free treatment. We do help spouses and dependents who need help. So if there’s anyone out there where you think this resonates, we’d love to hear from you. And thank you for giving us this opportunity to announce it. We are thrilled to be taking this on.
STEVE RUDDOCK (01:08:37): I would say one of the most shocking things I ever learned was the slot machines on Army bases statistics.
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (01:08:45): That’s me, by the way, Steve. This was before you and I got to know each other. This was back in 2016 when I was still in Massachusetts working with Senator Warren. That GA report we asked for came out. So, for listeners who might not know, there are 3,141 slot machines on all of our US bases, or maybe not all of them, but quite a few of them. So these are the bases that the US runs abroad. It brings in around roughly $110 million a year for men and women in uniform and their dependents. Now, I’m a proud military spouse. Sometimes, we get called to serve alongside our family members and uprooted and brought somewhere new. And we very much rely on the, excuse me, the camaraderie that we can find on a base on a military base. And sometimes there’s a lot for us to do. The DOD operates these machines in both enlisted and officer clubs.
(01:09:42): And sure, the money goes back to morale, welfare, and recreation funds. So these are the funds that put on events and offer us things like golf courses and a variety of activities. But the sad reality is that while we are happy to offer lots of opportunities to gamble if a member currently presents with a problem, they could be asked to leave. So right now, all consequences for having a gambling addiction or a problem are punitive. And so we’re really up against this wall where people are disincentivized to come forward and say that they have a problem. Not only would they lose their job, but they could also lose their housing because a lot of times, we get housing with our assignments. You lose your healthcare. You lose all means of a community. We’re pretty tight and tiny. This is my family we’re talking about here. There is a lot that needs to be done to address the culture of gambling in the military better.
(01:10:54): And then what happens if someone who’s serving finds themselves with a problem? But right now, even though I’m a spouse and I know the ins and outs of gambling and gambling addiction, the sad truth is if I were to go to one of my TRICARE providers, my insurance would not cover treatment. The thing I advocate for day in and day out, I would be denied. And there’s something really wrong with a government that turns its back on the people who are willing to give it all for them. So we’re thrilled about this announcement. We have a lot of work to do, and I’m really privileged to serve alongside my fellow committee members.
STEVE RUDDOCK (01:11:39): That was what I remember when I first came across that, probably in 2016, and I just didn’t believe it. I researched it and left it on because I’m like, this can’t be true. It cannot be true that there are slot machines on US bases. And then as you said, if you actually use them and develop a problem from them, you’re out of luck. We’re kicking out. It doesn’t make any sense. That makes zero sense to me. Yeah. Good initiative. Very good initiative.
BRIANNE DOURA-SCHAWOHL (01:12:12): We thank you. We are very excited. We have the opportunity to buy tax reboots on bases, and we understand that military and veterans’ rates of alcoholism are increasing with PTSD. We get them help. You might have to take a leave of your duties to go get well, but that’s how it should go, right? I mean, these were people who were willing to forego and make sacrifices in every way, shape, or form. Before I met my husband, when he was doing his sea duty time, he was home for two months, gone for two months. Now imagine if we had been together and we had the kids. My children would’ve been without their dad for six months a year. This is the lifestyle for many of these folks. It’s very frustrating that they’re happy to give them these products and otherwise incentivize them to use them. And then God forbid they create a problem, they’re happy to just kick you out. Infuriating. It’s the only word I have.
• • •
