Article originally published by Thiago Iusim (LinkedIn)adapted by the Gaming365 editorial team.
Who has never felt deceived when arriving home, opening a chocolate bar and realizing that it wasn’t exactly chocolate, but an alphabet soup written “chocolate flavor”?
The frustration is immediate. The feeling of having been led to believe something that wasn’t quite true either.
The packaging promises one thing. The product delivers another.
It’s all there, technically correct, in small print. But that’s not what consumers expect when they buy. The final sensation is not one of conscious choice—it is one of frustration.
This same mechanism is increasingly present in another sector that is growing rapidly in Brazil: the online betting market.
What the player looks for when choosing a regulated operator
When a consumer decides to bet with a regulated operator, they don’t do it because it’s cheaper — it usually isn’t.
He does it because he seeks security, service, predictability and trust.
Confidence that:
- the money won’t just disappear;
- there are clear rules;
- the brand responds;
- there are real player protection mechanisms.
The problem begins when this promise does not hold up in practice.
When Responsible Gaming becomes just talk
Much of the industry claims to practice Responsible Gamingbut doesn’t really practice it.
And when this happens, the impact is not limited to a specific platform. The effect is systemic.
For the consumer, there is no technical distinction between operators. There is only the perception of a market that promised care, protection and responsibility — but that often delivers only institutional discourse.
Generic warnings.
Links hidden in the footer.
Ready-made phrases that transfer all responsibility to the player.
“Play in moderation.”
“Bet responsibly.”
As if that, in itself, was enough.
It is not.
Risky behavior is predictable — and preventable
Risky behavior does not appear overnight.
He is progressive. Gives signals. Change patterns. It’s measurable. And, mainly, it is preventable.
Ignoring this and calling it “responsibility” is the direct equivalent of “chocolate flavor”:
It has a label, it has an appearance, but has no real content.
This is exactly where the concept of “Responsible Flavor Game”.
The consequence goes beyond regulation
Just as “chocolate flavor” is not real chocolate, Responsible Gaming that exists only in speech is not real responsibility.
The consequence of this is not just regulatory. She is reputational.
In an industry where the word trust is always accompanied by a question mark, reputation is the main asset.
And reputation is not built with general warning — it is built with system, process and evidence.
The wrong focus of the regulated market
While the regulated market focuses almost all of its energy on combating the illegal market, perhaps it is time to adjust its focus.
The most urgent battle now is not just against those operating outside the law, but in favor of ensuring that those who claim to be regulated comply, in practice, with what regulation requires.
Today, unfortunately, doing the right thing is still the exception.
And as long as this remains true, the regulated market will continue to promise a robust product and deliver something diluted — something that, in the eyes of the consumer, does not seem very different from the illegal one.
Trust sustains the market, not the label
No industry can sustain itself for long by selling something that frustrates its consumer.
Label helps sell once.
Confidence sustains the market in the long term.
In the end, the same logic applies as in the supermarket:
whoever delivers what they promise builds relationships.
whoever lives on “flavor” loses the customer.
The question that remains is simple:
Are we going to serve the real recipe or continue reheating the alphabet soup?
Thiago Iusim
Founder & CEO — Betshield Responsible Gaming
🌐 www.thebetshield.com
Fonte: Gaming365 – Brasil
