Why Casinos Lack Surveillance In Their Hallways?

(1) It would cost a small fortune to do so for every hallway on every floor.

(2) Their high risk areas are in gaming, not hallways.

Do they have cameras in the elevator cabs? Seems like a more economical option, even with the pain of a traveling cable and all that garbage.

What happens in 'Vegas stays in 'Vegas, and perhaps the hotel/casino operators would rather not document who goes to what room. Privacy versus security issue?

The sureveillance dept doesnt generate any income so there isn't an ROI for upper management to justify any purchase that's not required or going to save them money on insurance premiums. Additionally, many Vegas casinos require that new camera runs be housed in conduit all the way to the camera/drop. This compounds the cost of installation.

I always cringe when I am at Gaming Protection Conferences and surveillance executives indicate that they don’t get the support they need from the C-Suite “because surveillance doesn’t generate revenue”. In my experience, this is an excuse used by those who have not learned to successfully educate the C-Suite and can’t demonstrate the value of a properly managed surveillance department.

In fairness to C-Suite/Property Owners, why should they provide valuable capital funds to a department that simply states they have a need (training budget, technology, etc) but fail to back the request with data to support their argument?

From building a new casino to managing an existing property, when value is demonstrated and the budget is properly prepared, there isn’t much that I have been denied. But understand that to get to this point, it takes commitment and the ability to provide specific and measurable data to support your design/budget needs.

Microsoft CSO - Leading Innovation and Business Growth

Melissa,

I understand what you're saying but having dealt with both open-minded organizations and closed-minded organizations in my career, I can vouch for the existence of the mindset that views Surveillance as a nonprofitable albatross around the casino's neck.

It's not the savings that can be demonstrated that are the problem but the savings in terms of prevention that are the most difficult to justify. If we catch an employee stealing, the amount stolen and potential future loss can be estimated. If we catch an advantage player and back him off or flat bet him, the amount of gain he made can be extrapolated out in terms of house losses.

In any well-run casino organization, the quantified total of the above savings is typically a small fraction of the Surveillance Department's budget and therein lies the problem. How does a department quantify potential losses prevented just by their existence or their efficiency? I've discussed this with a number of Surveillance departments that have run into that wall. So-called bean counters often go on tangibles alone and defining the intangibles typically does nothing to convince them otherwise.

Melissa, Carl, the last few comments have become very high level - demonstrating value, don't make excuses, etc.

I do not see, though, any specific comments on how one can specifically demonstrate sufficient value relative to the cost for cameras in hallways of room areas.

It seems that the 'value' of cameras is far higher in gaming than in room hallways. Yes/no?