Lessons from Sweden and Denmark: The dangers of market opening and a possible marketing tsunami

The Finnish government, under Prime Minister Petteri Orpo, is preparing to dismantle Veikkaus’ monopoly over parts of the gaming industry by early 2026. We want to acknowledge the government’s efforts in driving this much-needed reform forward.

The first draft of the new legislation has already been submitted to the EU for review. However, let’s not fool ourselves, this is just the beginning. It has been stated by multiple experts that this initial draft is a foundational step, not a polished product. Some adjustments are expected before the final version is ready.

One of the most anticipated discussions revolves around affiliation, which, if properly included, could significantly boost channelization and help steer players toward licensed operators. While nothing is set in stone yet, this is just one example of how the law might evolve in the coming months.

But as Finland moves toward this monumental shift, one critical question arises: What can we do to limit the risk of a marketing tsunami and its potential consequences?

Market liberalization: a double-edged sword

When monopolies in the gaming industry are dismantled, the opportunities are vast, but so are the risks. Countries like Sweden and Denmark have walked this road before us, and their experiences highlight the challenges Finland is likely to face.

Take Sweden, for example. In the first year after its market opened, gaming companies launched an all-out marketing blitz. Ads flooded every available platform, saturating the airwaves and digital spaces alike. The sheer volume of marketing became overwhelming, leading to widespread public frustration and a sharp decline in trust toward the gaming industry as a whole.

Even Denmark, often viewed as an example of a more controlled transition, has had its challenges. Danish regulators introduced strict advertising guidelines early on, ensuring a more balanced approach to marketing. Despite this, operators still found creative ways to push boundaries, and public sentiment grew wary of overexposure.

The real danger: a marketing tsunami

When a market opens, companies often feel compelled to make their mark quickly, leading to an avalanche of marketing campaigns. This "marketing tsunami" can erode public trust and spark backlash. For Finland, the danger lies in underestimating just how much damage uncontrolled marketing can cause, not just to individual companies but to the industry as a whole.

If gaming ads become ubiquitous, intrusive, or exploitative, public sentiment will turn sour. And when that happens, the government will have no choice but to step in with heavy-handed restrictions.

Could limits on advertising help?

As we reflect on the risks, we can’t help but wonder: could part of the solution lie in limiting how much space gambling ads are allowed to occupy? Imagine if the regulator implemented a cap, for example, restricting gambling-related ads to no more than 20% of available print media and out-of-home advertising slots.

At first glance, this kind of measure could serve as a safeguard against overexposure, ensuring that gambling ads don’t dominate commercial breaks, billboards, or print media. By limiting the sheer volume of ads, operators would be forced to focus on quality over quantity, creating campaigns that are both responsible and effective.

However, one major concern arises. If the cap is set at 20% of available ad space, it assumes that ad inventory is always at full capacity. In reality, ad fill rates fluctuate, and during quieter periods, gambling ads could end up occupying a disproportionately large share of the visible advertising space. For instance, if digital billboards or ad placements have low overall demand at a given time, gambling ads, despite being limited to 20% in theory, might be the only ones filling the slots in practice.

This highlights a broader issue: regulation based on percentage allocation might not prevent overexposure if other advertisers aren’t filling their share of the space. In advertising sales, there’s a saying: “You get what you measure.” Any regulation that sets hard limits must also consider the unintended consequences and loopholes that may emerge.

Furthermore, while such a cap might work for traditional media like TV, out-of-home advertising, and print, enforcing similar restrictions across digital channels, especially social media, remains a far greater challenge. Without a holistic approach, the risk of overexposure doesn’t disappear; it simply shifts elsewhere.

Would this kind of regulation truly strike the right balance between industry growth and public trust? Or would it create a system where, despite restrictions, gambling ads still end up being overrepresented in certain contexts?

Learning from the mistakes of Others

Finland has the advantage of hindsight. The experiences of Sweden and Denmark provide invaluable lessons on what to avoid and how to prepare. The most important takeaway? Responsibility must come first.

If operators approach the market with aggressive, short-sighted tactics, they’ll quickly find themselves under scrutiny. Finnish society places a high value on ethical business practices, and gaming companies that fail to act responsibly will face a backlash that could permanently damage their reputations.

By contrast, companies that prioritize responsible marketing from day one, focusing on transparency, moderation, and consumer protection, have the opportunity to build trust with both regulators and the public.

The path forward

As Finland edges closer to market liberalization, the gaming industry must recognize the stakes. Yes, market openings present an exciting opportunity for growth, but they also demand caution and responsibility. Aggressive tactics might yield short-term gains, but they’ll come at a steep cost if public trust is lost.

The regulator, too, must be proactive. Exploring mechanisms such as advertising caps could help prevent the marketing tsunami before it begins. Finland has the chance to create a balanced framework, one that allows the gaming industry to grow while protecting consumers and preserving public trust.

Cover photo: Pixabay