Key findings – Financial limits
Of all respondents (base size of 2,007):
27 percent of respondents reported that they know how to find financial limits and set them up, compared to 18 percent reporting that they know how to find and set up reality check.
When asked to match the terms ‘deposit limit’, ‘spend limit’, and ‘loss limit’ with their respective definitions, 72 percent of respondents correctly identified deposit limits and 73 percent correctly identified loss limits; fewer respondents were able to identify the correct definition for spend limits (67 percent).
When asked to choose between the three types of financial limit, 19 percent of respondents reported that deposit limits would be their first choice to use, followed by spend limits (14 percent), and loss limits (10 percent). However, overall consideration to use deposit, spend, or loss limits did not vary significantly, with around 70 percent of respondents stating that they would consider using any of these options.
Over half of all respondents (51 percent) prefer to choose their own financial limit amount, without any suggestions from gambling companies. 34 percent indicated that they would like to receive suggestions on limit amounts from gambling companies but would ultimately choose the amount for themselves.
When asked how often they would prefer gambling companies to prompt them to set or review different types of financial limits (deposit, loss, spend), an average of 25 percent of respondents reported that they would prefer for this to happen at the beginning of every gambling session, followed by an average of 22 percent preferring monthly engagement, and an average of 18 percent preferring weekly engagement (see Chart 1.0).
Chart 1.0 Respondent preference for financial limit engagement
Table information
Question. How often would you prefer gambling companies to prompt you to set or review financial tools?
(Where figures do not add up to 100%, it is because respondents were permitted to give multiple responses or because of rounding.)
| Frequency of financial limit engagement | Deposit limit (percentage). | Spend limit (percentage). | Loss limit (percentage). | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Once at sign-up and no more | 12% | 11% | 11% | |
| At the beginning of every new gambling session | 23% | 26% | 25% | |
| Daily | 8% | 9% | 9% | |
| Weekly | 19% | 18% | 18% | |
| Monthly | 22% | 22% | 22% | |
| Annually | 6% | 5% | 6% | |
| Never | 10% | 10% | 10% |
Respondents were asked to enter an amount that they think is appropriate to set as a limit for each type of financial limit (deposit, spend, and loss). Across the three types, an average of 56 percent of respondents entered an amount less than £50 per week, followed by an average of 22 percent who entered an amount between £51 and £100 per week.
Respondents then answered several questions exploring different options for financial limits. They were presented with four different types:
| Type of limit | Definition | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fully mandated limits | Limits set by the gambling company, with the same amount for every customer | |||
| Mandatory to participate limits | The customer would be required to set up a financial limit but the amount would be set by the customer | |||
| Default measures limits | All accounts would have a limit applied by default. Customers could choose to opt out | |||
| Entirely Voluntary limits | Gambling companies would be required to offer and make customers aware of financial limit tools but participation is voluntary |
When asked to rank these types of limit in order of preference, over one third of respondents chose ‘mandatory to participate’ as their most preferred option, followed by 31 percent selecting ‘entirely voluntary’ as their most preferred option. 50 percent of respondents chose ‘fully mandated’ as their least preferred option, followed by 32 percent selecting ‘entirely voluntary’ as their least preferred option (see Chart 1.1).
Chart 1.1 Respondent preference for financial limit options
Table information
Question. Thinking about the way you currently prefer to bet or gamble online, please rank the following scenarios in order of most to least preferable to you.
(Where figures do not add up to 100%, it is because respondents were permitted to give multiple responses or because of rounding.)
| Types of financial limits | 1-Most preferable (percentage). | Ranked 2nd (percentage). | Ranked 3rd (percentage). | 4 – Least preferable (percentage) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fully mandated | 14% | 14% | 22% | 50% |
| Mandatory to participate | 35% | 27% | 31% | 7% |
| Default measures | 19% | 41% | 28% | 11% |
| Entirely voluntary | 31% | 18% | 19% | 32% |
Respondents were then allocated to one of four scenario-based questions in which they were asked how they would respond if a gambling company they were using introduced one of the type of limits.
23 percent of those allocated to the ‘fully mandated’ scenario indicated that they would spread their gambling across multiple accounts, and 13 percent reported that they would close their account with the company. This differs from the responses of those allocated to the ‘mandatory to participate’ scenario, in which 15 percent and 7 percent chose these responses, respectively.
When those in the ‘default measures’ and ‘entirely voluntary’ scenarios were asked how they would respond, an average of 32 percent of respondents chose the response option ‘leave default amounts in place’. Across the ‘mandatory to participate’, ‘default measures’, and ‘entirely voluntary’ scenarios, 29 percent chose the response option ‘seek to change the default limits but ultimately keep limits in place’.
Previous pageCustomer-led tools - Key findings - Pre-commitment Tools Next page
Customer-led tools - Appendix
Last updated: 29 November 2023
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.