Guidance
Exploring Drivers of Consumer Trust in Gambling
Exploring Drivers of Consumer Trust in Gambling
Quantitative phase: key findings
Overview
The quantitative phase of this research was undertaken to provide a robust statistical assessment of different drivers of trust, as identified by the scoping and qualitative phases. The survey was taken among 1,000 adults who have gambled in the past 12 months, excluding those who are National Lottery players only (see Methodology section for further information on the sample selection).
The analysis in this section relates to 25 statements that were developed using insights from the qualitative phase of the research. These statements were assessed via a Maximum Difference (MaxDiff) exercise to assess the relative importance in relation to trust, and a Likert scale question to assess perceived industry performance.
The statements developed were related to the following 6 broad themes, closely related to the qualitative findings:
Regulation and Accountability: statements relating to factors around regulation of the industry, licensing requirements, and guarding against corruption.
Protection and Safety: statements relating to the protection of consumers through safety measures and industry responsibility, including tools, support, protection of data and safer gambling interventions.
Transparency and Fairness: statements relating to ensuring that game conditions are fair and that odds, offers, terms and conditions are prominent and easy to understand.
Advertising and Promotion: statements relating to industry marketing, including responsible advertising, and fair marketing of products.
Customer Experience and Support: statements relating to the play experience such as withdrawing winnings, and customer experience when playing or needing to make contact with gambling companies.
Reputation: statements relating to the importance of companies being reputable or recommended by friends and/or family.
A full list of statements is included in the following charts and tabulations, as well as in Appendix 5.
Key findings
As outlined in the methodology section, a MaxDiff survey exercise was undertaken, in order to assess the relative importance of each statement against each other. Respondents were asked to give their perceptions of the importance of 25 statements, in a random order.
The data and corresponding analysis below shows the average score across all respondents for each statement, ranked in order of importance. Scores are produced at an overall level using a calculation of the average importance given to each statement, indexed between 0 to 10 (the higher the score, the more important the statement was perceived to be by participants). In the following text, MaxDiff scores are shown in brackets.
High ranking statements
Overall, regulation and accountability, and protection and safety measures emerged as the most important drivers of consumer trust in the gambling industry. This was evidenced by the prominence of 5 related statements among the top 8 most important scores.
The highest importance was placed on the need for ‘gambling companies to be regulated and held accountable for their conduct if it falls short of standards’ (7.08, as shown in Figure 1: High ranking statements). Closely following this was the importance of implementing ‘effective measures to protect young people and other vulnerable groups’ (6.87). Additionally, assurance that ‘gambling activities are free from corruption and manipulation’ was deemed as important (6.3), as well as ‘gambling companies intervening if they feel someone needs help to manage their gambling’ (6.14).
An analysis of subgroup differences highlighted some variations across different age groups, although broadly, the order of statements was uniform across all key demographics.
Those aged 55 and above tended to place higher importance upon regulation and accountability in the gambling industry compared to their younger counterparts. Furthermore, those who scored lower (0-2) on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) placed stronger importance on issues related to industry regulation and accountability, in contrast to those with higher scores (3+) on the PGSI.
Those with a PGSI score of 8+ considered ‘effective measures in place to ensure young people and other vulnerable groups are protected’ as the most important factor relative to other statements (5.51).
Figure 1: High ranking statements
Statements | Maxdiff score: (number) | Theme |
---|---|---|
Gambling companies are overseen by a regulator and held accountable for their conduct if it falls short of standards | 7.08 | Regulation and accountability |
Effective measures are in place to ensure young people and other vulnerable groups are protected | 6.87 | Protection and safety measures |
Gambling activities are free from corruption and manipulation | 6.30 | Regulation and accountability |
Gambling companies intervene if they think that someone needs help to manage their gambling | 6.14 | Protection and safety measures |
Gambling companies have effective measures in place to protect my data and/or personal information | 5.94 | Protection and safety measures |
Gambling companies have effective checks in place before they allow people to gamble | 5.48 | Protection and safety measures |
Gambling companies offer customers gambling management tools such as deposit and time limits, or self-exclusion schemes | 4.99 | Protection and safety measures |
Games and machines are regularly tested to ensure game conditions are accurate, fair, and free from faults or errors | 4.89 | Transparency and fairness |
Middle to low ranking statements
An assessment of the mid-ranking statements (those with the 9th to 16th highest importance scores in the MaxDiff exercise) across different themes revealed matters relating to advertising and promotion, as well as customer experience and support, were generally not seen as important as the matters relating to regulation and safety which occupied the most important positions.
Indeed, the most important statement around advertising and promotion also overlaps with safety and protection measures – ‘companies promoting safer gambling and highlighting potential risks in their adverts’ (with an average score of 4.52, as shown in Figure 2: Middle ranking statements).
Statements pertaining to customer experience and support featured low amongst the mid-ranking statements, despite the qualitative research indicating that play experience is often top of mind when it comes to shaping their opinions towards the industry.
Figure 2: Middle ranking statements
Statements | Maxdiff score: (number) | Theme |
---|---|---|
Gambling companies signpost to external sources of help and support for people who are struggling with their gambling | 4.80 | Protection and safety measures |
Gambling companies promote safer gambling and highlight the potential risks involved in their adverts | 4.52 | Advertising and promotion |
Gambling companies are licensed in Great Britain | 4.45 | Regulation and accountability |
Offers, odds, and products advertised by gambling companies are clear, easy to understand and not misleading | 4.20 | Advertising and promotion |
Odds and win ratios accurately represent the likelihood of winning | 3.82 | Transparency and fairness |
That it is quick and easy to withdraw my winnings | 3.77 | Customer experience and support |
Gambling companies are easy to contact and resolve issues or complaints promptly | 3.69 | Customer experience and support |
Gambling promotions and offers reward players without promoting excessive play or betting | 3.03 | Advertising and promotion |
Reputation statements
Statements relating to reputation were ranked as the least important by those surveyed. That companies gambled with are ‘recommended by friends and/or family’, and gambling with companies that are ‘familiar or reputable names’ were seen as less important compared to other factors presented, receiving the lowest ranking (average score of 1.25 and 1.66, respectively, as shown in Figure 3: Lower ranking statements).
Additionally, further factors around advertising and promotion, such as ‘affiliates who promote gambling being transparent about marketing products on behalf of gambling companies’ (average score of 2.20) and ‘personalised advertising and offers not being too excessive’ (average score of 1.68), were also ranked among the bottom 4.
Some measures around transparency and fairness also received low importance ratings when compared to other themes. These included statements relating to ‘terms and conditions being easy to understand’ (average score of 2.92) and ‘prominently displayed terms and conditions and odds’ (average score of 2.25) and ‘win ratios prominently displayed in places where people gamble’ (average score of 2.89).
However, subgroup analysis reveals that those with PGSI score of 8+ were more likely than those with a PGSI score of 0-7 to regard the matters mentioned above as important (3.46, 3.61 and 3.25, respectively for those with a PGSI score of 8+).
Furthermore, those with a higher PGSI score (8+) were also more likely to regard customer experience as more important than average. For example, this group gave a higher score for ‘gambling companies demonstrating excellent customer service’ (3.28 versus 2.52 overall). The fact that those with PGSI 8+ tend to place greater emphasis on the importance of the play experience indicates that there are some key differences between those at risk of gambling harm and the wider gambling audience.
Figure 3: Lower ranking statements
Statements | Maxdiff score: (number) | Theme |
---|---|---|
Terms and conditions are easy to understand when gambling | 2.92 | Transparency and fairness |
Odds and win ratios are prominently displayed in places I gamble | 2.89 | Transparency and fairness |
Gambling companies treat customers the same whether they are winning or losing | 2.68 | Customer experience and support |
Gambling companies demonstrate excellent customer service | 2.52 | Customer experience and support |
Terms and conditions are prominently displayed in places I gamble | 2.25 | Transparency and fairness |
Affiliates who promote gambling are transparent about marketing products on behalf of gambling companies | 2.20 | Advertising and promotion |
Personalised advertising and offers are not excessive | 1.68 | Advertising and promotion |
Gambling companies are a familiar or a reputable name | 1.66 | Reputation |
The companies I am gambling with are recommended by people I know | 1.25 | Reputation |
Performance perceptions
Of the 25 statements 231 were also asked to participants via a Likert scale, in order to assess perceived performance.
High performance statements
The statements where respondents were most likely to indicate positive sentiment towards the gambling industry’s performance reflect a broad spectrum, with no obvious dominant theme.
The most-agreed with statement in terms of performance statement was ‘gambling companies offer customers gambling management tools such as deposit and time limits, or self-exclusion schemes’ (69 percent responding either ‘Strongly agree’ or ‘Agree’, as shown in Figure 4: Higher performance statements). Also featuring as a highly positive association with the industry was ‘it is quick and easy to withdraw my winnings’ (68 percent).
This was followed by ‘gambling companies are overseen by a regulator and held accountable for their conduct if it falls short of standards’ (63 percent). This statement also had the highest score in the MaxDiff exercise, and therefore a positive perception of regulation and accountability is likely to be a key underpinning of maintaining overall trust in the industry.
Figure 4: Higher performance statements
Statements | Agree (percentage) | Neither agree or disagree (percentage) | Disagree (percentage) | Theme |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gambling companies offer customers gambling management tools such as deposit and time limits, or self-exclusion schemes | 69% | 26% | 5% | Protection and safety measures |
It is quick and easy to withdraw my winnings | 68% | 25% | 7% | Customer experience and support |
Gambling companies are overseen by a regulator and held accountable for their conduct if it falls short of standards | 63% | 29% | 8% | Regulation and accountability |
Gambling companies signpost to external sources of help and support for people who are struggling with their gambling | 58% | 34% | 8% | Protection and safety measures |
Gambling companies promote safer gambling and highlight the potential risks involved in their adverts | 54% | 31% | 15% | Advertising and promotion |
Odds and win ratios are prominently displayed in places I gamble | 54% | 34% | 12% | Transparency & fairness |
Offers, odds, and products advertised by gambling companies are clear, easy to understand and not misleading | 51% | 33% | 16% | Advertising and promotion |
Gambling companies have effective checks in place before they allow people to gamble | 50% | 33% | 17% | Protection and safety measures |
Middle performance statements
For several key statements, fewer than 50 percent of respondents conveyed positive assessments of performance. This included several statements relating to protection and safety measures, which on average tend to feature as highly important when it comes to trust.
For example, around two in five (43 percent) of survey respondents agreed that ‘gambling companies have effective measures in place to ensure young people and other vulnerable groups are protected from being harmed by gambling’, while a fifth (21 percent) disagreed. The polarisation of views towards this statement is notable, given that it had the second highest score in the MaxDiff exercise.
Figure 5: Middle performance statements
Statements | Agree (percentage) | Neither agree or disagree (percentage) | Disagree (percentage) | Theme |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gambling companies have effective measures in place to protect my data and/or personal information | 50% | 43% | 7% | Protection and safety measures |
Terms and conditions are prominently displayed in places I gamble | 50% | 36% | 14% | Transparency and fairness |
Odds and win ratios accurately represent the likelihood of winning | 47% | 36% | 17% | Transparency and fairness |
Terms and conditions are easy to understand when gambling | 47% | 34% | 19% | Transparency and fairness |
Personalised advertising and offers are not excessive | 46% | 33% | 21% | Advertising and promotion |
Effective measures are in place to ensure young people and other vulnerable groups are protected from being harmed or exploited by gambling | 43% | 36% | 21% | Protection and safety measures |
Gambling companies intervene if they think that someone needs help to manage their gambling | 42% | 40% | 18% | Protection and safety measures |
Gambling companies treat customers the same whether they are winning or losing | 41% | 40% | 19% | Customer experience and support |
Lower performance statements
Figure 6: Lower performance statements
Statements | Agree (percentage) | Neither agree or disagree (percentage) | Disagree (percentage) | Theme |
---|---|---|---|---|
Games and machines are regularly tested to ensure game conditions are accurate, fair and free from faults or errors | 41% | 52% | 7% | Transparency and fairness |
Gambling promotions and offers reward players without promoting excessive play or betting | 39% | 36% | 25% | Advertising and promotion |
Gambling companies are easy to contact and resolve issues or complaints promptly | 39% | 45% | 16% | Customer experience and support |
Gambling companies demonstrate excellent customer service, for example staff interactions are a positive experience and I feel I am being listened to | 38% | 49% | 13% | Customer experience and support |
Gambling activities are free from corruption and manipulation | 36% | 42% | 22% | Regulation and accountability |
The companies I am gambling with are recommended by people I know | 31% | 42% | 27% | Reputation |
Affiliates who promote gambling are transparent about marketing products on behalf of gambling companies | 30% | 46% | 24% | Advertising and promotion |
The statement with the lowest agreement related to ‘affiliates who promote gambling are transparent about marketing products on behalf of gambling companies’ (30 percent), however just under half (46 percent) said neither agree nor disagree.
Again, in a polarisation of MaxDiff score and industry performance, just a third (33 percent) agreed that ‘gambling activities are free from corruption and manipulation’, with 21 percent in disagreement, a statement that received one of the highest scores (6.30) in the MaxDiff exercise.
Looking at key sub-group differences, those with a PGSI 8+ score were generally more likely than the rest of the sample to disagree with most statements about industry performance, with a couple of notable exceptions. This group were more likely to agree that ‘gambling companies are recommended by people I know’ (48 percent compared to 31 percent overall). Those with PGSI 8+ are also more likely to agree that ‘Affiliates who promote gambling are transparent about marketing products on behalf of gambling companies’ (42 percent compared to 30 percent overall) – although this may be relating to a higher level of knowledge about affiliates among this group given their propensity to gamble more regularly.
Summary
The quantitative survey revealed that the factors deemed most important in driving trust in the gambling industry relate to regulation, accountability, and protection and safety measures. Issues relating to transparency and fairness, advertising and promotion and customer experience tended to be deemed less important, while factors around reputation were the least important. In contrast, for perceived current performance, survey respondents were mostly likely to agree with factors around the play experience – that measures around safer gambling tools were provided by gambling companies, and that it is quick and easy to withdraw winnings.
Piecing the two together, regulation of the industry was seen to be both important, and there was broad agreement that the industry was regulated, and companies were held accountable for their actions, so this is an important pillar of trust to build on. The protection of young and vulnerable people, and tackling corruption however were factors that were seen as important, but fewer respondents agreed the industry was performing well in these areas.
References
1‘Gambling companies are licensed in Great Britain’ was removed from the performance Likert question as it is a matter of fact, along with ‘The companies I am gambling with are recommended by people I know’ as it does not relate to industry performance.
Qualitative phase: key findings Next section
Conclusions and next steps
Last updated: 3 October 2024
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.