Cookies on the Gambling Commission website

The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

Set cookie preferences

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skip to main content

Report

Lived experiences of affected others: Qualitative research

Lived experiences of affected others: Qualitative research

  1. Contents
  2. Gambling advertising

Gambling advertising

Advertising was a consistent and unprompted theme across interviews. Affected others did not describe it as a peripheral concern; they described it as an inescapable feature of daily life that compounded their experience in specific and tangible ways.

The most commonly raised issue relating to advertising was volume. Participants described gambling promotions appearing across television, social media, streaming platforms, sports coverage, direct mail, and in-app environments, with many describing the sense that it was impossible to move through ordinary life without encountering it.

"When we watch TV, the gambling adverts are horrendous. I feel like it’s every 3rd advert. It’s inescapable. It feels like from every direction, it’s on every screen and then we got one through the post from Gala Bingo, now they’re posting it to our house!"

- Male gambler, 39, partner of person gambling

Advertising reached participants (and reported in reaching the person gambling) through a range of channels, including television, social media, in-app environments, and direct mail. Several described gambling promotions arriving physically at their home, addressed to the person gambling. Push notifications from apps prompting users to place bets or promoting new offers were cited as a particular source of frustration, as they maintained a constant presence even when the person gambling was trying to step back. Awareness of opt-out mechanisms was low across the sample, and no participants described successfully contacting an operator to stop marketing communications. For most, advertising felt like an unavoidable presence, and not something they felt able to act upon.

"There are apps that send you pop-ups for games that are coming, apps that let you know 'oh hey, there's this bonus coming up', apps that let you know 'this great offer, jump on it, jump on it, jump on it.' And for someone like my brother, who was so into the whole gambling thing, when he sees that... I mean, he said life is like a game of numbers... I really don't know the whole process of how to stop it."

- Male non-gambler, 31, brother of person gambling

Some affected others report that the person gambling had taken direct actions to limit their exposure to advertising – turning off gambling app notifications, deleting gambling apps, and choosing to avoid land-based sites like betting shops. These measures were often introduced at the request of affected others, and often – though not always - when crisis point had been reached. Generally, affected others felt that exposure persisted despite these multiple mitigation attempts.

For affected others living with someone whose gambling was active or in recovery, the constant presence of advertising was experienced as actively undermining efforts to reduce or stop gambling. This was both because it maintained the visibility of gambling as an activity, and because specific promotions and offers were seen as direct triggers.

Several participants described the person gambling receiving targeted offers (like free bets, matched deposits, loyalty promotions) at exactly the moments when they were trying to take a step back.

Affected others who gamble rarely described taking explicit steps to reduce their own exposure to gambling marketing or environments. When they did act, it was usually indirect for example, limiting spend or frequency) rather than targeting exposure itself. This derives from various drivers. Reflections suggested they don’t see their own gambling as problematic – pointing to the psychological separation between their activity and that of the person gambling’s. Where it is viewed more problematically, their focus is on managing their behaviour, not their environment. Most significantly, the affected other’s emotional and cognitive load is often focused elsewhere – their primary concern is managing the person gambling’s behaviour and contributing consequences. In some cases, the activity is socially embedded so there is a higher tolerance for advertising.

Is this page useful?
Back to top