Jackpot Factory Found To Have Acted With Lack Of Insight In Recent Ad Campaign Fiasco

Bill Galston OBE, Chaired the three man committee. He is a former UK inspection and gambling enforcement official of high ranking in the industry. eCommerce and Online Gaming Regulation and Assurance (eCOGRA), convened the compliance committee. Frank Catania, the well known American gambling law authority and Michael Hirst OBE, formed the other two members of the committee. Hirst is with the Hilton group. The issue was the formally trustworthy and will trusted Jackpot Factory group search engine optimization campaign. This is the same campaign that went awry, and which was the center of attention nice again this week with the publishing of compliance committee findings.
An autonomous investigation team was sent to Jackpot Factory headquarters some time ago and their report become the basis for the committee finding.

The committee came up with ten findings and started with a statement that the Jackpot Factory search engine optimization project was totally without acceptance because it portrayed a fictitious scenario. This resulted in a broad rejection of the campaign by the public.

The second point that was listed by the committee report states that no evidence exists that in fact any person or group was hurt by the campaign nor were any swayed to participate in what might have been construed as damaging behavior. They see this as an important factor. Point three clearly states that no 
premeditated malice could be found to have existed nor was there any apparent intent on getting those who might be considered as being most at risk to forming a gambling addiction, to participate in games of chance.

 
Jackpot Factory has claimed, and this was supported, that the original establishment of the campaign was the job of a subtracted firm, but that nevertheless the supervision of the project on the part of the Jackpot Factory was not adequate. This resulted in those at the company who were responsible to receive discipline because of the failure of a marketing apparatus that should have assured that such a campaign had never been given approval.

The sixth point relates to the actions of the company immediately following the mess up that occurred. It was supportive of the company in that it states that on two occasions the company publicly apologized and admitted that it was in the wrong. At this point it is clear from the investigation that the company made every effort to encourage the public to report any indications of the campaign and even went to the trouble of sending out its own staff to remove any evidence of the campaign.

Note 7 supports the company for being completely cooperative in the investigation, and finding 8 notes that any system that were at fault have been replaced and that the measures suggested by the investigative team to avoid further occurrences were employed in order to assure that any additional material that might come to light is taken care of with alacrity.

In finding no. 9 it is noted that the company did suffer damage to its public reputation which was deemed as being substantial due to the negative reaction on the part of the public and the suspension of its seal of safe play. this is in contrast to the clean record that the company had enjoyed prior to the incident.

The final ruling of the committee was that the suspension of the “Play It Safe” seal should be removed but that the company should be closely monitored.

Committee Charman Galston drew attention to eCOGRA's objective in the incident which was to do away with any potential for harm as soon as possible, and then to determine what went wrong and to make sure that a system is in place to assure that it won't  occur again in the future.

Back to Online Gambling News - August 2006
Online Casino Latest News
Online Casino News Archive