Exploring Drivers of Consumer Trust in Gambling

Introduction

This report details the findings from a comprehensive mixed-methodology study conducted by Yonder Consulting in collaboration with the Gambling Commission (the Commission) as part of their Consumer Voice Research Programme.

The research was designed to delve into various aspects of trust within the gambling industry from a consumer perspective, with the ultimate aim of informing key areas of focus for the Commission to ensure that the gambling industry is fair, transparent, and open in its practices.

Overarching Study Objectives

The primary objective of this study was to explore the key dimensions of consumer trust and develop a more detailed way to measure them over time.

Core research objectives included:

• to gain a comprehensive understanding of drivers of trust in the gambling industry, identifying the elements of consumers’ experience that hold the most significance to them
• to highlight the intricate nature of consumer trust, showcasing how it is formed and maintained, and how it influences gambling behaviour within the broader "Path to Play” framework
• to explore the varied experiences of different consumer sub-groups, focusing on how levels of engagement with gambling can influence trust.

Simultaneously, the study was used to inform the following output objectives for the Commission:

• to develop new 'Trust' questions to be integrated into the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB). This includes a transparent explanation of the methodological approach used to select these questions and the composite scoring system designed to quantify levels of trust
• to outline how the trust metrics will be utilised to feed into future monitoring, enabling the Commission to monitor changes in consumer trust over time, and measure the impact of regulation
• to offer recommendations on how to repeat and update the trust metrics to ensure they remain relevant and adaptable in response to industry changes and evolving consumer expectations.

This report focuses on key findings relating to the core research objectives. A detailed assessment of the process for how output objectives were achieved will be outlined in a forthcoming technical report.

Methodology

A multi-phased approach was used within this study, starting with a scoping phase that included desk research and consultation with the Gambling Commission’s (the Commission's) Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP)¹. Following this, an exploratory qualitative phase took place, informing an online survey of 1,000 adults aged 18 or over who have gambled in the past 12 months. Further information for each phase follows.

Scoping phase

The scoping phase was designed to establish a comprehensive understanding of the concept of 'trust' across various sectors. This phase involved:

• an extensive desk review of existing research and initiatives relating to trust was conducted across public, private, and third sector sources. This provided a broad perspective on how trust is defined and measured in different contexts
• a review of existing consumer trust surveys, and third-party sources (such as Resolver complaints data, and the Commission’s Contact Centre (CC) data) to identify key themes and gaps in the current understanding of trust within the gambling industry
• a session with LEAP members to identify factors that impacted on their trust in the gambling industry. This session helped in refining the focus for subsequent research phases.

The scoping phase took place between January and March 2024.

Qualitative phase

To delve deeper into the complexities of trust within the gambling industry, Yonder conducted a series of focus groups with a cross-section of people who gamble.

The primary goal of these focus groups was to understand the nuanced dimensions of trust among those who gamble and to develop 'trust statements' that would be evaluated in the subsequent quantitative survey.

Sample and recruitment

A total of 4 focus groups were conducted face-to-face, each lasting 2 hours, and with a total of 24 research participants.

The focus groups took place between 13 to 20 March 2024. Participants were recruited through a specialist market research recruitment company. A spread of participants were recruited in order to achieve an engaged, balanced sample, as follows:

Group 1: Younger adults (aged 18 to 30 years) who gamble, with a preference for online gambling, once a week or more often.

Group 2: Adults (aged 31 to 65 years) who gamble, with a mix of online and in-person gambling, once a week or more often.

Group 3: Adults (aged 31 to 65 years) who gamble, with a preference for in-person gambling, once a week or more often.

Group 4: Adults (aged 31 to 65 years) who gamble more ‘casually’ with lesser frequency and lower minimum deposit and/or stake spend, to explore whether attitudes towards the gambling industry and drivers of trust differed among a less engaged audience.

Discussion and stimulus

These discussions were aimed at exploring a wide range of topics related to trust in the gambling industry.

Stimulus was created by Yonder, in collaboration with the Commission, to stimulate debate and discussion within the focus groups and consisted of 2 component parts.

The first part of the stimulus drew attention to the Commission's strategic objectives for the next 3 years and its role. This was shared once participants spontaneously shared what they expected the Commission’s role and responsibility to be, to understand any gaps in knowledge and/or perception.

The second part of the stimulus was focused on 8 topics related to trust which had been identified in the scoping phase and which were captured through a thought-provoking statement and images such as news clippings. Participants were encouraged to assess which factors were important to them in building trust in the industry, based on their own experiences and/or perceptions regardless of whether they had direct experience with each. The stimulus provided the opportunity for participants to think about the factor and whether it was important or not in driving or undermining trust.

The discussion guide flow and stimulus used in these focus groups is included in Appendix 2 - Qualitative discussion guide and Appendix 3 - Qualitative stimulus.

Quantitative phase

Yonder conducted an ad hoc online survey with a sample of 1,000 adults who had gambled at least once in the last 12 months, excluding those who only played National Lottery (the Lottery) products (including scratchcards and other lottery games).

The rationale for excluding those who only play the Lottery was both due to the nature of the survey content, which required some degree of understanding and engagement with other typical gambling activities such as betting, casino or bingo games, and to ensure good representation of consumer experience with the wider gambling industry, rather than just the Lottery.

Respondents were recruited to be broadly representative, using a quota-based sampling approach, with 4 key demographics tracked: age, gender, UK region and social grade, to match the known incidence of those who gamble as occurring in the general population using random stratified sampling frames. Full sample details can be found in Appendix 4 - Quantitative sample profile. After fieldwork, weights were applied to the data to correct any imbalance that occurred in sampling, to exactly match the quotas. Fieldwork took place between 10 to 12 June 2024.

The core purpose of the online survey was to quantify the themes developed in the qualitative research and lend them statistical backing.

A Maximum Difference (MaxDiff) exercise² was conducted to assess perceptions of trust within the gambling industry by evaluating 25 distinct statements. This method, a type of conjoint analysis, asks respondents to select the most and least important or relevant statements in a series of choices, thus revealing the relative importance of each. By forcing trade-offs, MaxDiff uncovers the underlying preferences more precisely than traditional rating scales, allowing researchers to rank the 25 statements based on their impact on trust perceptions. This approach ensures a robust understanding of which factors most significantly influence consumer trust in the gambling sector.

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 is perceived to be).

A further question was asked relating to industry performance, with respondents being asked to give their opinion on most of the previously shown statements via a Likert scale³.

A full list of the statements tested in the survey can be found in Appendix 5 - Full list of trust statements tested in quantitative survey .

Further detail on the methodology and process for the MaxDiff exercise and how it informed final statement selection for the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) will be provided in a forthcoming technical report.

Cognitive testing

A total of 12 cognitive interviews, each lasting approximately 40 minutes, were conducted between 5 to 12 July 2024, with research participants representing a broad spectrum of gambling behaviour. The participant pool included individuals who exclusively engage in Lottery games, as well as those who regularly participate in both online and in-person gambling activities. The primary objective of the cognitive testing was to assess the comprehension and efficiency of the wording used in the proposed statements related to trust in the gambling industry which will be added to the GSGB.

The cognitive testing provided valuable insights into how participants understood and interpreted each statement. Based on the feedback obtained, refinements were made to ensure clarity, relevance, and ease of comprehension. The final selection of statements was determined through a comprehensive review, integrating findings from all stages of the research process.

Additionally, instructions for the creation of a Trust Index were developed. This index aims to quantify trust levels within the gambling industry based on the refined set of statements by producing a composite score that can be tracked over time.

A detailed description of the process for developing and finalising statements and the Trust Index, including its methodology and application, will be provided in a forthcoming technical report.

---

¹ The Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) provides expert independent advice to the Commission based on its members personal lived experience of gambling harms.

² See the How to read this report section for a fuller definition on a MaxDiff exercise.

³ A minority of statements were excluded because they did not relate directly to industry performance. They will be detailed in a later technical report on the process for devising statements used in the GSGB.

How to read this report

For the purposes of reporting, the narrative is focused on key findings from each research phase (scoping, qualitative and quantitative), with clear conclusions from each and information on how each stage informed the next iteration.

The Executive Summary refers to all 3 stages of the research, triangulating different data sources to produce overall key thematic findings.

Qualitative analysis offers insights into a range of views but is not representative of the entire population. It focuses on exploring the depth and diversity of perspectives rather than broad generalisation. The findings reflect individual opinions, capturing diverse reactions influenced by the specific questions or stimulus presented. Quotes included in the analysis serve to illustrate key points and should not be taken as representing the views of all participants.

Quantitative analysis used in the report focuses on a summary of results, rather than extensive question by question analysis of the entire dataset. Unless specified otherwise, charts, tables and written analysis in this report refer to results based on the total sample.

For more detailed insight into quantitative findings, including splits by sociodemographic group, please refer to the data tables.

The guidance set out below is designed to help anyone who wishes to use data from this report to ensure it is interpreted and reported correctly.

Findings from this study can be used to provide:

• a deep dive into thematic associations with trust factors through qualitative insights
• a robust statistical assessment of the relative importance of trust factors among people who gamble
• a look at patterns within the data amongst different demographic groups.

The quantitative element of this research consisted of an online survey conducted by Yonder, focused on a sample of people who gamble (excluding National Lottery only players). The views and experiences voiced by our sample are not representative of either the general British population or the wider gambling community.

Therefore, findings from this study should not be used to:

• calculate a population-level assessment of trust in the gambling industry
• extrapolate Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) findings to population-level estimates.

Terminology used

Specific terminology is used within this report; the definitions and rationale behind them is as follows:

PGSI: Problem Gambling Severity Index, a screening tool which measures ‘problem gambling’, that is, gambling to a degree that compromises, disrupts, or damages family, personal or recreational pursuits. A PGSI score of 8 and over represents gambling by which a person will have experienced adverse consequences from gambling and may have lost control of their behaviour. A PGSI score of 3 to 7 represents moderate risk gambling. A PGSI score of 1 to 2 represents low risk gambling.

Path to Play: The "Path to Play” framework developed by the Gambling Commission (the Commission) to understand the typical consumer gambling journey. It examines key stages those who gamble go through, recognising that everyone’s experience may be slightly different.

MaxDiff: A survey tool that is a specialised instrument used in market research to determine the relative importance or preference of various items, such as product features, statements, or attributes. The tool presents respondents with a series of choice sets, each containing a subset of items from the total list under consideration. For each choice set, respondents are asked to select the item they find most important or appealing and the one they find least important. The MaxDiff survey tool includes features for randomising the presentation of choice sets to minimise order effects and data processing provides an aggregated importance score based on all respondents.

Participants: where directly referring to insights from qualitative research (including Cognitive testing) we use the term ‘participant(s)’.

Respondents: where directly referring to data from quantitative research we use the term ‘respondent(s)’.

Consumers: the term ‘consumer(s)’ is used where analysis is a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods and/or when describing behaviour in more general terms.

Limitations

While Yonder took care to ensure the robustness of the findings through the research design and application, there are a number of limitations which should be considered when reading this report.

Qualitative research

Qualitative sample sizes are by their nature small, so conclusions can only be directional, unless contextualised by quantitative data.

Qualitative research heavily relies on the skills and experience of researchers, introducing potential researcher bias although this is mitigated by employing a grounded theory approach, where Excel grids are used to capture qualitative data and notes, and where narratives are developed through rigorous analysis of this data.

All insights gathered from this study are based on self-reported behaviour rather than observed behaviour, meaning insight is limited to what participants felt comfortable revealing to Yonder in the research setting.

Focus groups for this particular study took place in London and Birmingham only, so do not capture a wide range of views throughout Great Britain.

Quantitative research

Quantitative research provides a valuable snapshot of attitudes and opinions, offering a broad view of trends and patterns across a specific sample. However, one key limitation is that quantitative results often lack the depth to explain why respondents hold certain views or what specific factors drive their responses.

The sample selection for the quantitative research also provides limitations in the interpretation of results. As outlined in the methodology section of this report, the sample selected was those who have gambled in the past 12 months, excluding National Lottery only players. As such, findings should not be treated as representative of all those who gamble, and caution should be taken in assessing the significance of sub-group differences such as gambling frequency and PGSI score, as these groups may also not be representative, and may represent a higher than natural proportion within the sample than they would in a survey of the general population.

As a final note, the quantitative fieldwork took place in the run-up period before the 2024 general election. There is nothing explicit in the data to suggest this has had an impact.

Executive Summary

Overview

This research has shown that trust in the gambling industry is influenced by a nuanced blend of consumer-focused factors and broader systemic issues. While immediate concerns, such as the speed of payouts and the quality of customer service, are often the most visible to consumers, deeper and more persistent concerns centre around the industry's regulatory framework, the protection of vulnerable groups, and the perceived risk of corruption.

Findings from the qualitative research highlights that individual, sporadic instances of slow payouts or poor customer service tend to be a conscious focal point for consumers, such rare negative experiences being particularly memorable. However, quantitative survey data tells a more complex story. Regulatory oversight, protection for young and vulnerable groups of people, and dealing with corruption were seen as more pressing concerns, indicating that while operational efficiency and direct customer experience is important, it is not the sole determinant of trust in the gambling industry.

Industry regulation

The role of regulatory bodies, particularly the Gambling Commission (the Commission), is seen as fundamental to maintaining trust in the gambling industry.

Although consumers may not consciously think about regulation during their gambling activities, there is a strong association of importance placed on it when considering the overall trustworthiness of the industry. That "the gambling industry is overseen and held accountable by a regulatory body" came out as the highest average score in the MaxDiff exercise. Further, two-thirds (63 percent) of survey respondents agree that the gambling industry is overseen and held accountable by a regulatory body, indicating a degree of trust in the regulatory framework.

Despite relatively strong awareness of, and trust in, the regulatory framework, there is less trust in the industry as a whole, with a third of survey respondents (36 percent) believing that the industry is free from corruption and manipulation, and 22 percent actively disagreeing with the sentiment. This discrepancy suggests that while regulation is viewed as important, and people are aware of the regulator’s existence, there is still a perception that the industry has issues with corruption.

Qualitative research also reveals a lack of consumer awareness about the specific functions of the Commission. This knowledge gap may contribute to doubts about the regulator's effectiveness and the potential for conflicts of interest, especially given the industry's financial contributions to government revenue. Enhancing public understanding of the regulator's role and independence could help mitigate these concerns.

Young and vulnerable individuals

The protection of young and vulnerable individuals was consistently identified as a crucial factor in maintaining trust in the gambling industry. This issue resonates deeply with many consumers, who view it as a moral obligation for both the industry and regulator. This concern is seen as a fundamental driver of trust, with those who gamble ranking it as the second most important factor in the quantitative survey, after the presence of a visible gambling regulatory body. However, despite this perceived importance, less than half of respondents felt that the gambling industry is performing well when it comes to protecting young and vulnerable groups (43 percent agree), while 21 percent disagree.

Qualitative research highlighted growing concerns about the increasing access to gambling among younger audiences, particularly through digital channels. The rise of online gaming, social media influencers, and the pervasive nature of sports sponsorships have all contributed to the perceived normalisation of gambling among younger demographics. This trend underscores the need for robust regulatory measures that address the evolving landscape of access to gambling.

The play experience

The play experience, encompassing aspects such as game type, user experience of games and machines, and quick payouts for winners remains a central component of the gambling experience for many consumers. These elements are critical to consumer satisfaction, and industry performance would appear to be satisfactory here, relative to some of the other areas investigated. Indeed, quantitative research showed that aspects such as quick payouts were generally seen as performing well (68 percent agree that it is quick and easy to withdraw winnings).

However, elements that lie outside the core play experience, such as customer service and the clarity of terms and conditions, are deemed less critical relating to trust. These factors tend to become focal points only when issues arise, indicating that while they are important to maintain, they do not singularly drive trust unless problems occur.

Advertising and marketing

Advertising and marketing does not appear to be as influential in shaping consumer trust as other factors such as regulation and the protection of vulnerable groups. However, its role is complex and multifaceted.

Qualitative research reveals that some consumers are aware of the potential for advertising and marketing to encourage harmful levels of gambling. Concerns were raised about the emphasis on promotional activities that do not prioritise consumer wellbeing. Conversely, many consumers accept advertising and promotions as a natural part of the gambling ecosystem and highlight their own responsibility in managing their gambling activity.

This was reflected in the quantitative survey, where factors relating to marketing and advertising were ranked as moderately important when compared to other trust drivers like regulation and the protection of vulnerable groups. This indicates that while marketing is a visible aspect of the industry, it is not a primary driver of trust for most consumers.

Industry reputation

Factors relating to a company being reputable, and the importance of a company being recommended by a friend or family were seen as the least important in driving trust in the quantitative survey. Our qualitative research underlines this, with participants expressing that they rarely consult others when it comes to deciding which company to use and where to gamble, and most have the confidence to gamble with their preferred company regardless of external noise.

That being said, some qualitative participants did often say that they would gamble with household names, under the assumption that they could be better relied upon in matters such as their ability to pay out, and protection of consumer data. 

Scoping phase findings

Overview

To build a strong foundation for the qualitative phase and to better establish the scope of the research, Yonder firstly conducted desk research into the topic of trust, delving into how this topic is understood and tracked across sectors. Within this, financial services, government and institutions, and the pharmaceutical industry, were examined and drew attention to several themes within the context of trust-building.

Influence of regulation (or perceived regulation): The UK’s Trust in Food index report from 2022 (pdf) (opens in new tab), noted that the general public’s trust in the UK food industry derived from a broad conviction that the regulatory system that existed was doing its job. This is despite the fact that only a few consumers can actually name specific assurance schemes or food regulatory systems. This suggests that the mere belief that regulation exists can have an impact on trust.

Dimensions of capability and character in driving trust: Research from the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry (BPI) reputation conference in October 2023 (opens in new tab) sought to demonstrate how trust in an organisation stems from capability and character. Capability is understood as how competent the organisation is in delivering quality products or services, and character relates to its honesty, integrity and ethical behaviour. Strong capability is thought to ensure reliability, while strong character helps to foster confidence in fair and principled actions. Together, the report highlighted how these dimensions play a role in building trust.

A spread of frameworks for measuring and tracking trust were also reviewed, including:

• the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) drivers of trust (opens in new tab) in public institutions, measuring performance across 5 drivers of trust including responsiveness, reliability, integrity, fairness, and openness
• the financial sector model by Moin, Devlin, and McKechnie (pdf)(opens in new tab) focused on trust between institutions and consumers, and consumers’ propensity or commitment to take the risk of trusting institutions
• the Edelman Trust Barometer's annual trust and credibility survey (opens in new tab) covering a range of industries including governments and non-governmental organisations (NGO’s) and the media
• Yonder Consulting’s internal reputation model: a framework designed and used by Yonder Consulting that assesses corporate reputation through intensity and sentiment metrics.

The desk research exercise also incorporated insights from the Gambling Commission (the Commission) itself, including a review of complaints data collected through their Contact Centre, and previous online tracker survey results on trust.

Subsequent to this, Yonder conducted 2 focus groups with Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) members. The purpose of this exercise was to gather insight into drivers and barriers of trust within the gambling sector.

Insights from the initial scoping activities helped to establish that independence, impact, integrity and transparency, and customer interaction and/or influence appeared to be integral dimensions of trust in the gambling industry. This context informed the next phases of the research, helping to identify relevant topics for further exploration and validation. For the qualitative phase, these insights served as a springboard for developing the stimulus material created to foster discussion and debate among participants.

There were 8 topics explored within the stimulus which included thought-provoking statements, supported by imagery and evidence, such as press clippings and screenshots from gambling company websites. It focused on the following trust-related areas:

1. The role and impact of the regulator - for example, awareness of the regulator including its independence and understanding of its role and reach.

2. Gambling company accountability and fines - for example, the extent to which action is seen to be taken against gambling companies who fall below standards such as through the issuing of fines.

3. Role of licensing - for example, exploring the role of formal accreditation and licensing.

4. Safeguarding vulnerable audiences - for example, the prevention of harm amongst vulnerable audiences, children and young people.

5. Clarity of complaints process - for example, considering whether responsibility should fall on the gambling company or the people who gamble themselves to resolve complaints.

6. Transparency of terms and conditions - for example, whether those who gamble are able to quickly and easily understand their rights.

7. Role of customer service - for example, expectations of customer service when gambling online and interactions with staff for in-person gambling.

8. Fair game play - for example, people being treated the same by gambling companies whether they win or lose, including smooth withdrawal processes.

Qualitative phase: key findings

Overview

There were 4, 2 hour long in-person focus groups conducted in March 2024. As outlined in the Methodology section, participants who took part were of varying demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic grade) and represented a mix of gambling experiences (online, in-person, type of gambling activity, frequency), with the aim of establishing drivers and barriers of trust and attitudes towards the gambling industry and regulation.

Key findings

Insights from the focus groups revealed several key factors influencing trust, including:

Regulator impact and awareness

While most participants were aware that gambling is regulated, there is a noticeable lack of understanding about the Gambling Commission’s (the Commission) role, particularly amongst younger audiences. This knowledge gap itself can act as a barrier to trust: by fostering doubt amongst those who gamble as they are unsure whether their interests are adequately protected, leading to diminished confidence in the regulatory framework and industry itself.

Some participants also pointed to a potential perceived conflict of interest, noting that regulation is closely tied to the government, which simultaneously generates income from gambling taxes and licensing. This concern is amplified by the perception that gambling companies prioritise profit and tax contributions over consumer protection, in turn deepening scepticism about the government's role in the industry.

Furthermore, in a sector where consumers actively choose to participate, the role of the regulator can, for some, be seen as less impactful, especially compared to other sectors like utilities, where consumer protection is more prominent. This leads to a perception that the Commission's influence starts from a position of lower impact.

Conveying the Commission’s independence and raising awareness of its role, therefore, is a factor that is important in building trust in the future and was identified as a valuable topic to take forward for quantitative evaluation.

Education and safeguarding measures

When prompted on what they think the Commission’s role is, participants often associate it with education and safeguarding, particularly thinking about the prevention of harm in relation to younger, more vulnerable people. Individuals often make this link because it is an emotionally salient topic, where they can see the potential for accidental harm or exposure taking place. In contrast, when it comes to adults, the decision to gamble is seen as a conscious choice, therefore those who gamble can struggle to see the need to put efforts into protecting the rights of willing adults.

Participants expressed concerns over the growing exposure of younger, more vulnerable audiences to gambling through wider marketing and advertising. Examples frequently mentioned included watching sports, where the prevalence of gambling advertising is perceived to be high, and through the blurring of the lines of responsible engagement by influencers and tipsters.

It was felt that safeguarding children is a shared societal responsibility and participants emphasised the importance of early intervention through education in schools and broader forums to mitigate harm.

Addressing education and safeguarding without increasing stigma is important and warrants thoughtful consideration. Because of this, the decision was made to advance this topic for inclusion in the quantitative phase.

Terms and conditions

There was a perception among participants that terms and conditions are intentionally unclear and difficult to navigate, contributing to a sense of being kept in the dark about their own rights. This impression was heightened by the design of terms and conditions: being perceived as hard-to-find, filled with jargon, and often presented in small print or colours that make them difficult to read.

However, for most, the primary focus when gambling is on enjoyment of the activity and uninterrupted play. As such, terms and conditions only become a concern when issues arise, such as when making a complaint or seeking a clarification on rights. It is not something that participants proactively look for when gambling.

Consequently, terms and conditions appear to have a lesser impact on building trust compared to other factors. Their influence, however, was thought to be interesting to explore in greater detail in the subsequent quantitative survey as a means to consider the dimensions of transparency and fairness in the industry.

Family and peer influences

The influence of friends and family can shape motivations to gamble, by enhancing the enjoyment of gambling while socialising. Younger participants often associated this activity with a sense of shared excitement, for example, around sporting events such as the Cheltenham Races, when betting with friends. In the case of older participants, some recall early exposure to gambling, enjoying visits to arcades with others in their youth or accompanying parents to betting shops.

However, friends and family have a limited impact on consumer trust in gambling companies and the industry. Participants described how once the decision to gamble has been made, they feel fairly set in their decision and rarely consciously consider the opinions of others close to them. Even in instances where they’ve heard of specific friends or family who have had a negative experience with gambling, they admit this rarely deters them since there is a sense of this being something that will never happen to them, feeling they are fully in control of their own gambling. Ultimately, participants felt confident in their personal ability to assess whether a particular gambling activity felt right or trustworthy at the time, suggesting a lack of necessity to validate this factor through the quantitative survey.

The complaints process

Whilst important, participants noted that making a complaint is not a regular occurrence and even in the instance where an issue did occur, participants claimed they did not tend to escalate this to a formal complaint, due to this being perceived as an effortful process. Many believed that if companies handle the basics well and resolve everyday issues, the need for formal complaints would diminish.

When prompted for their views on the complaints requirements, as outlined by the Commission, many said the requirements do not align with their expectations. Participants felt that gambling companies should handle complaints directly (as per legal requirements), with the regulator only stepping in when needed, similar to an ombudsman. However, many find the apparent lack of resolution and human contact frustrating. Those who have previously complained report that they would avoid doing so again due to the effort involved and the uncertainty of a successful outcome.

With little perceived power and agency when it comes to complaints, this is generally seen as a secondary issue for those who gamble, and in effect, has less of an impact on trust. Due to this, it was decided this would not be taken forward as a topic for the quantitative survey.

Fair game play

Several factors can contribute to perceptions of fair game play:

Odds and win ratios: Odds and win ratios serve as passive reassurance for those who gamble, especially if they are a more cautious or occasional player (for example, among lottery and scratchcard players). Signposting these figures conveys transparency and allows players to verify the fairness of a game or gambling company, giving them a sense of agency and control.

Online sites: Concerns around fairness can be heightened due to the perceived complexity of digital algorithms and the lack of understanding of how these platforms operate, leading to the belief that ‘the house always wins’. This issue also extends to in-person gambling, where fairness is often perceived to be easier for those who gamble to gauge, for example, by observing staff or looking at what the betting amounts on machines have been set to.

Sports betting: Participants also spoke of perceived trustworthiness in some sports betting within the broader context of fairness in gambling. This trust was attributed to the association of sports, such as football, with skill-based gameplay. Certain sports betting, such as on football, was viewed as more trustworthy and fair compared to other forms of gambling, as it was believed to involve informed decisions based on knowledge of teams or players' abilities, rather than relying solely on luck.

Ensuring that gameplay experiences feel fair, by including transparent odds and clear win ratios for example, is essential for sustaining trust. It was therefore decided to further validate this factor within the quantitative survey.

Withdrawal challenges

Among people who gamble, some report withdrawal challenges, reinforcing a perception that gambling companies prioritise profit as ‘the house always wins’. Key issues include delays, additional ID requirements, and vague communication. Withdrawals can take longer than expected, which directly impacts trust, prompting people who gamble to switch providers if this becomes a common occurrence.

These withdrawal issues are seen as contradictory to the smooth deposit process most experience, leading some to perceive delays to be an intentional tactic to hinder access to funds. Experience of the withdrawal process can therefore substantially impact trust, highlighting a clear need to validate this factor through the quantitative survey.

Promotional activity

Promotional offers are often desired by people who gamble. However, these offers are also met with some cynicism. The balance between reward and over-promotion is frequently questioned. Those who gamble cite several concerns:

Gambling company self-interest: whereby the perception of direct communications such as personalised emails is considered to be working to the advantage of the company and, aimed at encouraging play and making profit without regard for player’s well-being.

Surveillance: well-timed delivery of promotions, like free bet offers and push notifications, can be felt to be invasive. If these coincide with when people are gambling, it can lead to a sense of being monitored by companies, causing discomfort.

Marketing and social media: the perceived increased presence of gambling promotions through social media influencers and sports tipsters, is also thought to make it harder for people who gamble to make fully informed, independent decisions.

Overall, participants can appear somewhat indifferent to the sheer volume of direct communication and marketing, and largely recognise there is little they can do to affect this. However, these tactics can still impact their trust in gambling companies, albeit on a more subconscious level. Accordingly, advertising and promotional activity emerged as an important dimension of trust that warranted quantitative evaluation, not least since the broader context of advertising is critical for the Commission to monitor and assess.

Summary

In summary, the qualitative research revealed that trust in the gambling industry is shaped by various consumer-facing and systemic factors, namely:

• regulator impact and independence
• education and safeguarding
• fair and transparent gameplay and terms and conditions
• customer experience, withdrawals and support
• promotional and marketing activities.

These findings helped inform the development of trust statements for the quantitative phase, highlighting critical areas for further validation.

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

Figure 1: High ranking statements (1-8)

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

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

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

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

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

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.

---

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.

Conclusions and next steps

What have we learnt?

In summary, this study has identified that trust in the gambling industry is shaped by a complex interplay of factors, ranging from the immediate play experience to broader concerns about regulation, corruption, and the protection of vulnerable groups.

While the industry is generally perceived to offer a satisfactory play experience, deeper issues related to regulatory oversight and the perception of corruption within the industry remain critical to building and maintaining long-term trust.

Enhancing the visibility and independence of the Gambling Commission (the Commission) as a regulatory body, addressing concerns about the protection of young and vulnerable individuals, and maintaining a balanced approach to regulation that is firm on industry conduct but not overtly restrictive of play will be key to sustaining trust in the industry.

Additionally, the role of advertising and marketing, while nuanced, must be managed carefully to avoid undermining trust while respecting consumer choice. Ultimately, the industry's ability to balance these competing demands will determine its success in maintaining both trust and consumer satisfaction. Continuing to monitor the nuanced landscape of trust will be important to maintain this balance, as the industry, and the experience of the consumer, continues to evolve.

Next Steps

A further technical report to be released at a later date will summarise the process behind the selection of statements to form a new question that can be used to track consumer trust over time in the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB).

Data from the new question is being piloted on the online version of the Year 2, wave 2 GSGB survey. Following the assessment of the pilot findings and making any necessary changes to the approach, the new question will be added to the paper questionnaire and will be asked to the whole sample every quarter from 2025 onwards.

Appendix 1 - Desk research published sources

Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) Strengthening reputation and trust in the UK pharmaceutical Industry (2024) Strengthening reputation and trust in the UK pharmaceutical industry (opens in new tab).

Bradley, A., & James, R. J. E. (2019) How are major gambling brands using Twitter? International Gambling Studies (opens in new tab).

Charity Commission for England and Wales (2023) Public Trust in Charities 2023 (GOV.UK) Public trust in charities 2023 - GOV.UK (opens in new tab)

Carin van der Cruijsen; Jakob de Haan; Ria Roerink (2021) Trust in financial institutions: A survey Trust in Financial Institutions: A Survey by Carin van der Cruijsen, Jakob de Haan, Ria Roerink -SSRN (opens in new tab)

Edelman (2024) Edelman Trust Barometer (opens in new tab)

Gambling Commission (2019) Consumer attitudes towards gambling advertising (2019 research)

Gambling Commission (2019) Exploring the information needs of gambling consumers (2019 research)

Gambling Commission (2020) Understanding how consumers engaged with gambling advertising in 2020

Gambling Commission (2021) Understanding consumer complaints

Gambling Commission (2023) Consumer perception that gambling is fair and can be trusted

Gambling Commission (2023) Gambling Behaviour 2015 to 2023: Quarterly telephone survey trends Perceptions of the gambling industry as fair and trusted

Gambling Commission (2023) Blog - Exploring the topic of withdrawing funds from accounts and what the data shows

Gambling Commission (2024) Customer happiness with treatment by Licensees

IPSOS Building reputation in 2023: the link between corporate reputation and business efficiency Building reputation in 2023: the link between corporate reputation and business efficiency (opens in new tab)

IPSOS The Ipsos Global Reputation Monitor. Reputation, Resiliency, and Results: Using Trust to Unlock the Value of Reputation (2019) unlocking_value_of_reputation-report_2018-05 (PDF) (opens in new tab)

Jones, P. & Comfort, D. (2021) Corporate digital responsibility challenges for sports betting companies. Journal of Gambling Issues, 48, 202-212 - Research Repository (opens in new tab)

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2017) OECD Guidelines on Measuring Trust (opens in new tab)

Office for National Statistics (2023) Trust in government, UK:2023 (opens in new tab)

Red Tractor The UK’s Trust in Food Index (2022) - Red Tractor Assurance (opens in new tab)

S. M. A. Moin, James Devlin & Sally McKechnie (2023) Introducing a composite measure of trust in financial services, The Service Industries Journal, 43:11-12, 896-922, DOI: 10.1080/02642069.2021.1969366 (PDF)(opens in new tab)

The Behavioural Insights Team (2022) Assessment of consumer demand for gambling industry transparency (opens in new tab)

The Guardian (April 2023) Ban all Gambling Adverts, say more than half of Britons. Ban all gambling adverts, say more than half of Britons (opens in new tab)

YouGov UK How Brits feel about the gambling industry (opens in new tab)

Appendix 2 - Qualitative discussion guide

Introduction and Warm-up 

Introduction to Yonder, the Gambling Commission, and the purpose of the research. 

Participants introduce themselves, sharing the types of gambling they engage in and what they enjoy about it. 

Spontaneous Drivers of Trust and Fairness 

Aim: To explore positive and negative experiences within the gambling sector and identify what builds or undermines trust and fairness. 

Discussion of positive and negative gambling experiences. 

Participants' overall perceptions of gambling and the industry. 

In-depth exploration of the factors that drive or hinder trust and fairness, including examples and identification of when trust starts to decline. 

Examination of influences shaping perceptions, such as the role of media, social media, peers, and regulation or government. 

Role and Awareness of Gambling Regulation 

Aim: To assess participants' awareness of the Gambling Commission and their views on its strategic objectives. 

Exploration of participants' knowledge, expectations, and concerns regarding gambling regulation. 

Thematic Stimulus Exploration 

Aim: To gauge participants' reactions to various themes, understand which resonate more or less, and explore how they articulate trust-related issues in their own words. 

Presentation of key themes, with participants identifying factors that are more or less important in influencing trust. 

Detailed exploration of each theme, focusing on real-life examples of how these topics have either built or undermined trust, and discussing how focusing on these areas could increase trust. 

Themes include: 

• the role and impact of the regulator 
• gambling company accountability and the impact of fines 
• licensing and its role in trust 
• safeguarding vulnerable audiences 
• clarity and transparency of the complaints process 
• transparency of terms and conditions 
• customer service experience 
• fair gameplay. 

Final Questions and Summary 

Collection of closing thoughts from participants by the moderator. 

Appendix 3 - Qualitative stimulus

The following information is from the trust stimulus pack prepared by Yonder and shown to participants as part of the qualitative phase of the research. Fieldwork for the qualitative phase was conducted between 13th and 20th April 2024.

The stimulus pack provides a contextual introduction to topics which frequently appeared in consumer complaints and desk research, enabling participants to reflect upon them and whether the comments shown reflect their views on gambling, and consider the factors that drive their trust in the gambling sector.

Introduction to the Gambling Commission

Taken from Our strategy for the next three years¹:

The Gambling Commission (the Commission) seeks to make gambling fairer and safer. It does so by licensing and regulating in the public interest and providing advice and guidance. It wants a fair and safe gambling market where all consumers and the interests of the wider public are protected.

Its strategic objectives for the next 3 years are:

• protecting children and vulnerable people from being harmed by gambling
• a fairer market and more informed consumers
• keeping crime out of gambling
• optimising returns to good causes from the National Lottery
• improving gambling regulation.

Overview of typical complaint topics with quotes and visual cues

The importance of knowing who you’re gambling with

Quote: “When it comes to gambling, you want to be sure you’re dealing with a legit, accredited, and above all, secure gambling company. Your money and your personal data, they’ve got to be in safe hands.”

Visual cues: The Commission, the Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS) and Safer Gambling Standard Logos

The Commission webpage What to look at before you gamble.

The importance of customer service

Text: Sometimes, when a gambler is in the heat of the game, they enjoy being in their own world, just them and the screen. But there are occasions when they need to break play and ask questions and here automated, robotic responses can, at times, be frustrating.

Visual cues: Anonymised help page and chat box.

Visual cues text reads: If you have any queries, comments or problems with your personal account, there are lots of ways for you to get in touch. Our friendly UK based customer services team are here to lend a helping hand and deal with your enquiry promptly, the team are available 24/7. There are lots of ways for you to get in touch: Live Help – Phone - Email.

The importance of a friendly face

Text: Often, when gamblers are on a roll at a casino, or on a day out, it’s like everything is going their way, even the bookie can feel like their friend. But when luck isn't on their side, there’s little interaction or sympathy, it's like they’re just another player.

Visual cues: Side-by-side photographs of a crowd cheering and an individual looking unhappy.

The importance of clear terms and conditions

Text: For some gamblers, in the heat of the moment it can be tough to fully grasp the odds and the deal that’s on the table. On occasion, one can think they’ve made a great move, only to realise later that the offer wasn’t quite what it appeared to be. Terms & conditions aren’t always that clear and can be confusing.

Quotes: "They have adverts which say games for 2 pence and jackpots of up to £20,000. These facts are both true and the person watching only hears these facts, they do not hear the other facts that the game for £20,000 is £2 per game and that the payout for the 2 pence game is only £10. They hide the facts within the quick headline detail." And "I think the terms and conditions have become more transparent."

Visual cue: Example of terms and conditions small print.

The importance of a clear complaints process

Text: Most of the time, gamblers can feel like they know what they’re getting themselves into when gambling, but there can be the odd occasion when there is an issue that they want to take further, and it can be unclear how to do this.

Visual cues: The Commission webpages Complain about a gambling business and How to complain.

The importance of safeguarding

Text: Sometimes when a gambler is on a roll and winning, they’re loving life. But when luck turns against them and losses start piling up, they’d appreciate something or somebody to help them hit the brakes, take a moment, and think about their next move more carefully.

Visual cues: GambleAware: ‘When the Fun Stops, Stop’, Safer Gambling: ‘Set your Limits for Time and Money’, photographs of a helping hand and a person betting their car keys at a poker table.

The importance of action

Text: You see it in the news- regulators like Ofcom and the FCA watching over their sectors. You see this in gambling too, with the regulator building guidelines and issuing fines. But sometimes, it is called into question whether this action really makes a difference in the gambling sector or if it’s just brushed off by gambling companies?

Visual cues: Screenshots of LinkedIn post (opens in new tab),CityAm article (opens in new tab) and Guardian article (opens in new tab).

Withdrawing funds from gambling companies

Text: When some gamblers are looking to withdraw funds, gambling companies request detailed information to verify one’s identity, which can happen when signing up for an account or even sometimes after a win… this causes some confusion about why gambling companies make you jump through additional hoops.

Quotes: "I've never been misled or not paid when I’ve asked for my winnings," and "I have been asked to provide documents for affordability checks but have already been playing and winning for 6 months. I am now expected to show mortgage statements from my partner."

Visual cue: Example of customer help information on winning and/or withdrawing and information needed to prove identity.

---

¹ This research commenced before the launch of the Gambling Commission strategy 2024 to 2027 and can be found in our Corporate Strategy 2024 to 2027

Appendix 4 - Quantitative sample profile

Survey respondents were recruited to be broadly representative, using a quota-based sampling approach, with 4 key demographics tracked: age, gender, UK region and social grade, to match the known incidence of those who gamble as occurring in the general population using random stratified sampling frames.

Quantitative sample profile

Gender	Percentage
Male	55%
Female	45%
Age	Percentage
18 to 24	9%
25 to 34	18%
35 to 44	20%
45 to 54	19%
55 to 64	16%
65 and over	19%
Ethnicity	Percentage
White	86%
Ethnic minorities	14%
Social Grade	Percentage
AB	39%
C1	26%
C2	15%
DE	20%
Region	Percentage
Scotland	8%
North East	5%
North West	13%
Yorkshire and the Humber	10%
West Midlands	9%
East Midlands	6%
Wales	5%
East of England	8%
London	16%
South East	11%
South West	8%

Definitions

Ethnicity

Respondents were asked which description best describes their ethnic group or background and could indicate between white, mixed or multiple ethnic groups, Asian and British Asian, black and black British. For the purpose of this appendix the respondent demographics have been grouped, and the full information is available within the data tables.

Social Grade

Calculated using the National Readership Survey system of demographic classification based on the occupation of the chief earner within the household used by market researchers in the United Kingdom. More information on classifications can be found at Approximated Social Grade data - Office for National Statistics (opens in new tab).

Appendix 5 - Full list of trust statements tested in quantitative survey 

Gambling companies are overseen by a regulator and held accountable for their conduct if it falls short of standards. 

Gambling companies are licensed in Great Britain. 

Effective measures are in place to ensure young people and other vulnerable groups are protected from being harmed or exploited by gambling. 

Gambling companies have effective checks in place before they allow people to gamble (for example, ID checks, financial checks). 

Gambling companies have effective measures in place to protect my data and/or personal information. 

Gambling companies promote safer gambling and highlight the potential risks involved in their adverts.  

Personalised advertising and offers (that is, emails, texts and app notifications) are not excessive.  

The companies I am gambling with are recommended by people I know (for example, friends, family, peers). 

Affiliates who promote gambling (for example, tipsters, partners, influencers, content creators) are transparent about marketing products on behalf of gambling companies. 

Offers, odds, and products advertised by gambling companies are clear, easy to understand and not misleading. 

Gambling promotions and offers reward players without promoting excessive play or betting. 

Gambling companies are a familiar or a reputable name. 

Gambling companies offer customers gambling management tools such as deposit and time limits, or self-exclusion schemes. 

Gambling companies signpost to external sources of help and support for people who are struggling with their gambling. 

That it is quick and easy to withdraw my winnings.   

Gambling companies treat customers the same whether they are winning or losing. 

Games and machines are regularly tested to ensure game conditions are accurate, fair, and free from faults or errors. 

Gambling activities are free from corruption and manipulation. 

Odds and win ratios accurately represent the likelihood of winning. 

Odds and win ratios are prominently displayed in places I gamble. 

Terms and conditions are easy to understand when gambling. 

Terms and conditions are prominently displayed in places I gamble. 

Gambling companies are easy to contact and resolve issues or complaints promptly. 

Gambling companies demonstrate excellent customer service (for example, staff interactions) are a positive experience and I feel I am being listened to. 

Gambling companies intervene if they think that someone needs help to manage their gambling (for example, struggling with the amount of money and/or time spent gambling).