Report
Exploring gambler attitudes towards Financial Vulnerability and Financial Risk Check proposals
The Gambling Commission’s report on the attitudes and opinions of online gamblers regarding the proposals for financial vulnerability and financial risk checks.
6 - Check outcomes
This section details gamblers’ opinions as to the perceived suitability of potential actions that may be taken by gambling companies should the proposed thresholds for financial vulnerability or risk be exceeded.
In the quantitative survey, gamblers were presented with a range of potential actions which might be taken by gambling companies, including 4 potential actions should ‘mild’ signs of vulnerability or risk be revealed, and 4 potential actions should more ‘serious’ signs be revealed. Gamblers were then asked to decide whether the actions went ‘too far’, ‘were enough’, or ‘did not go far enough’. The range of potential measures provided to gamblers was the same for both the Financial Vulnerability Check and Financial Risk Assessment. These are listed in Tables 6.1 and 6.2.
Given the absence of formal guidelines around the actions that gambling companies should take if signs of vulnerability or risk are identified, and the case-dependent nature of assessing a gambler’s vulnerability or risk profile, these questions were intended to provide an initial gauge of the kinds of interventions with which gamblers would be more or less comfortable, rather than feedback on a definitive list, and this should be kept in mind when interpreting results.
Potential outcomes for ‘mild’ signs of vulnerability or risk
In the questionnaire, gamblers were asked to consider individuals who might be showing ‘mild’ signs of vulnerability, such as unpaid debt. In terms of ‘mild’ signs of vulnerability or risk, there was widespread agreement that any of the 4 potential actions would constitute a reasonable response: between 7 in 10 and 8 in 10 (69 percent to 79 percent) answered that each would be sufficient.
However, there are some indications of the type of intervention on the part of gambling companies that would be considered inadequate in addressing signs of vulnerability or risk. When asked in relation to both a Financial Vulnerability Check and a Financial Risk Assessment, a greater proportion of gamblers said that ‘encourag[ing] a customer to set limits on their gambling’ did not go far enough (13 percent for the Financial Vulnerability Check, and 14 percent for the Financial Risk Assessment), compared to the other 3 potential actions (‘contact the customer to discuss their gambling’: 7 percent and 9 percent respectively, ‘monitor the account in case of further signs of vulnerability’: 9 percent and 10 percent respectively, and ‘direct the customer to help and support’: 9 percent and 11 percent respectively).
At the same time, there are also indications of potential actions that gamblers would consider overcautious. For example, a greater proportion of gamblers said that ‘contact[ing] the customer to discuss their gambling’ went too far (15 percent for the Financial Vulnerability Check and 16 percent for the Financial Risk Assessment compared to the other 3 potential actions (‘encourage a customer to set limits on their gambling’: 6 percent respectively, ‘monitor the account in case of further signs of vulnerability’: 7 percent respectively, and ‘direct the customer to help and support’: 7 percent and 8 percent respectively).
Table 6.1 Perceptions of the potential outcomes of a Financial Vulnerability Check (FVC) or Financial Risk Assessment (FRA) if ‘mild’ signs of vulnerability or risk are identified (all gamblers) 1
| Gambler response | Monitor the account in case of further signs of vulnerability (percentage): FVC | Monitor the account in case of further signs of vulnerability (percentage): FRA | Contact the customer to discuss their gambling (percentage): FVC | Contact the customer to discuss their gambling (percentage): FRA | Encourage a customer to set limits on their gambling (deposit limits or self-exclusion) (percentage): FVC | Encourage a customer to set limits on their gambling (deposit limits or self-exclusion) (percentage): FRA | Direct the customer to help and support (percentage): FVC | Direct the customer to help and support (percentage): FRA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Does not go far enough | 9% | 10% | 7% | 9% | 13% | 14% | 9% | 11% |
| Is enough | 79% | 77% | 71% | 69% | 76% | 76% | 77% | 75% |
| Goes too far | 7% | 7% | 15% | 16% | 6% | 6% | 7% | 8% |
| Do not know | 5% | 6% | 7% | 7% | 5% | 5% | 6% | 7% |
Potential outcomes for ‘serious’ signs of vulnerability or risk
In the questionnaire, gamblers were asked to consider individuals who might be showing ‘serious’ signs of vulnerability, such as bankruptcy. When it came to ‘serious’ signs of vulnerability or risk, again there was widespread agreement that any of the 4 potential actions would constitute a reasonable response: between around 6 in 10 and 7 in 10 (56 percent to 71 percent) answered that each would be sufficient. However, in comparison to the ‘mild’ signs of vulnerability or risk, there was a higher degree of variation in responses, suggesting stronger opinions on what constitutes too little or too much.
There are signs of potential actions that gamblers would consider inadequate in response to ‘serious’ signs of vulnerability or risk. A quarter of gamblers (25 percent for the Financial Vulnerability Check and 27 percent for the Financial Risk Assessment) said that ‘limit[ing] the amount of advertising the customer sees’ did not go far enough, which was a statistically higher proportion than all of the other 3 potential actions (‘terminate the customer's account’: 5 percent and 6 percent respectively, ‘stop a customer gambling temporarily’: 12 percent and 13 percent respectively, ‘set a deposit or loss limit on behalf of the customer’: 16 percent respectively).
At the same time, there were also indications of where potential actions are considered overcautious. A quarter of gamblers (27 percent for the Financial Vulnerability Check and 26 percent for the Financial Risk Assessment) said that ‘terminat[ing] a customer’s account’ constituted too strong a response, a proportion that was statistically higher than for the 3 other potential actions (‘limit the amount of advertising the customer sees’: 8 percent respectively, ‘set a deposit or loss limit on behalf of the customer’: 9 percent and 8 percent respectively, ‘stop a customer gambling temporarily’: 13 percent and 12 percent respectively).
Table 6.2 Perceptions of the potential outcomes of a Financial Vulnerability Check (FVC) or Financial Risk Assessment (FRA) if 'serious’ signs of vulnerability or risk are identified (all gamblers) 2
| Gambler response | Set a deposit or loss limit on behalf of the customer (percentage): FVC | Set a deposit or loss limit on behalf of the customer (percentage): FRA | Limit the amount of advertising the customer sees (percentage): FVC | Limit the amount of advertising the customer sees (percentage): FRA | Stop a customer gambling temporarily (percentage): FVC | Stop a customer gambling temporarily (percentage): FRA | Terminate the customer's account (percentage): FVC | Terminate the customer's account (percentage): FRA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Does not go far enough | 16% | 16% | 25% | 27% | 12% | 13% | 5% | 6% |
| Is enough | 69% | 71% | 59% | 56% | 68% | 69% | 58% | 58% |
| Goes too far | 9% | 8% | 8% | 8% | 13% | 12% | 27% | 26% |
| Do not know | 5% | 5% | 9% | 9% | 7% | 6% | 10% | 10% |
In the qualitative phase, gamblers were introduced to some of the potential actions and asked to give their opinions. Overall, gamblers struggled with the lack of clarity regarding the consequences of a check.
There was a concern that this being left up to gambling companies would mean that those identified as being at risk would not be sufficiently protected and supported.
"Rubbish – why would the gambling company not HAVE to do something, why is it ambiguous? Feels like vulnerable customers are a lamb taken to slaughter."
25 to 55 years old, gamble several times a week or daily, £250 or more monthly deposit amount
"But I’m confused what it would actually do off the back – there should be definite action in place. So, we’re talking about setting deposit limits as a potential action, but is that going to be a percentage of what they normally play? How is that going to be broken down? Yeah, check. I have not got a problem with anyone checking. And if people identify me so be it, but what is not clear is what’s going to happen if they’ll identify me."
25 to 55 years old, low income, range of gambling activity from daily to monthly, range of deposit amounts from £10 to £100 or more a month
Quantitative results show that most online gamblers consider all the potential actions to be a reasonable response to ‘mild’ or ‘serious’ signs of vulnerability or risk. Furthermore, these results provide clear indications of the boundaries beyond which online gamblers consider a response to be either inadequate or overcautious. Overall, however, online gamblers felt that to be reassured that the proposals are effective, they require more clarity about what would happen when risks are identified, or a clear rationale for why the gambling companies should retain large amounts of discretion regarding the decision.
References
1 'Please indicate how suitable you think each of the proposed measures are to protect customers with signs of financial vulnerability.' Base: All gamblers (1000)
2 'Please indicate how suitable you think each of the proposed measures are to protect customers with signs of financial vulnerability.' Base: All gamblers (1000)
Financial Risk Assessment - Gambler attitudes towards Financial Vulnerability and Financial Risk Check proposals Next section
Research implications - Gambler attitudes towards Financial Vulnerability and Financial Risk Check proposals
Last updated: 1 May 2024
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.