Exploring consumer journeys using customer-led tools

Customer-led tools - Aims and methodology

This research was designed to explore the following core questions:

• what are consumers’ attitudes, awareness, and use of customer-led gambling management tools?
• what level of understanding do consumers have around pre-commitment tools and what is their appetite for different types of financial limit?
• what perceptions do consumers have surrounding the barriers or facilitators to using gambling management tools, and specifically, pre-commitment tools?
• what are consumers’ preferences towards how they may engage with financial limits, such as: setting limits amounts, frequency of review, types of limits?

This research used an online quantitative survey: data was collected from 2,007 adults aged 18 years and over in Great Britain, with fieldwork taking place from 2 September to 7 September 2023.

The sample consisted of individuals who had gambled online within the last 4 weeks, excluding those who had only gambled on: The National Lottery, scratchcards, and/or private betting. Therefore, results (including Problem Gambling Severity Index scores) should not be used to produce population level estimates.

Customer-led tools - Key findings - Gambling Management Tools

Less than half (48 percent) of all respondents report having ever used a gambling management tool (see Table 1.0).

64 percent of respondents indicate that they were aware of financial limits prior to completing the online survey, and 23 percent of respondents had used them in the past.

Respondents show highest levels of use of the ‘account history online’ tool. 22 percent reported having used this tool in the previous 12 months and 6 percent reported having used this tool more than 12 months ago. 72 percent of respondents were either aware of this tool and had chosen not to use it, or were unaware that it was available.

Table 1.0 Respondent awareness and use of Gambling Management Tools

Table information

Question. Which of the following (gambling management) tools have you used previously?

(Where figures do not add up to 100%, it is because respondents were permitted to give multiple responses or because of rounding.)

Table 1.0. Respondent awareness and use of Gambling Management Tools

Gambling management tool	Used in the last 12 months (percentage).	Used more than 12 months ago (percentage).	Never used (percentage).	Not aware (percentage).
Self-exclusion online via GAMSTOP	2%	3%	22%	73%
Multi-operator self-exclusion in person	2%	2%	12%	85%
Gambling blocking software (such as GamBan)	2%	2%	15%	81%
Exclusion by product	2%	2%	12%	84%
Payment card blocking	3%	2%	25%	69%
Self-exclusion with one gambling company	4%	4%	27%	65%
Time out	5%	5%	39%	50%
Reality check	10%	3%	27%	60%
Financial limits	17%	6%	41%	36%
Account history online	22%	6%	16%	56%
NET: Any tool	37%	11%	39%	14%

Of those who have ever used a gambling management tool (base size of 949), 53 percent reported that they did so to help keep track of their winnings and/or losses, followed by 49 percent who reported that they did so to help budget the amount of money they spend.

Of those who have never used a gambling management tool (base size of 1058), 57 percent reported that the reason for this was that they had their own approach to budgeting the amount they spend, followed by one quarter (25 percent) reporting that they didn’t think gambling management tools were meant for them.

30 percent of respondents who have used gambling management tools in the past 12 months (base size of 734) reported that they have used the same tool with multiple gambling companies.

Respondents tend to have positive perceptions of operators who promote the use of gambling management tools. For instance, 64 percent of all respondents agreed with the statement that ‘It makes them (operators) seem to care more about their customers.’

Customer-led tools - Key findings - Pre-commitment Tools

Of those who were aware of pre-commitment tools, that is, financial limits and/or reality checks (base size of 1,412):

27 percent of respondents believe that their uncertainty surrounding the usefulness of pre-commitment tools is the most challenging barrier to using them.

31 percent of respondents believe that having a limit already set up by default is the most helpful facilitator for using pre-commitment tools.

71 percent of respondents stated that they find alerts most useful when they are approaching their time and/or spend limit, rather than when the limits have already been reached (28 percent).

42 percent of respondents who have used pre-commitment tools in the previous 12 months (base size of 562) reported that they found them to be effective in reducing the time and/or money they spent gambling.

Customer-led tools - Customer 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.)

Table 1.0. Respondent awareness and use of Gambling Management Tools

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:

Questions exploring different options for financial limits

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.)

Chart 1.2. Respondent preference for financial limit options

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’.

Customer-led tools - Appendix

Definitions of key terms

Gambling management tools

Tools that are available to support gamblers to help manage the amount they gamble or the way in which they gamble. In the majority of cases, customers will choose to access or use these tools either before, during or after gambling.

Pre-commitment tools

Website or in-app functions that allow customers to set in advance limits on the amount of time or money they spend gambling. This includes financial limits and reality check.

Financial limits

Such as spend, loss or deposit limits that are set by yourself and help you manage how much money you spend on gambling.