Disney used to hate gambling. Now it’s doing a $2B sports betting deal
vox.com
vox.com
In Japan you can't show ads for Power Ranger toys during an airing of Power Rangers. Draft King wouldn't be allowed to show commercials during a baseball game and definitely would not be allowed to show you the betting odds in the seventh inning to make sure you bet before the game is over. The betting ads are just so ridiculous and blanket the broadcast that they make it seem like you're weird if you aren't constantly betting on every game.
These sports leagues are cashing in on the fact that live sports were the only thing propping up the lucrative cable tv and network tv business models, extracting whatever value they can. They are trying to transition to over the top streaming services and maybe it will happen or maybe a lot of people like me will decide there's more to life than if my local sports team defeats another city's sports team.
I don't think gambling is the worst thing out there but it's not a net plus for society and overall cheapens sports.
I'm not 100% sure on this one. The problem with gambling is it involves huge amounts of money, generally far more than the base product it is attached to. Much like MTX in games has changed the meta-game from playing the game to actually needing to buy as much in game content as possible to play the game, productized gambling changes the meta from the product to gambling. The further enshitification of the world around us.
I'd go even further to legal, but not advertized when it comes to gambling. It is considered a vice for a number of valid reasons.
Same goes for smoking and drinking. Provide the product in a plain container plastered with warning labels.
We've had that forever, the biggest effect it has is legitimising the gambling industry, helping legitimise the idea that it's gamblers fault if they get addicted, and thus expanding gambling and thus making people poorer.
>Random chance games should show the result a split second after the decision, with zero fanfare (to avoid fake near misses).
This is a more interesting idea, and I don't think it's totally unviable to enforce it considering most gambling happens through fairly centralised avenues (major companies, app store, play store). I think it could be effective and is certainly one of the better pro-regulation ideas I've heard.
Has this ever been tried, is there any evidence it would reduce gambling? Or are you just guessing?
This is a good point. The gaming industry probably doesn't even care if "most" people tune out the ads. They are marketing to the whales, or trying to turn people into whales, and like MTX in games, they'll figure out how to milk the whales until they're dry, with bonuses, new bet types, fewer clicks to place bets, etc.
If someone desperately wants to gamble, they should be able to find them. If all the industry is doing is meeting an otherwise unmet vice demand, fine, okay, whatever, it's better than mob-ran gambling rings, but why on earth should we allow it to manufacture demand?
An argument can be made that a world where someone who is hell-bent on gambling being allowed to legally gamble is better than one where he isn't. Fine.
But what argument can be made that a world where more people are gambling is better than a world where fewer people are gambling? Why encourage it? Who benefits from installing heroin vending machines in schools?
From time to time, I try to look up the impact of the newly legalized gambling in the US. I can never find any good comparison about addiction, people who got into trouble because gambling is so easy now, etc. I still know people who put in bets with "their guy", and I also know people who were otherwise OK who now all of a sudden have an addiction because gambling is basically frictionless. Overall, it's a big question mark for me as to if this is a good thing or not.
A sibling commenter mentioned smoking ads. Even with cigarettes, you had to physically go to a store and physically pull out your payment method to buy them. With new online gambling, gambling is as frictionless as posting a tweet for anyone of age. Advertising is a big part of this yes, and like you allude to, the types of impulsive bets that are presented is even more ridiculous.
Why? It has increased the transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy and heightened poverty while providing nothing of value you can't get from a game that's not for stakes.
What social problems was underground betting actually causing? Was there actually some huge strain on police resources? Is it really a god thing that instead of a small number of gamblers being bankrupted by some shady characters, a much larger number are bankrupted by Disney? At least loan sharks and thugs put more money back into the local economy and small businesses.
Underground betting funds organized crime.
I sincerely and strongly believe legal gambling causes far more harm than criminals ever did. The reason gambling gets legalised is not because legalised gambling reduces harm. It's because legalised gambling can balance the books for some politician before the next election, because they can sell it as being "pro-fun", because gamblers themselves will vote for them, and because the harms are abstract, diffuse, and blamed on the gamblers themselves.
"Fifteen years on from the dawn of the Gambling Act 2005, and the landscape has changed beyond recognition. A casino can now be accessed from your pocket 24/7 and half of UK adults gamble at least once a month. But hiding in plain sight is a world of regret, exploitation and shattered lives underpinning an industry that claims to be ‘just a bit of fun’ generating £14bn in profit.
The House of Lords Gambling Industry Select Committee estimate that 60 per cent of online gambling profits come from the 5 per cent of customers experiencing gambling problems, with estimates of disordered gambling rates ranging from 340,000 to 1.4 million. The industry’s practices create disordered gamblers and then exploit them. The harm caused goes far beyond financial losses. It is estimated by Gambling with Lives that there are between 250 and 650 gambling related suicides every year."
https://www.leighday.co.uk/our-services/personal-injury/gamb...
See also https://natcen.ac.uk/news/online-gambling-twice-many-gaming-...
When I play poker, I don't get the same fun value when it's for nothing but the clay chips or even if it's for $2 total win (_when playing for pennies_). The _fun_ for me is when it's a $20+ decision, the _fun_ for me is to play against other people where the decision they have to make has _weight_ to it. I think that there is _fun_ to be had when you're playing for stakes that cannot be had when you're playing for nothing. When I throw the dice, it's not _fun_ to see if it lands on a 7 or 11 or whatever the rules of craps are. The _fun_ for me is the betting, the winning or losing of the money. If I just wanted to see who could get a set of numbers from random dice rolls without money involved, I'd play Yahtzee.
I agree that _some people_ shouldn't gamble because it's not _fun_ but an _addiction_. Just like _some people_ probably shouldn't drink because it's not _fun_ but an _addiction_ or shouldn't smoke weed because it's not _fun_ but _addicting_. That doesn't mean that there is _no value_ being added to the people's lives that _find it fun_ and don't find it _addicting_.
We may disagree on if _fun_ is of any value to people vs the harm that that _fun_ might give them and I think we both agree we should make it _really clear_ the consequences of the _fun_ someone chooses to have. But I disagree that gambling adds _no value_ whatsoever or the idea that what I find is of no value means that everyone should agree it adds no value. Let the players have their fun, tax the shit out of it, and offer help to those that have an addiction to it, just like smoking or drinking or anything else that we as a society have deemed not illegal but not directly beneficial.
At the same time, it's not the only great game I've played. When it comes to probability-centric games, I'm fond of Backgammon, deck builders, and computer strategy games which are all enjoyable when not played for stakes.
I think the first time Poker disturbed me is when I was at a table when somebody was going all-in every other hand for hours just bleeding a ton of money, not really playing the game, just having a sort of problem as everybody at the table stayed at that table swallowing the money. When you realise a lot of the fun the good players have who study poker strategy is not only at the expense of such people, but poker itself wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is if such people didn't exist and it was all very serious people reading strategy books who were all slowly losing money to the rake, the magic sort of fades. Even among the winning players, you see people who aren't technically losing money but can't stop themselves from playing despite the fact they're spending way too much time on the game, not really enjoying it, while barely making any money.
I don't know, Why not play a fun game where nobody has to suffer? You know who I see playing non-gambling probability games all the time? Former poker pros.
I have a great college memory of taking an all-in no-money hand off a fraternity brother as a freshman prospect during rush week... with a pair of 3's (against an ace-high?).
Dealer to brother: "Why the hell did you go all in?"
Brother: "Because we weren't playing for money."
Dealer to me: "Why the hell did you call with 3's?"
Me: "Because we weren't playing for money, and he wasn't either."
Ever wonder why James Bond always hangs around a casino? It’s how you legally pay and enable hit-men.
There's a far greater chance of harm to society in general by removing the stigma and making it easy than there ever was by making it something that only happened on the down low. Nobody's lives are ultimately enriched by betting unless you win a gigantic jackpot, and even then there are negative issues with that.
Yes, the company has been making moves recently that look exactly like any other company in the market rather than sticking to family values in all things. But the company is also structured like any other company - it's publicly traded and the CEO, Iger, reports to the board and the shareholders and has a fiduciary duty to maximize the share price, which contradicts a duty to remain family friendly or keep with Walt's express preferences. So, it's not mystery to me why this kind of thing happens, it's by design. Personally, I think the fiduciary duty thing is not a great way to make decisions.
This is simply not true. They have duties to the shareholders and the best interests of the company, which is not the same thing as maximizing the share price.
Only in a very short-sighted way. Actions have long-term consequences, including brand identity actions especially when there are as many eyeballs as there are on Disney. These consequences hurt shareholders.
I've had a bunch of friends that went from never gambling to spending a few hundred dollars per Sunday placing random bets. All destined to lose eventually due to the insane 10-15% vig (ie. a coin flip is priced at -110 or -115).
The few friends (sharps) that I had that were able to earn a profit over a large enough sample were all eventually backed off by the major sports betting sites. One site backed off a large long term winner in order to "protect the player against creating a compulsive habit or addiction". It's literally a racket. You can't win long term. You can only lose.
That's incredible, so these sites track gamblers and figure out which ones actually know what they are doing and then refuse their bets?
What we see is the „Robert Iger“ company which betrayed all original values and let its legacy brands rot away.
Granted, the studies purchased during the Iger era are not fairing significantly better recently.
Disney Brand Fatigue is Damaging its Parks · https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi_-dlOzWKA
Disney Leadership is Damaging the Company Brand · https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4iEaKWgm1k
The Fall of Disney Parks · https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ewaAaXCyC8
The Destruction of EPCOT Center: A Look Back to the Classics and Why They Were Destroyed · https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K8FepaAhw8
Current leadership has turned the company into one of many media companies and have exposed themselves to a high range of risk factors. They wanted to become king of the hill and Iger mimiced the predatory growth of big-tech. You are right to point out that Disney joined the trend of pure growth-chasing (plus cheap money from big ESG/DIE asset managers which lead to another host of issues down the line).
I believe it will be similar to legalizing cannabis. In my local region, there was massive hype around the first stores and now there's too many to support the market, and the weaker stores are struggling.
Because if it's about certain companies capturing the market, I'd put money on Disney
Just in imaginary numbers lets say the gambling market goes from 1 billion to 10 billion dollars per year, but 100 billion dollars of investment money comes in. Those groups with bad capitalization plans are going to fail to earn a return, but make no mistake the market has made more profit than ever before. The weak competitors eventually lose leaving a few mega companies raking in the profit.
Gambling lacks most of those key controls. For example, betting organizations are allowed to offer free trials of their product, you see a lot of that advertised on billboards. Get $100 free when you create an account.
Also, gambling mechanics can be integrated into other products. App Store gaming is a good example here, too.
In the UK, alcohol is sold as a loss leader by grocery stores. https://www.ias.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/rp05062008... and their rate of alcoholism is 150% of the USA's rate, where similar tactics are forbidden. I'm not saying that alone is responsible, but using it as an example of how looser regulation leads to more effective marketing and more participation.
I believe we'll see similar tactics, maybe something akin to bundling, with gambling here. Get $50 free betting credits a month with your subscription to Disney plus. Get $200 free with your ticket to Disneyland. Epic Games holiday sale with $10 gambling credits with every purchase.
The goal will be to integrate gambling with daily life enough that anyone with a problem will constantly have opportunities to spend, and for everyone else it becomes a normal hobby, one tap away on their phone at all times.
And this is a market where behavioral targeted advertising will really shine.
There should really be cancer warnings on every bottle to really whack people over the head that scoffing at smokers exposing themselves to lung cancer while drinking cancer juice is majorly stupid. People are mostly naive to how much risk they're taking by drinking. Less than smoking - but still a pretty decent amount.
Smoking is something that's well regulated.
The story is really about how the internet has done a lot of damage to sports television, and sports media in general. Basically everyone covering sports has had to make significant cuts. When the value of ads drop, it doesn't take very long for gambling ads to be the most profitable. This isn't just an American story either: European sports media is also going all in on gambling.
If the pushes for ties with gambling get regulated to oblivion (and they might), ultimately what we'll see is that sports league's viewership rights will not keep going up forever, as they seem to have gone for decades. This is ultimately why this whole gambling deal happens: Today, it's really hard to make a good profit from the sports content, given the current subscription revenue, and how many ads you can really subject people to.
For those of us that wish for less gambling, I am not necessarily optimistic though: See also how the market of videogames that rely on gambling mechanics with real money pouring in for every roll are larger than the entire traditional videogame console market...and that includes sports games which are already relying on a whole lot of booster pack opening revenue.
Are you sure the “good” in this statement should not be changed to “sufficient”?
Just because broadcasters overpaid for broadcasting rights does not indicate profit, or even good profit, cannot be earned.
Although, broadcasters like ESPN do not even need to exist in a world with broadband. They are trying to stave off their inevitable decline in relevance, and so rather than shut down, they are willing to entertain business with people who they normally would not have.
But I am sure NFL/MLB/European Football Leagues and the rest could make plenty of profit selling video streams of the games directly to customers.
Conflating the two is pointless and is only done to create clickbait articles such as this one.
July 2023: "Boss, we're plumb out of cash and laying off employees!"
Aug 2023: "We love sports gambling! It's very recreational! Even Mickey does it!'
Disney can take the gambling dollars, dillute the ESPN brand, then send it on its merry way and keep its reputation long-term.
So is he a winner or a loser in all of this? I suppose it depends on how you value your "freedom" in exchange for millions of dollars.
Great for Portnoy, he got the proceeds from a major "exit" (a few hundred million dollars) and he still owns the company.
Capturing market share != driving billions in sales. Especially in a highly competitive market.
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-08-09/barsto...
If anybody believed that the Barstool brand was successfully bringing in revenue, some other bidder would have bought it from Penn. The fact that they abandoned it for nothing kind of tells you how much value Penn believed that it had.
Having said that, Sports betting is by far the biggest advertiser in the sports-media segment, so Penn have handed the company back to Dave and said "Oh, btw, you're not allowed your biggest source of revenue". It is undoubtedly going to be tough for Portnoy to make the economics work on a sports-media business without gambling advertising as a key revenue stream. Having said that, that's not necessarily what he cares about. He's rich, he's got his company back, he can say what he likes. If Barstool collapsed tomorrow I don't think he'd be happy, but he'd be producing new content within minutes.
There's lots of rich and famous young adults in the YouTube space that regularly go gambling, and it's honestly one of their most shameful habits. Especially if it influences a bunch of young people to also get into gambling.
There's also a giant new streaming platform, Kick, which is entirely backed by rich gambling sites and they're not afraid to bankroll big streamers to join their site.
Governments and charities have restraint that for profit businesses just don't, and free market driven competition and efficiency is NOT a good thing in this context.
It would be for the good of everybody if the entire industry, sports betting, casino's, p2w freemium games, lootboxes including for cosmetics, TCG "booster packs", paying streamers to promote this poison, all of it is better off if it were banned honestly. Every sale of any game should give people the same cards, same characters, same equipment, same cosmetics, none of this gambling garbage.
Gambling is at the heart of the entire global financial system. Everyone with RobinHood, a brokerage account, a 401(k) or pension participates in the great roulette wheel known as the Stock Market. We're all placing bets--just on MSFT or AAPL instead of 14 and 29. Or our retirement account is putting it on Red. Some of us here are putting it in their startups, but at the end of the day, it all boils down to wagering money on unknown future events, which is the definition of gambling.
It just needs to be strongly regulated, and not in the way it is now, where wealthy people are allowed more freedom than the poor.
The reason using all of your disposal income on roulette bets as a retirement strategy is bad is not because there is some probability of increasing your bankroll and some probability of decreasing it. It's bad because the long run expected outcome of repeated bets is negative. The house always has an edge. That dynamic is exactly reversed when putting retirement savings into a stock index. Betting that your entire national economy won't collapse for over four decades is inherently a smarter bet.
There is a slight difference in the societal utility of those two categories of bets.
This kind of behavior is beyond predatory and should really be illegal, because it's obvious that the streamer is playing with far better odds than regular people.
Heck, if you want to keep it legal that's probably fine as well, but at least require clear disclosure when the streamer is getting improved drop rates.
I am not saying that the streamer you referred to does not receive preferential treatment, but FGO streams are definitely random.