One thing that the readers’ editor gets asked time and again by the readers is: “Do our views make any difference to the way the Guardian does things?” The simple answer is yes – but the question is asked so many times it is clear a number of readers remain unconvinced.
However, one area in which the concerns of readers were very much at the forefront of thinking was the Guardian’s involvement with GoWager, an interactive betting service launched in December 2013. It allowed readers to place a bet from their screens, first on football and then on horse racing, as I explained in an Open Door column on 21 July 2014.
The launch of the service prompted criticism from readers that it was not a business that the Guardian should be in, and there were also charges of hypocrisy that the Guardian should be in the forefront of chronicling the growth of fixed-odds betting terminals while promoting interactive betting.
It was the Guardian’s active promotion of gambling that was the concern of John Thompson, the reader who prompted the original column. He complained after receiving an email on Boxing Day 2013 encouraging him to visit the GoWager site. He wasn’t complaining about the Guardian advertising gambling per se.
“In a perfect world, I would prefer that gambling in all its forms was not advertised by anyone – but recognise that different people might find ethical grounds for banning everything from cars to chocolates. So while I might wish it were otherwise, I would not consider making a complaint because the newspaper carried advertising for gambling. My motivation to complain came from the fact that in this case gambling was, to all intents and purposes, being actively promoted by the Guardian itself.” (The original email was from Guardian Offers.) “In my mind it has crossed the line from merely bearing an advertisement for a service to actually encouraging its readers to take up gambling.”
As was pointed out at the time, he is not alone – 52% of readers canvassed for the Guardian’s annual social audit in 2014 thought we had a duty not to carry gambling advertising.
The complaint coincided with a long-term review by commercial colleagues of whether to extend the interactive service to other sports sections. That review has now been completed, and notice has been given to close the contract with the technology company FSB, which provided the interactive service. The notice period was up at the beginning of February.
A Guardian News and Media spokesperson said: “Following a review, we have decided to draw the GoWager partnership to a close. Guardian News and Media is always seeking new ways to innovate commercially, but we are also mindful of the views of our readers, some of which were outlined in a readers’ editor’s column about GoWager last year. This decision was unrelated to the services provided by FSB Technology (UK) Ltd and the GoWager website will continue without Guardian involvement.”
It wasn’t reader power alone but as that announcement signals it was a significant factor in the decision. It came at a time when the Guardian had to decide whether to extend the service to other sports, thus potentially deepening a commitment to something the readers said they didn’t like.
As we usually faithfully record the disparaging remarks of readers in this column, I am happy to record that John Thompson, the original complainant, was pleased with the outcome: “I am actually very impressed with the way the Guardian handled the whole issue, and pleased that they have taken this decision.”
• According to the Guardian style guide we should make the plural of stadium stadiums but the plural of bacterium is bacteria. When we failed to make the distinction between mitochondria and mitochondrion last week, the scientists among our readers reminded us that we should always distinguish the former as plural and the latter as the singular form.
As it looks as though we will be seeing more of both forms over the next few weeks, it’s good to get the usage settled now.