For much of the twentieth century, automobile marketing focused on speed, power, and performance. Manufacturers competed on horsepower, acceleration, styling, and size. Safety features were often absent, optional, or buried in technical specifications.
The market looks very different today. Performance still matters, but manufacturers also compete on crash-test ratings, reliability, driver-assistance systems, braking technology, and occupant protection. Safety features that were once treated as costs or constraints are now expected by consumers and advertised prominently.
How did safety move from the margins of the automobile industry to the centre of its value proposition, and what might gambling learn from that transition?
Regulation Mattered, But It Was Not The Whole Story
Seatbelt requirements, vehicle standards, crash testing, and liability unquestionably changed automobile design. But regulation alone does not explain why companies now advertise safety so enthusiastically.
The deeper change occurred when safety became something consumers valued and companies could compete on. Independent testing made differences visible. Technology made protection easier to demonstrate. Ratings allowed consumers to compare products. Manufacturers learned that safety could build trust, strengthen a brand, and influence purchasing decisions.
In other words, safety became more than compliance. It became part of quality.
Gambling May Still Be In Its Horsepower Era
Gambling operators continue to compete heavily on the equivalent of speed and power: larger bonuses, more markets, faster play, easier deposits, instant withdrawals, personalized offers, and constant availability. These features are understandable in a competitive market, but they also encourage convergence. When every operator competes on the same dimensions, the result is an arms race that becomes increasingly difficult to sustain.
Responsible gambling, meanwhile, is often presented separately from the main product. Tools appear in a menu, information sits in a footer, and consumer protection is discussed in the language of compliance. The implication is that the exciting product is over here, while the safety requirement is over there.
Automakers once treated safety similarly. It was something to include because authorities required it, not something that defined a better vehicle.
What Would It Mean To Compete On Protection?
Imagine if operators competed as visibly on responsible gambling as they do on promotions. A company might advertise the clearest account information, the most useful spending insights, the easiest limits, the fairest intervention process, or the best support for taking a break.
Independent benchmarks could allow players to compare how products handle transparency, affordability, risk detection, advertising, account closure, and customer support. Responsible gambling tools could be judged not merely by whether they exist, but by whether people understand them, use them, and find them helpful.
This would change the incentive structure. Instead of every protective feature being experienced as a potential competitive disadvantage, better protection could become evidence of a better product.
Good Protection Can Improve The Experience
The comparison should not be taken too literally. Cars and gambling are different products with different risks. But the automobile experience reveals an important design principle: safety does not always diminish enjoyment.
Anti-lock brakes do not make driving less satisfying. Clear dashboards do not remove autonomy. Driver-assistance systems can increase confidence without taking the driver’s hands off the wheel. The most successful features work with the experience rather than feeling bolted onto it.
Responsible gambling design can follow the same principle. Clear expenditure information, transparent odds, useful feedback, easy-to-adjust limits, and well-timed pauses can help people remain intentional. The best tools should not feel like punishment. They should feel like part of a product that respects the person using it.
From Maximum Engagement To Sustainable Engagement
The gambling industry has traditionally measured success through acquisition, activity, and revenue. Those measures matter, but they can reward short-term intensity at the expense of long-term stability.
A sustainable model depends on people who continue to view gambling as entertainment, retain control, trust the provider, and remain able to participate without serious harm. Research suggests that responsible gambling tools do not inevitably eliminate engagement. Voluntary limit-setting and tailored feedback can reduce intensity among some higher-risk players while leaving recreational participation possible.
This reframes responsible gambling from a trade-off against the customer experience into a component of customer sustainability. A company that depends heavily on escalating play among a relatively small group of vulnerable consumers has not built a strong long-term model. It has concentrated its risk.
The Infrastructure Of Trust
The automobile industry did not become safe through a single invention. Progress came from standards, testing, engineering, consumer expectations, enforcement, and competition interacting over time. Gambling will require a similar ecosystem.
Regulators can establish minimum protections. Researchers can test what works and identify unintended consequences. Independent evaluators can make quality visible. Operators can integrate protection into product development rather than adding it after launch. Consumers can learn to expect transparency and control as features of a trustworthy service. In fact, this shift could also help steer people towards regulated, trusted and proven markets, and away from unregulated or grey markets.
The objective is not to claim that risk can be eliminated. Driving remains risky, despite enormous improvements in safety. Gambling will always involve uncertainty and the possibility of loss. The relevant question is whether foreseeable risks are being managed intelligently and whether safety improves as the product evolves.
A Different Kind Of Competition
The automobile industry still sells performance. It simply learned that performance and protection do not have to be opposites.
Gambling can make the same transition. Operators can continue to compete on entertainment, convenience, technology, and service while also competing on the quality of consumer protection. The most trusted product could be the one that helps people understand what they are doing, remain within their intentions, and step away when gambling no longer serves them.
The industry does not need to stop building powerful products. It needs to become equally ambitious about the systems that keep that power manageable.
References
Auer, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2019). The effect of voluntary limit-setting on long-term online gambling behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(5), 331–336.
Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 301–317.
Hollingshead, S. J., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2024). Loyalty program rewards increase willingness to use responsible gambling tools and attitudinal loyalty. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 22, 781–797.
Wang, R., Bush-Evans, R., Arden-Close, E., et al. (2025). An integrative review of transparency for safer gambling. Journal of Gambling Issues.
Dr. Travis Sztainert is director of research and education at the International Center for Responsible Gaming and an adjunct research professor in the Department of Psychology at Carleton University. His work focuses on gambling-related harm, responsible gambling and player protection, knowledge translation, and improving the connection between research, policy, and practice. He is particularly interested in emerging gambling products, innovative approaches to prevention and treatment, and ensuring that gambling policy and responsible gaming initiatives are grounded in high-quality evidence.
Author’s note: The views expressed are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the International Center for Responsible Gaming (ICRG). This article is based on previous LinkedIn posts and articles by the author.
