Tipping point: The growing scourge of rogue betting tipsters on social media
With a growing number of ludicrous 'winning' bets posted on Twitter, EGR delves into the world of the dishonest tipster and questions whether social media companies should take action
We’ve all been there. Doomscrolling through social media and suddenly a post from your favourite team or competition catches your eye and you click to investigate further. Upon opening the link, the comments come into view and there you see it.
It could be a tweet in the replies from someone claiming that they have landed a £200 correct score bet on a random Danish football game or a £500 winning bet on a tennis match. Or in another instance, £200,000 staked on a horse running in a Sedgefield handicap.
The post encourages you to click through to an accompanying link to a bookmaker which, in turn, could provide revenue for the poster through an affiliate deal. The most recent scourge of betting social media, particularly on Twitter, is that of the rogue tipster.
Not your regular tipster, who will tend to earn punters a couple of pounds here or there and have a genuine subscription model (along with an affiliate deal or two) to earn the majority of his or her income, but those that lurk in the replies, peddling their tips, often after-timing an event to encourage some unsuspecting social media users to part with their hard-earned/other adjective? cash. Most of the time, the tipster claims to have inside information or promises an improbable return on investment (ROI) which catches the eye of your none-too-shrewd punter looking to make a quick buck.
According to Action Fraud, bogus social media tipping is regarded as anything that constitutes a situation where someone is offered advice and guarantees on the promise that the victims will make a “small fortune”. In such cases, the social media post takes the form of a video or photograph, attached in the replies to a post from a major outlet, indicating that the poster has won big through placing money on a seemingly innocuous result in a sporting fixture.
As operators are cleaning up their acts in terms of affiliate marketing, those that are missing out have taken a different approach. The video or photo posted is used to lure prospective punters into signing up for a tipster service that may or may not be genuine. Sometimes the posts may allude to more serious dealings suggesting information on rigged matches or fixtures.
It’s like the Wild West
EGR Intel was able to track down one of the accounts that sells tips to those on social media but it has since been deactivated and set up again under a new name. The Twitter account’s bio claims to have “very safe information on sure tips (fixed football matches)”. The account also has a William Hill link posted on its Twitter page. The unnamed account informs EGR Intel that “these are fixed matches about correct scores, manipulated by teams”.
“We gain these matches from our main source that is someone with a big influence on fixed football matches,” the source adds.
The account then stated that, in order to get the tips before kick-off, you would be required to pay £300 upfront and £300 when/if your bet came in. When asked if the account received any affiliate revenue through the William Hill link in their bio, the reply was simply “just a %”.
While there has been a marked improvement in the veracity of affiliate marketing within the industry in recent years, it would appear that there are some that still slip through the net.
Ultimately, the sums of money being placed at the odds being advertised seem ridiculous to the layman and to those within the industry. Most, if not all, operators have various maximum payouts for different events and even if that potential maximum payout was in danger of being breached, there is little chance a wager of such magnitude would be accepted.
One senior compiler with 20 years’ experience in the industry, who agreed to speak to EGR Intel under the promise of anonymity, says: “Proof of funds would be an issue with those numbers and the first thing I would think of if someone asked for a bet like that [correct score or low-grade horseracing] would be match-fixing. I don’t think any firm would accept a liability of hundreds of thousands of pounds on any of the markets that have been suggested.”
So, for what reason do these accounts exist? Most likely to make money for the owner, but are there other more nefarious deeds at hand?
Even with the quickest of searches, it is not difficult to find numerous accounts on Twitter promising the same thing. Richard Bloch, director at marketing agency Square in the Air and former head of social media at three top-tier companies, says “it isn’t a big problem” but it is “a problem”. On why, he explains: “Any time people misrepresent the industry or don’t abide by the guidelines that are clearly stipulated, it is an issue.”
The gambling industry has been under a great deal of scrutiny over the past decade, and as people have been coming to terms with social media, so has the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Companies’ social media accounts are no longer viewed as merely customer engagement tools but now as extensions of the marketing team.
Talking about the various companies he has worked for as head of social media, Bloch comments: “We adhered to all the ASA guidelines, which are quite clear – making sure people bet responsibly and that they do so within their means. An affiliate could be seen to bend those rules to get a little extra revenue. But unfortunately, the media doesn’t see that. They just see a brand name. And this is what the ASA is trying to crack down on.”
Clamping down
When asked whether operators were conscious of this activity, a top-tier bookmaker, that wished to remain anonymous, confirms that while it was aware of the practice, “it is something that social media firms need to tackle”. “It looks as though we are affiliated to these users when they use screengrabs of our site. We have a strong affiliate strategy and if flagged we can often check that these bets do not or have not existed,” the operator reveals.
Nigel Seeley, a tipster from Premier Sports Plays – a subscription service that offers genuine tips through its website – insists that “transparency is key to a successful tipping site”. He suggests that punters keep their eyes open and focus on what tips are being provided.
A tennis tipster by trade, Seeley, who has nearly 20,000 followers on Twitter, suggested some key things to look out for when coming across a Twitter tipster. With regards to football, “we only put up selections on the match winner, Asian handicap and total goals, maybe an anytime goalscorer – occasionally – in all markets that have liquidity and [make it easy] for the customer to get on”.
Seeley continues: “When I see social media experts on EPL or Serie A who are then tipping on the Serbian and Gibraltarian league, they look desperate to me. Also, I only tip with high-end bookies.” That’s where Seeley makes his money. He advises caution against anyone promising something that looks too good to be true. But he says the key to a legitimate tipster service is “transparency, whether you are going through good times or bad runs. Be totally honest and transparent”.
This perhaps being an indication that there are many unscrupulous tipsters on social media.
Does social media care?
In the past, when tipsters posted tips on social media, a link to a betting company’s site was often included. The waters are muddied when it comes to the remuneration that the tipster receives. Usually, the affiliate will receive 30% revenue share or a cost per action (CPA) from any clickthrough to a gambling site.
In 2016, the BBC referred to research from thinktank Demos which looked into the rise of social media ‘tipsters’ and flagged up another potential problem. It found that people who followed tipsters were more likely to follow a high number of similar accounts online. Predominantly, these posts are found on Facebook or Twitter. So, the question is, what are the platforms doing about the proliferation of these kinds of posts?
Having reached out to Twitter, EGR Intel was unable to get a response, however, according to its terms and conditions, there is nothing to prohibit people from posting (what are likely) falsified videos and pictures. The social media firm’s site states: “We do not endorse, support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any content or communications posted via the services or endorse any opinions expressed via the services.”
There are currently no protections in place to stop social media users from seeing these kinds of posts. Users of social media can, of course, set their own preferences as to what they can and cannot see, yet this does not filter down to the replies and comments.
In March, MP for Hertford and Stortford Julie Marson posted on Twitter that MPs were in discussions about how to clamp down on social media tipsters offering “questionable” advice. Her proposal was to block the ability of screenshotting on a betting app.
Speaking to the i newspaper at the time, Marson said: “This unregulated online activity needs looking at. It cannot be right that tipsters make money from their followers losing.”
Bloch adds: “I would like to think that as social media is developing, more algorithms will be put in place, but we’ll have to see.”
The prospect of an edit feature on Twitter, similar to the one that has been added to Facebook, means punters may have to be even more vigilant in the future. One operator has suggested that customers need to be extra wary and approach tipsters like this with “caution”.
Alex Donohue, who spent six years in media at Ladbrokes and is now MD at Press Box PR, argues that the industry could not afford to be loose with its social media and affiliate activity given the impending white paper on the review of the Gambling Act 2005.
He notes: “It’s likely opponents with possibly a lesser understanding of the practicalities of placing such bets may use content like this to further claims the industry is being irresponsible and damaging.”
Lapping up the limelight
When one of these posts appears featuring the branding of a particular firm, some people may think it is just additional publicity for that operator. Seeley points to the demographic of people who are using social media as a means of collecting their betting information. “The demographic of our customer base is very, very different from Twitter tipsters and affiliate sites.
“Our average age is late 40s, average stake of about £100-£150, high-end and 95% US-based. If I gave one bet on a team to have more than X tackles or a player to have more than X offsides, even if the bet won, I would instantly lose trust and belief from my customer base as they wouldn’t get on.”
Seeley continues: “When I see people boasting about having an 11% ROI and they are all bet builder and props like shots on target, tackles by a player, it’s a joke as nobody can get on.”
With the outcome of the Gambling Act 2005 review still to be revealed, it will be interesting to see how the government tackles not only social media tipsters but also gambling firms on social media and how affiliate marketing continues in the UK.
Until the release of the white paper, now well overdue, it is unclear how far-reaching measures to curtail rogue tipsters and indeed affiliate marketing will go. In fact, the UK Gambling Commission currently has no power over affiliate marketing, despite rather stringent rules being in place for advertising and marketing, and this could well be one of the areas in which the government will come down hard.
It’s obvious that the majority of #bettingtwitter realises the veracity of these posts, but surely more can be done to curtail these fraudulent accounts by the powers that be.
Social media has often been a force for good but there is no doubting that throughout the duration of its presence on our laptops, tablets and smartphones that the pervasive nature of the sites has left us open to all kinds of fraud, and this is one that is becoming more pronounced.
One would certainly hope that users would be aware of possible scams, but as they become more and more progressive and elaborate, the line between what is legitimate and what is not becomes increasingly blurred.