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.
7 - Research implications
Context for Financial check proposals
- Communication would be required to address the definition and purpose of the financial checks contained within these proposals, to build awareness and counteract confusion or uncertainty.
There is low awareness of existing Financial Vulnerability Checks having taken place. Although frictionless Financial Risk Assessments are not happening currently, there is confusion among gamblers over whether any Financial Risk Assessments are currently taking place and what they entail.
Overall response to the proposals
- The consumer perspective suggests that the Gambling Commission (the Commission) should continue forward with this package of proposals, as results from both quantitative and qualitative phases suggest that the proposals, as currently formulated, would receive broad support from the gambling population.
There is widespread agreement with the necessity of, and support for, the package of proposals.
Financial Vulnerability Check
- Due to concerns regarding its targeting effectiveness, communication would need to make clear why the proposed financial vulnerability thresholds have been chosen and how they would effectively target at-risk gamblers.
The majority of gamblers support the proposed thresholds, but a considerable proportion feel they are too low and would therefore impact most gamblers rather than at-risk gamblers specifically.
- Communication would be required to detail which personal data would be used and how it identifies someone who is financially vulnerable, alongside confirmation that it would not disrupt play, impact gambling activity or gamblers’ credit scores.
There was widespread support for the use of publicly available data and most gamblers did not think it would impact their gambling activity. However, there was uncertainty about what data would be used, and a concern voiced that it would miss people who were vulnerable but do not have the appropriate public records available to indicate financial risk.
Financial Risk Assessment
- Whilst ‘binge gambling’ and the related threshold was understood and accepted, the rationale and threshold for ‘unaffordable losses’ would require better explanation to increase acceptance, or results suggest that the time period and amounts should be adjusted to better reflect typical gambling behaviour.
In the quantitative survey, most online gamblers supported both proposed thresholds whilst a proportion felt they could be lowered. But in the qualitative phase, online gamblers struggled to relate to the ‘unaffordable losses over time’ thresholds and correlate the 90-day time period with their typical week or calendar month view of gambling.
- Communications would need to provide reassurance that the Financial Risk Assessment would not impact a gambler’s credit score and include specific clarification that they would be under the supervision of a third-party regulator or government for player protection purposes.
There was broad support in the quantitative phase for the use of credit reference agency data to perform the Financial Risk Assessment. However, in the qualitative phase, concerns were voiced over whether these checks would impact an individual’s credit score and/or whether it would be visible anywhere on that individual’s credit record. Similarly, more people in the quantitative survey believed the Financial Risk Assessment would be undisruptive, but strong concerns were raised in the qualitative phase about the level of intrusion required, and about sharing this data with gambling companies, towards whom there is a marked lack of trust shown by many.
Perceptions of proposed lower threshold for gamblers aged 18 to 24 years old
- Consumer perspective suggests that the Commission should continue forward with proposed lower thresholds for younger adults due to widespread support for increased protections for this age group among the gambling population.
There was broad support for lower thresholds for younger gamblers in both the quantitative and qualitative phases of research. In the qualitative phase, despite mild objections regarding the reasoning for the lower thresholds being younger gambler’s more vulnerable financial position, there was recognition that younger gamblers may be at greater risk due to fewer protective behaviours established whilst gambling. Framing the need for lower thresholds for this age group around these increased risks versus their financial position could help land this element of the proposals.
Difference of opinion based on gambling activity
- The research findings strongly evidence the need for the Commission to take time to provide adequate detail around the need, mechanics, and effectiveness of proposals to overcome initial resistance, and to encourage all types of gamblers to provide similar levels of support to the wider gambling population.
Quantitative research revealed that those with a higher number of active accounts, and/or higher scores on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), tended to have more negative opinions of the proposals compared to the total sample of gamblers. Qualitative research revealed that, despite initial resistance, by spending time immersing gamblers in the detail of the proposals there was widespread support of them regardless of gambling behaviour.
Previous sectionCheck outcomes - Gambler attitudes towards Financial Vulnerability and Financial Risk Check proposals Next section
Annex - Gambler attitudes towards Financial Vulnerability and Financial Risk Check proposals
Last updated: 1 May 2024
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.