London | San Francisco | Los Angeles | New York | Singapore | Hong Kong 2cv.com Campaign for Fairer Gambling FOBT Research Report September 2014.

London | San Francisco | Los Angeles | New York | Singapore | Hong Kong2cv.com

Campaign for Fairer Gambling FOBT Research Report

September 2014

2

FOBT Research Report

Methodology and Sample Face to face interviews were conducted near to betting shops within the London Borough of

Newham, Medway, Manchester, and Liverpool

Respondents were recruited at random upon exiting the betting shops across various locations and asked about their typical engagement with betting shop services

Respondents were asked to participate in a 10 min survey containing questions on the awareness, usage, and attitudes toward betting shop services, with a focus on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs)

Fieldwork was conducted between 2nd and 17th August 2014

993 interviews were conducted in total (Newham 272, Liverpool 227, Medway 242, Manchester 252)

3


Problem gambling definition

Throughout the report, any reference to ‘problem gambling’ is in relation to the criteria defined by the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders, Fifth Edition, Published 2013):

“A progressive disorder characterized by a continuous or periodic loss of control over gambling; a preoccupation with gambling and with obtaining money with which to

gamble; irrational thinking; and a continuation of the behaviour despite adverse consequences.”

4


Socio-Economic classification

Social Grade Social Status Occupation

A Upper Middle Class Higher managerial, administrative or professional

B Middle Class Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional

C1 Lower Middle ClassSupervisory or clerical, junior managerial, administrative or

professional

C2 Skilled Working Class Skilled manual workers

D Working Class Semi and unskilled manual workers

E Lowest level of subsistenceState pensioners or widows (no other earner), casual or lowest

grade workers

National Readership Survey (NRS) demographic categories2CV’s classification aligns with the NRS social grade definitions – these are widely used as a generic reference series for classifying

and describing social classes in the UK, especially for consumer targeting and consumer market research.

London | San Francisco | Los Angeles | New York | Singapore | Hong Kong2cv.com

Key Findings

6


82% of all betting shop customers perceive FOBTs as an addictive activity. This is higher still at 89% among those who play Roulette games on FOBTs

32% of Roulette players have borrowed money in order to play. A variety of sources are used to obtain cash, commonly from peers

Abusive behaviour is prevalent; 72% of all betting shop customers have experienced other customers acting violently toward FOBTs

1.“A continuation of the behaviour despite

adverse consequences”

8


Regardless of engagement with FOBTs, there is a strong perception that they are an addictive activity

82% 89%78%

All Betting Shop Customers

All Roulette Players

Non Roulette Players

% agree ‘FOBTs are addictive’Top 2 Box on a 5 point scale - agree/strongly agree

(n=349)(n=993) (n=644)

9


Roulette players on FOBTs skew toward a younger audience of lower socio-economic grade

Play Roulette UK Nat Rep

18-24 17% 13%

25-34 33% 18%

35-54 35% 39%

55+ 16% 30%

AB 5% 27%

C1 15% 28%

C2 24% 22%

DE 55% 24%

All Roulette Players (n=349)

10


3%7%

28%

25%

28%

9%

How often do you end up with more money than you started with?

Pretty much all the time

Often

About half and half

Not often

Hardly ever

Never

Only 1 in every 10 players frequently ends a single roulette session with more money than they started with

10%


11


A clear cycle of chasing losses means despite rarely making money in a session, winnings are often reinvested

Spend elsewhere/save it

Use it for other betting

Put SOME of it back into gambling machines

Put ALL of it back into gambling machines

32%

14%

34%

18%

What do you do with your winnings?

52%

All Roulette Players (n=349). 2% chose not to answer

12


Paired with frequent engagement, the potential for loss is high


19% 10% 13% 12% 25% 13% 8%

Less often Once a month 2-3 times a month About once a week 2 – 3 times per week Most Days Everyday

58% play weekly

How often do you play Roulette?

Those using most frequently are at the biggest risk of financial harm

13


Those playing daily/almost daily account for 63% of annual FOBT session activity within our sample

Less often Once a month

2-3 times a month

Once a week 2-3 times a week

Most days Every day

1% 1%3%

6%

26%34%

29%

% of total Roulette activity accounted for by players (by frequency of play)

Frequency of Roulette play

% o

f tot

al R

oule

tte

sess

ion

acti

vity

ac

coun

ted

for

All Roulette Players (n=349). NB. Analysis assumes players engage in only one session each time they play, but it is likely to be more than one

Reducing frequency of play is essential for limiting the harmful effects of Roulette machines

14


In addition, these players account for almost 90% of the cash inserted per session

Less often Once a month

2-3 times a month

Once a week 2-3 times a week

Most days Every day

0% 0%1% 2%

9%

45%43%

% of total Roulette cash insertion accounted for by players (by frequency of play)

Frequency of Roulette play

% o

f tot

al R

oule

tte

cash

inse

rtio

n pe

r se

ssio

n ac

coun

ted

for

Capping maximum bet per spin should help protect these players

All Roulette Players (n=349). NB. Analysis assumes players engage in only one session each time they play, but it is likely to be more than one

15


Summary

“A continuation of the behaviour despite adverse consequences”

• 82% of betting shop customers (both players and non-players) perceive FOBTs as an addictive activity

• Potential for loss is high; only 10% of players claim they frequently end a session with more money than they started with, and at least a proportion of any additional earnings are re-invested back into the machines

• Despite this, Roulette play remains frequent - over half of users play at least weekly making the potential for loss even greater

• This is particularly the case for those using Roulette on FOBTs most frequently; those playing weekly or more account for 63% of session activity and 90% of cash inserted

2.“A preoccupation with gambling and with obtaining money with which to gamble”

17


A third of players have experienced a negative financial impact or spent beyond their means

Playing Roulette has impacted on

personal/family finances

36%

I have borrowed money to play Roulette

32%

Those borrowing money acknowledge difficulty controlling their spending on Roulette machines

91% “Sometimes I spend more than I plan to on Roulette machines”

95% “They are addictive”

All Roulette Players (n=349) Vs. those who have not borrowed money

75% “Whatever I win I put back into the gambling machines”

Vs. 54%

Vs. 31%

Vs. 86%

18


Those borrowing money to play Roulette turn to peers and personal credit

Family / Friends

79%Personal Credit

68%

Payday Loan / Pawn Broker

45%

Borrowers use multiple sources but rely heavily on family and friends, credit cards, and overdrafts

Avg. No. of borrowing sources

3

Sources ever borrowed from(All borrowed n=121)

19


The most financially impacted customers tend to be younger, of a lower social grade, and playing Roulette most frequently

There is high overlap between those experiencing financial difficulty and those borrowing money

Impact on Finances Borrowed Money

BASE 131 121

18-24 13% 16%

25-34 40% 42%

35-54 34% 31%

55+ 13% 11%

AB 6% 6%

C1 23% 20%

C2 26% 26%

DE 45% 48%

Play Roulette at least weekly 70% 75%

20


Those borrowing money hold attitudes indicative of problem gambling

This particular audience should benefit from a reduction in maximum bet per spin

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

69% 70% 76% 79% 81% 85% 88%96%

48%

26% 28%

46%32%

45%52%

65%

Borrowed Money Not Borrowed Money

How much do you agree with the following statements? (Top 2 Box of a 5 point scale – agree/strongly agree)

44%pts

47%pts 49%pts

Borrowed money (n=121), Not Borrowed Money (n=228)

21


Higher cash insertion is also linked to stronger problem gambling traits

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

12% 16%26%

20%

39%44%

62%

89%

26%35% 31%

47%58%

72%80%

64% 68% 71%77%

86%79%

87%94%

Under £20 £20-£100 Over £100

Base: Play Roulette (349), Not Roulette (536)This highlights a need to help players control the amount of cash they are inserting

How much do you agree with the following statements? (Top 2 Box of a 5 point scale – agree/strongly agree)

Under £20 (n=129), £20-£100 (n=70), Over £100 (n=120)

22


Summary

“A preoccupation obtaining money with which to gamble”

One third of Roulette players have borrowed money in order to play Peers are the main source relied upon to borrow, with personal credit options and pay

day loans / pawn brokers also used Younger players (18-34), those in the lower social grades, and the most frequent

Roulette players are most likely to borrow money to play Roulette

“A preoccupation with gambling”

Those borrowing money and investing higher stakes are most likely to show a preoccupation with gambling; over 80% have gambled for longer than planned, and over 70% need to keep increasing stakes for the same enjoyment

These players should be protected by a reduction in maximum bet per spin

23


The high pressure betting shop environment holds ramifications for both customers and staff

Abuse to staff

56%

Abuse between

customers

36%

Attacks on FOBTs

72%

Which of the following have you experienced? (All customers n=993)

Aggressiveness toward FOBTs is highly prevalent

24


Summary

FOBTs are perceived as an addictive activity by all betting shop customers, regardless of engagement with the machines

With higher frequency of play comes higher engagement and cash insertion; those playing weekly or more account for 63% of annual session activity and 90% of cash inserted, highlighting evidence of problem gambling behaviour

FOBTs have a negative financial effect on players, with one third of Roulette players spending beyond their means and borrowing money in order to play

Whilst borrowing from a multitude of sources, family and friends are relied upon heavily, indicating the wider social impact of FOBT problem gambling

Those borrowing money and investing higher stakes exhibit stronger problem gambling traits and behaviours than other FOBT players and betting shop customers. These players should benefit the most from a reduction in

maximum bet per spin

The potential for loss is high, with only 1 in 10 players regularly ending a session with more cash than they started, and frequently reinvesting any winnings back into the machines

Despite this, FOBT engagement is frequent with over half of players using the machines at least weekly

London | San Francisco | Los Angeles | New York | Singapore | Hong Kong 2cv.com Campaign for Fairer Gambling FOBT Research Report September 2014.

Documents

fobts slide

betting shop customers

betting shops

fobts skew

consumer market research

roulette games

addictive activity

nrs social grade definitions