FACT SHEET - Major findings –Research examining the Impact of Marketing, Advertising and Sponsorship on Gambling behaviour

Overview

In 2010 and 2011, a major study was conducted to examine the marketing, advertising and sponsorship of gambling products and services within New Zealand. Undertaken by Schottler Consulting Pty Ltd for the Ministry of Health, this exploratory study was one of the first studies in the world to comprehensively explore the potential effects of marketing and advertising on public perceptions of the attractiveness of gambling products and services.

Specific types of gambling marketing and advertising examined in the study included the effects of gaming lounge signage (outside gambling venues), the effects of lottery/scratch ticket advertising (including ‘Must be Won’ promotions), the effects of TAB advertising, the effects of casino advertising and the link between gaming trust branding and consumer perceptions of the attractiveness of gambling was also investigated.

Methodology

The study was primarily a qualitative study. The methodology, however, included:

  • A literature review on the marketing, advertising and sponsorship of gambling products and services
  • A global scan of guidelines and codes relating to gambling and general marketing and advertising
    (including a scan of codes in Asian and Pacific nations)
  • Conduct of 11 focus groups with gamblers to explore the effects of gambling marketing and advertising
    (including review of New Zealand gambling advertising materials in groups to stimulate discussion)
  • Conduct of a quantitative survey of 400 gamblers using an online research panel to further explore the effects of gambling marketing and advertising in a convenience sample of non-problem and at-risk gamblers
    (This also included sampling of New Zealand Europeans, Maori, Pacific Islander and Asian gamblers)

Issues examined in the study

In recognition of the limited research conducted on the topic of marketing, advertising and sponsorship of gambling products and services, the Ministry of Health develop a range of broad research questions, whilst recognising that not all questions could be answered in a single study. Specific areas of enquiry, which formed a focus for the current study, included the following key research topics:

The relationship between awareness of gambling marketing and advertising and gambling behaviour

The impacts of gambling marketing and advertising on public views and attitudes about gambling

The types of gambling marketing and advertising with potential to cause consumer harm

The special impacts of large scale lotto jackpots including ‘Must Be Won’ (and similar) promotions

Public views on the acceptability and impacts of gambling advertising which targets specific cultures

The types of marketing and advertising activities which may create ‘safer’ gambling environments

International guidelines and codes highlighting ‘good practice’ in the advertising and marketing of gambling

For the purpose of the study, marketing, advertising and sponsorship of gambling was defined to include any promotional activities that may be utilised to sell or raise awareness of gambling products and services.

Major STUDY findings

What effect does advertising, marketing and sponsorship have on gambling spending?

While the influence of advertising on participation was not directly measured in the study, the influence of advertising on gamblers spending more than they wanted to on gambling activities was examined. For New Zealand gamblers overall, results showed that most forms of gambling advertising had only a relatively conservative influence on gamblers spending more than they wanted to on gambling.

While all effects were relatively small, casino advertising was reported to have the largest effect, followed by lotto advertising and pokies advertising (pokies signage). In comparison, scratch ticket and TAB advertising had the lowest overall level of influence. Overall results are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Frequency of viewing gambling advertising and the influence of gambling advertising on gambler spending –
weighted overall results (February-April 2011)

Gambling activity / Base / Frequency of viewing advertising
(1=not at all,
5=very frequently) / Base / Influence of advertising on the gambler spending more than they wanted to spend on gambling
(1=not at all, 4=significant influence)
Lotto advertising / Lotto players (N=386) / 3.2 / Lotto players (N=386) / 1.4
Casino advertising / Casino
gamblers
(N=217) / 2.7 / Casino
gamblers
(N=217) / 1.5
Instant Kiwi advertising / Scratch ticket players (N=319) / 2.7 / Scratch ticket players (N=319) / 1.1
Pokies advertising signage / Club/pub
pokies players
(N=194) / 2.1 / Pub/club/casino pokies players
(N=239) / 1.2
TAB, racing or sports betting advertising / TAB punters
(N=157) / 1.8 / TAB punters
(N=157) / 1.1
Question: How often have you seen the following types of advertising in the past 12 months? (1=not at all, 5=very frequently). If any, how much influence do you feel that this gambling advertising had on you spending more than you wanted to spend in the past 12 mths?

Is there a relationship between gambler awareness of advertising and problem gambling?

Findings of research highlight that participating in a gambling activity may ‘prime’ gamblers to be more aware of gambling advertising. Supporting this, results of the survey of gamblers showed that respondents participating in a gambling activity reported seeing gambling advertising significantly more frequently than those who did not participate in the activity. Qualitative research also supported this trend – e.g., You have to be interested in gambling to see the ads. If you don’t do TAB, you don’t tend to notice the ads.

In addition, a relationship between awareness and risk for problem gambling was identified. While the direction of effects cannot of course be determined, based on players participating in the gambling activity, findings showed that:

  • moderate risk and problem gamblers reported seeing pokies venue signage more frequently than low risk gamblers (p<.05)
  • moderate risk and problem gamblers reported seeing TAB advertising more frequently than non-problem
    gamblers (p<.05)
  • moderate risk and problem gamblers reported seeing casino advertising more frequently than non-problem gamblers (p<.05)

Interestingly, however, differences between non-problem and moderate risk/problem gamblers were not statistically significant for lotto advertising (including for both general draws and jackpots) and for scratch ticket advertising.

Findings also showed an association between risk for problem gambling and the reported influence of gambling advertising on gamblers spending more than they wanted to on gambling. Specifically, based on a scale where 1=no influence and 4=a significant influence, findings showed that the influence of:

  • pokies signage was greater for moderate risk/problem gamblers than non-problem gamblers (p<.05) (mean=1.7 versus 1.1)
  • lotto advertising was greater for moderate risk/problem gamblers than non-problem gamblers (p<.05) (mean=2.1 versus 1.6)
  • scratch ticket advertising was greater for moderate risk/problem gamblers than non-problem gamblers (p<.05) (mean=1.8 versus 1.3)
  • TAB advertising was greater for moderate risk/problem gamblers than non-problem gamblers (p<.05) (mean=1.6 versus 1.1)
  • casino advertising was greater for moderate risk/problem gamblers than non-problem gamblers (p<.05) (mean=1.8 versus 1.1)

What are the effects of marketing of large lottery jackpots?

Findings of qualitative and quantitative research highlight that gamblers focus primarily on the size of cash prize when evaluating the attractiveness of a lotto draw. The larger the cash prize, the higher the consumer attraction to purchase lotto tickets (Figure 1). Moderate risk and problem gamblers were also significantly more likely to purchase a ticket for all tested prize configurations, compared to non-problem gamblers (p<.05).

Figure 1. Comparison of the likelihood to buy a lotto ticket – non-problem versus moderate risk/problem gamblers
(N=386, February-April 2011)

The quantitative study also showed that:

  • there was a slightly larger gap between moderate risk/problem gamblers and non-problem gamblers at the three higher jackpot sizes (mean gap of 0.5 at $10m, $20m and $36m), compared to the lower jackpot sizes (mean gap of 0.4 at $1m and $5m) – while further research would be needed to explore effects, this may suggest that the attractiveness of big jackpots is disproportionately larger for higher risk segments
  • when gamblers were asked about their likelihood of purchasing lotto tickets based on different advertising slogans, moderate risk/problem gamblers were significantly more motivated to purchase tickets upon hearing all slogans, compared to non-problem gamblers (p<.05)
  • ‘Must be Won’ was by far the most powerful of all tested slogans in influencing gamblers to purchase a lotto ticket (mean=3.8 versus means of 2.3 to 2.8 for other tested slogans)
  • the gap between non-problem and moderate risk/problem gamblers for the ‘Must be Won’ slogan was the smallest of all slogans, possibly indicating that the slogan has a relatively more consistent effect for all risk segments (mean=0.3)
  • relative to non-problem gamblers, moderate risk and problem gamblers were more likely to report unplanned purchases of lotto tickets due to advertising across most advertising channels including via TV, dairies, pharmacies, paper stores, shopping centres, train stations, internet, newspapers/magazines, bus shelters and supermarkets (each p<.05) - the largest gaps between risk segments, however, related to dairies, shopping centres and supermarkets (a mean gap of 0.7), possibly highlighting that such channels may present increased risk for higher risk segments. Qualitative research similarly highlighted a view that placing lotto in supermarkets was particularly ‘risky’ as some at-risk gamblers would be tempted to purchase a ticket prior to food – e.g., I don't like the idea of lotto at supermarkets. People will buy tickets before they buy food. They should only put them on the way out, so people can buy their food first
  • relative to non-problem gamblers, moderate risk and problem gamblers were more likely to report buying a lotto ticket to ‘feel better about life’ and because they wanted to ‘make a large purchase’ (p<.05) – this may suggest that advertising which focuses on such topics may resonate more with higher risk segments

How do marketing and promotional strategies influence gambling behaviour and create possible harm?

Based on review of gambling advertising materials in focus groups, a conceptual model was developed to summarise possible risks of gambling advertising. While further research is clearly needed to fully understand and possibly also quantify some effects, major themes across all materials in summary were that gambling marketing and advertising has potential to create risk or lead to harm when:

  • 1. There is low informed consent about what is being purchased – Findings showed that many NZ gambling advertising offers were misinterpreted by gamblers, as prize values shown in gambling advertising were not always those ‘on offer’. This typically occurred in cases where advertising:
  • Presented ‘prize pools’ rather than the distribution of specific prizes available
  • Did not fully articulate the assumptions of prizes
  • Presented prizes inaccurately (e.g., holidays when only cash was available to buy a holiday)
  • Did not clearly outline conditions associated with winning prizes
  • Presented the ‘best’ possible prize outcome, rather than ‘typical’ or ranges of possible outcomes
  • Used words such as ‘guaranteed’ in spite of the possibility that actual prize values may not be won or would only be won under certain conditions
  • Presented ‘prizes still available’ without information on prizes available
  • 2. Advertising content reinforces problem gambling risk factors - Advertising materials, which reinforce superstitions about gambling were found to have potential to lead to harm. It is also likely that harm for problem and at-risk gamblers is greater, due to the tendency of such groups to hold these misperceptions. Advertising which reinforced superstitions included concepts such as ‘lucky’ lotto stores, ‘lucky’ poker machines, referencing luck generally, referencing lotto wins during holidays and suggestive luck-oriented phrases (e.g., 'On a roll')
  • 3. Content reinforces that gambling is non-random or is influenced by ‘expertise’ - Advertising using words, phrases or terms such as expertise, expert, smart and successful were found to reinforce the misperception that gambling is expertise-based (and non-random) or that gambling outcomes can be influenced or controlled (and should thus not be used unless skill applies)
  • 4. Odds information is presented in a way, which is not understood by gamblers - Advertising which presented odds in certain ways confused some gamblers. For instance, some gamblers were reported to buy three tickets if a draw says ‘1 in 3 tickets will win’, as they believed that this implies a guaranteed or ‘highly likely’ win

  • 5. Advertising which pressures gamblers or encourages ‘on the spot’ decisions - Advertising approaches prompting gambling decisions 'on the spot' were considered higher-risk forms of advertising due to the ‘pressure’ they place on gamblers. Such approaches were seen as having potential to lead to poorly considered decisions to gamble and for this reason, were likely to pose some level of risk to all gamblers (and particularly problem and at-risk gamblers). This included use of advertising words such as ‘hurry’, ‘quick’, ‘beat the odds’, ‘Don’t miss your chance’, ‘Be a good mate’ and even pressure from sports commentators during live sporting events (e.g., ‘talking up’ live odds)
  • 6. Advertising which encourages bravado or creates a perception of ego/status - Advertising which encouraged bravado and perceptions of status from gambling or encouraged gamblers to question their self-worth (e.g., Do you stack up? Fortune favours the bold) was seen as a potentially harmful form of gambling advertising. This is because such statements challenge gambler emotions or encourage risk taking and may thus not lead to more rational or informed decisions about gambling
  • 7. Advertising offers which encourage repeat visits in a short time frame - Advertising offers with very short time frames to claim ‘free offers’ or discounts were seen as potentially harmful to all gamblers and particularly to problem and at-risk gamblers. These included casino advertising offers such as free points, free car parks and food and beverage offers with short time frames to claim offers
  • 8. Advertising offers which require gamblers to stay in a venue for long periods - Advertising offers such as ‘free prize draws’ which required consumers to remain in a venue for some time were seen as having potential to harm gamblers (and particularly problem and at-risk gamblers) if the period between entry and the prize draw is lengthy. While a maximum length to avoid harm cannot be determined from qualitative research, this highlights that the structure of draws should be considered in the future from a gambling risk perspective
  • 9. Advertising claims about gambling are presented which cannot be verified - Some advertising offers were identified with extreme claims, which were difficult for consumers to prove and were possibly also incorrect. Using such approaches was seen as presenting risk to all gamblers, as claims were unable to be evaluated and advertising did not contain information to allow consumers to independently assess claims
  • 10. Advertising makes gambling look ‘cheap’ and ‘affordable’ - Any gambling advertising promoting 'low-priced' offers were frequently seen as ‘cheap and affordable’ gambling opportunities by people of low-income backgrounds. Such offers tended to convey that little money was needed to generate large amounts of money or winnings. As problem gamblers are by definition 'spending more than they can afford', they are effectively vulnerable to this type of advertising. Use of words such 'only’ (e.g., only $2 to win $10,000) also reinforced the perception that the betting or gambling offer is ‘cheap and affordable’. Advertising offers providing 'free money' (e.g., free $20 to gamble with) also appealed to lower-income gamblers and may potentially pose risk in a similar way
  • 11. Advertising uses words which suggest that gambling may be an ‘investment’ - Advertising words, which equate gambling to ‘investments’ were reported to give gamblers the misperception that money can be made from gambling. Examples included words such as ‘invest’, ‘returning’ and ‘share’
  • 12. Advertising contains stories which financially vulnerable people relate to - Any winners’ stories (or similar advertising) which detail how people went from ‘hardship to prosperity’ from winning in gambling (e.g., lotto) were reported to appeal to more vulnerable people (particularly people of lower-income backgrounds or those experiencing financial difficulties). Such groups identified with the people described in the stories and this increased the effect of the advertising (and the appeal of gambling). This implies that stories depicting hardships should be avoided in advertising to protect more vulnerable consumers (e.g., including avoidance of words such as redundancy, mortgages, financial difficulties or other hardships, which more vulnerable people may relate to)
  • 13. Advertising uses other forms of gambling as part of promotions - gambling advertising depicting gambling activities was reported to particularly appeal to at-risk gamblers due to their fixation on gambling. This included use of themes such as card games and casino games in advertising of other types of gambling products. As problem gamblers play many gambling activities, advertising using gambling themes was also reported to pose particular risk to this segment

  • 14. Advertising phrases are not consistent with responsible gambling - Advertising phrases suggesting continuous or irresponsible gambling were seen by gamblers to encourage such behaviour (e.g., ‘Bet anytime or anywhere’). This implies the need to ensure that future advertising slogans and straplines do not contradict the principles of responsible gambling
  • 15. Offers present very low value inducements as an incentive to gamble - Very low value inducements to gamble (e.g., $2 free chip) were seen to pose more risk to gamblers than the value of the inducement. This implied that gambling advertising offers should be evaluated in terms of both their potential risk to gamblers, balanced alongside the value of the inducement from a consumer perspective

What cultural issues and effects have implications for gambling advertising?