Dynamic warning messages for electronic gaming machines:

A live trial

Sally Gainsbury & David Aro

• EGMs recognised as important target for harm minimisation

• Existing static warning messages are ineffective

• Dynamic and pop-up messages have greater recall & impact

• No live trials

Warning Messages for Electronic Gaming Machines

Trial Goals:

• Design, implement and evaluate dynamic warnings and cost of play messages on electronic gaming machines (EGMs).

• To inform broader problem gambling policy:

– Best approaches for:

• Display

• Message content

• Frequency

• Duration

• Format

• Type of delivery

Trial Goals

Targets for Warnings:

• Non-Problem / Recreational Gambler

– Minimal impact

– Maintain ‘healthy gambling norms’

– Maintain appropriate spending

• Moderate Gambler – Messages to resonate with this group

– Positive impact

• Problem Gambler – Minimal change

– Many complex reasons for addiction level

Trial Goals

Research Questions:

1. What is an effective suite of messages to communicate relevant and accurate information to EGM users about odds and statistics, risks of gambling and self-monitoring behaviour?

2. How can these messages be delivered to encourage responsible gambling behaviours? What is the most effective format for delivery?

3. What are the overall findings? What messages where most effective for different types of gamblers?

Research Questions

Trial location

Brisbane Clubs & Hotels

Message Display

•

•

QCOM 1.5 – Top/bottom QCOM 1.6 – Middle

Venue & Machine Profiles

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

LargeClub 1

SmallClub

Regional

SmallHotel 1

SmallHotel 2

SmallHotel 3

% o

f C

QC

OM

mac

hin

es

Venue

% QCOM 1.5(Top/bottom)

% QCOM 1.6 (Middle)

Messages

Developed based on:

• Literature review

• Expert stakeholder consultation

• EGM capabilities

• Linguistic Inquiry software

• Regulatory requirements

• Focus groups with gamblers

Messages

• In your opinion, what would be the most appropriate message to display on an electronic gaming machine during play?

Messages

A total of eight messages, categorised into two themes, were tested in the trial:

Message presentation • 4 times per hour for 15 seconds

– Except large club 1, 1 time per hour for 10 seconds

Surveys

Trial methodology

Data Period 2013 Anticipated Survey

Numbers Actual Survey

Numbers

Month 2 of trial April (Data Period 1)

300 269

Month 4 of trial - June (Data Period 2)

100 150

Month 6 of trial - August

(Data Period 3) 100 129

Month 8 of trial - October

(Data Period 4) 100 119

Total 600 667

• 72% male

Participants

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 20 40

Non-problem

Low risk

Moderate risk

ProblemConsistent with regular EGM players in QLD population

Which messages do you think were most commonly recalled?

• Top/bottom

• Middle

Message recall

Message recall

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Large Club 1 Small ClubRegional

Small Pub 1 Small Pub 2 Small Pub 3

% o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts

Venue

Top/Bottom

Middle

Small venues mostly displayed top/bottom

messages

Which messages do you think were most commonly recalled?

• Message A: Have you spent more than you can afford?

• Message B: Is money all you are losing?

• Message C: Set your limit. Play within it.

• Message D: Only spend what you can afford to lose.

• Message E: Do you need a break? Gamble responsibly.

• Message F: Are you playing longer than planned?

• Message G: A winner knows when to stop gambling.

• Message H: You are responsible for your gambling.

Message recall

Message Free Recall

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

A B C D E F G H

% o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts

Message

Do you need to take a break? Gamble

responsibly.

Have you spent more than you

can afford?

Set your limit. Play within it.

Which messages do you think were most effective?

• Message A: Have you spent more than you can afford?

• Message B: Is money all you are losing?

• Message C: Set your limit. Play within it.

• Message D: Only spend what you can afford to lose.

• Message E: Do you need a break? Gamble responsibly.

• Message F: Are you playing longer than planned?

• Message G: A winner knows when to stop gambling.

• Message H: You are responsible for your gambling.

Message Impact

Message Impact

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

A B C D E F G H

% o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts

Message

Have you spent more than you

can afford? Only spend what you

can afford to lose.

Even lower recalled messages

had impact

High recall, but low impact

Message Impact

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Useful /beneficial

Neutral Useless Frustrating /annoying

% o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts

Informative

Self-appraisalThought about money and

time spent & taking a break, reduced intensity

Read, but didn’t react to

messages Immediately pushed button

to continue

Wanted to keep playing

Message Impact - Enjoyment of Play

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Significantlyreduced

Slightly reduced Unchanged Slightly better Significantlybetter

% o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts

Informative

Self-appraisal

Message Impact - Position

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Useful /beneficial

Neutral Useless Frustrating /annoying

% o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts

Middle

Top/Bottom

Middle messages more useful/beneficial

For middle messages

Message Impact – Problem Gambling Severity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Useful /beneficial

Neutral Useless Frustrating /annoying

% o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts

Non-problem (n = 66)

Low risk (n = 75)

Moderate Risk (n = 51)

Problem (n = 19)

Non-PGs see most benefit

PGs see less usefulness

PGs were not frustrated

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Large Club 1 Small ClubRegional

Small Pub 1 Small Pub 2 Small Pub 3

% o

f re

spo

nd

en

ts

Venue

Top/Bottom

Middle

Message Recall by Venue

Messages 1 x hour, 10 seconds

Messages 4 x hour, 15 seconds

Mostly middle

messages

Mostly top/bottom messages

EGM Turnover M

ar-1

1

Ap

r-1

1

May

-11

Jun

-11

Jul-

11

Au

g-1

1

Sep

-11

Oct

-11

No

v-1

1

De

c-1

1

Jan

-12

Feb

-12

Mar

-12

Ap

r-1

2

May

-12

Jun

-12

Jul-

12

Au

g-1

2

Sep

-12

Oct

-12

No

v-1

2

De

c-1

2

Jan

-13

Feb

-13

Mar

-13

Ap

r-1

3

May

-13

Jun

-13

Jul-

13

Au

g-1

3

Sep

-13

Oct

-13

No obvious impact of messages on EGM turnover

• First live trial to specifically investigate dynamic messages

• Messages encourage responsible gambling thoughts & behaviours

• Messages in middle of screen have greater impact

• Nil negative impacts observed

• Self-appraisal & informative messages effective

• Concepts of affordability has greatest impact

Discussion of Results

Dynamic warning messages for electronic gaming machines:

A live trial

Conducting a live trial to produce meaningful results

Trial Coordination Group:

• Department of Social Services

• Queensland Government

• Communio

• Clubs Queensland

• Queensland Hotels Association

• ALH Group

• Maxgaming

• Odyssey Gaming

Project Oversight

Project Initiation:

• Stakeholder engagement and collaboration

• Venue engagement and enrolment

• Message prescription

Message Development and Testing:

• Message selection constraints – Regulator

– EGM technical capabilities

– Alignment with Queensland Health campaign requirements

Trial Preparation

Intervention Period: • Six Months

– Trial Go Live - 4th March 2013

– Intervention removal 31st August 2013

– Surveys completed in months 2, 4, 6, & 8

Trial Maintenance: • Regular communication with venues

• Venue feedback

• Research Assistant feedback

Trial Implementation

Change to Regulation • “Communication Protocol” to enable research

– Message delivery systems

– Consistency between EGMs

– Prescription more reflective of literature

Trial Environment • Delivery consistent

• Geographic zoning

Effect Understood in Wider Context • Behavioural change

• Capturing indication of change

• Increase longitudinal time frame

What We Would Do Differently

Engagement Model:

• TCG

• Venues

• Project team

• Research Assistants

What Worked Well

Project Approach:

• Open

• Collaborative

• Flexible

• Well balanced

• Problem solving – Identification

– Escalation

– Solution

– Mitigation

Careful Balance Between:

• FaHCSIA requirements

• Regulation

• EGM technical capability

• LMO software

• Venue requirements

• Patron experience

• Research requirement

What Worked Well

Research Team: • Dianne Ball

• Christian Tobar

• Alex Russell

Funding:

• Australian Department of Social Services (Previously Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs)

Acknowledgments

• Sally Gainsbury Sally.gainsbury@gmail.com

• David Aro David.aro@communio.com.au

Thank you