Sally Gainsbury and David Aro. Dynamic Warning Messages for Electronic Gaming Machines: A Live Trial...
-
Upload
horizons-rg -
Category
Business
-
view
528 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Sally Gainsbury and David Aro. Dynamic Warning Messages for Electronic Gaming Machines: A Live Trial...
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