By Dr Selma Iilonga, University of Namibia

The University of Namibia’s project team, Dr. Selma Iilonga, Dr. Albert Shikongo, and Ms. Jacobina Mwiiyale, hosted a workshop for policymakers and other stakeholders on 25 July 2024 at the main Windhoek campus.

The workshop was attended by 70 participants including public health researchers, local council members, social workers, experts from the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Gambling Division (the regulating body of gambling activities in Namibia) and Mr John Erastus, CEO of the Gambling Board of Namibia. Professor Agnes Nairn, Co-Director of the Bristol Hub for Gambling Harms Research also attended and gave an overview of gambling and strategies for mitigating gambling harm in the UK.

The project researchers presented the findings from their research on  “the impact of gambling information diffusion on consumer behaviour and the design of a mitigation model to address harmful gambling in Namibia”. This groundbreaking research project is the first empirical study on gambling in Namibia. Masters student, Mr Markus Mandume also presented an overview of his research project on the Mathematical Modelling of Diffusion of Gambling Information and its impact on consumer’s behaviours.

The study found that young people were most likely to be involved in gambling activities with 19% of those aged 15-24 and 47% of people aged between 25 and 34 years actively gambling. Older age groups had lower participation rates with 23% of those aged 35-44,  7% of people aged 45-54, 3% of those aged 55-64 and 1% aged over 65+ gambling. In terms of gender breakdown, the study found more males (69%) than females (31%) participate in gambling activities.

In terms of how participants were exposed to gambling activities, the highest proportion (40%) were exposed to gambling through word of mouth. Other sources of exposure included gambling adverts (15%), billboards (14%) and WhatsApp or other forms of social media (13%).

The study found various reasons for participating in gambling: to win money (48%), for fun/entertainment (16%), for competition and skills  (9%), to kill boredom (8%), social interaction (8%), stress relief (5%), having more money to spend (3%), because they cannot stop (2%).

The project researchers also presented a range of recommended strategies that could be developed for mitigating gambling harms :

• The introduction of live counselling TV and local radio programmes providing gambling education, where people who have experienced gambling harms give testimonies of how they survive.
• An amendment of the current gambling act to regulate the promotion of gambling responsible activities advertisements in local radio, TV, anywhere in Namibia.
• The creation of the educational tailor-made gambling information literacy programs for all ages.
• The creation of responsible gambling Artificial Intelligence App
• To create a reward habit for gamblers for setting and sticking to responsible gambling goals.

The implementation of these strategies requires collaboration between stakeholders/change agents. The recommended strategies also require mathematical models to develop a gambling cost-benefit analysis. Advocating for funds from local and international partners to continue to support responsible gambling initiatives is essential. Lastly, a continuous monitoring, evaluation and feedback system should also be implemented to gather gambling feedback to improve the mechanisms in place, through collaboration with gambling industry, governments and non-Governmental Institutions and academic institutions for innovative solutions in responding to feedback.

The presentation of the research findings created strong discussion and engagement among workshop participants sharing diverse sentiments on best practice and advising researchers on the way forward. The workshop participants also expressed the need for the study to be rolled out to the remaining regions of Namibia that were not covered in this study and for the comparison of the findings between regions to influence policymakers, inform interventions and provide practical solutions to gambling advertisement/information/messages.

In support of the proposed recommended strategies models for mitigating gambling harms in Namibia, the workshop participants also expressed the strong need for the amendment of the gambling law and for the dissemination of this information to the public to create awareness of the protection for gamblers as provided by section 20 of the Gaming and Entertainment Control Act 13 of 20. This  includes the availability of treatment centres, fair distribution of gambling licensing, controlling the monitoring of gambling and betting outlets to prevent underage participation in gambling activities.

Overall, the workshop participants generated interesting views and debates on gambling impacts in the Namibian society and praised researchers’ effort in addressing such a sensible and sensitive matter.

The research project is funded by the Bristol Hub for Gambling Harms Research based at the University of Bristol.

By Dr Sam Kirwan and Dr Jo Large

One unmissable aspect of the post-Covid, cost-of-living crisis is the ongoing collapse of high-street retail. Yet, alongside the charity shops and vape sellers, one sector remains relatively intact; betting remains an integral part of the British high street, with a prevalence directly inverse to surrounding socio-economic indicators.

There has been no shortage of critique regarding the role played by high-street betting in contributing to conditions of poverty under austerity. When in 2014 Aditya Chakrabortty described the high-street betting sector as a form of ‘predatory capitalism’, he was highlighting the ways in which the liberalised gambling sector appears to reflect the very worst dynamics of neoliberal society. As Markham and Young and Banks and Waters have argued, the modern gambling industry, characterised by a concentration of power and expansion of influence, appears boundless in its will to extract maximum profit from its customers, with little regard for the ways in which its products amplify misery and inequality. Among the many critiques of the role of the Gambling Commission (the regulator created by the 2005 Gambling Act), the most damning is that it has enabled the proliferation of harm by emphasising ‘safer gambling’ frameworks without challenging these underlying logics of exploitation and extraction

Amidst these critiques of the high-street betting sector, there has been a lack of attention to the betting shop as a space of employment (Rebecca Cassidy’s fascinating ethnography of betting shops remains an outlier in this respect). This lack of interest is unusual given how the role of betting-shop employee has changed so drastically since the 2005 Gambling Act, and also given that much of the responsibility for reducing gambling harm in the premises-based sector falls upon the frontline employees who must implement the components of the ‘Social Responsibility Code’ (SRC) (part of the Licensing Conditions and Code of Practice). These include the need to intervene when there are indicators of ‘problem gambling’, to enforce self-exclusion schemes, and to carry out age-verification procedures.

Our research

Over the summer and autumn of 2023 we carried out semi-structured interviews with current and retired frontline employees in the sector. Whilst our focus was on the implementation of these ‘safer gambling’ approaches implemented in the SRC, these interviews covered a range of employment issues, often returning to issues of personal safety within an aggression-laden environment, and how betting practices and environments had changed in their time within the sector.

Most of our participants expressed a strong feeling that intervening in customers’ gambling habits, where there was a clear potential for harm, was something they felt staff should be doing. Many talked positively about when they had been able to encourage a customer to reflect upon their gambling and the harms it was creating. Despite the difficulties in implementing self-exclusion schemes they were seen to be a valuable tool that staff would always seek to enforce. Many of their reflections were in line with the underlying narratives of the SRC regarding the capacity for employees to prevent harm within the shop.

But participants also felt that the conditions for being able to carry out this harm-reduction work had significantly deteriorated in the era of Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs), single-manning and multi-shop work (the mandating of staff running shops on their own and moving between shops without warning), and the profit-driven orientation of the modern gambling conglomerates. In these conditions, aspects of the SRC were experienced as factors that exacerbated the stresses and anxiety of work rather than reducing them. When participants were reflecting upon this most critically, these codes were seen as a way of shifting responsibility from operators onto frontline employees: making sure that it is staff that bear the risk and anxiety of reducing gambling harm.

An example of this raised in our interviews was the difficulty of acting on the back-office alerts created by FOBTs regarding excessive time or spend. Many noted the anxiety and fear of dismissal if they failed to act on these alerts and other potential indicators of ‘problem gambling’, despite the fact that coming out from behind the screen might itself be a disciplinary offence if it meant not being able to take bets. They could also put themselves in a potentially dangerous situation in the context of the customer aggression created by FOBTs.

There has been widespread criticism of the idea that a liberalised market, creating deliberately addictive and harmful products that enable the vast transfer of wealth from the most vulnerable in society to the most privileged, can be tamed or constrained by ‘safer gambling’ codes that rely on customers recognising their own ‘problem gambling’ and taking preventative action. We argue that what should be added to this critique are the ways in which this structure has shifted responsibility for gambling harm onto low-paid, precarious workers, who are balancing competing demands in the aggressive and stressful environment created by this industry approach. A desperate need for gambling reform has been eloquently articulated by Van Schalkwyk and Cassidy, among others. We argue that consideration of high-street gambling as a space of employment should be part of this reform. It should not remain possible for operators to continue to offer products that are intrinsically harmful, in spaces that are intrinsically unsafe, and be allowed to shift the responsibility and risk for any ensuing harms onto their lowest-paid employees.

By Edoardo Tozzi

My PhD research delves into the world of gambling advertising – specifically, how it entices adolescents and young adults. But tackling this topic wasn’t a straightforward path. A major challenge emerged when I needed a reliable way to measure the impact these ads have on my target audience. That’s when I stumbled across a peculiar piece of research… the kind that would be right at home with the Ig Nobel Prizes.

The Ig Nobel Prize is a satirical award that is given annually to ten unusual or (apparently) trivial achievements in scientific research that “first make people laugh, and then make people think”. This peculiar award was first established by the Annals of Improbable Research (AIR), a scientific humor magazine founded in 1991 by Marc Abrahams, and the award ceremony used to take place at Harvard University’s Sanders Theatre until Covid – now it’s online. Some notable examples? In 2006, Bart Knols and colleagues received the Ig Nobel Prize for their study on the attraction of mosquitoes to human feet. The researchers found that female Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes, which are known to transmit malaria, were attracted to both human feet and –  Limburger cheese. Not surprisingly, the research has implications for understanding the behavior of mosquitoes and for developing new methods of mosquito control – as you may or may not know, mosquitoes are the deadliest animals in the world.  In 2000, Andre Geim, a Russian-born Dutch–British physicist, won the Ig Nobel prize for… levitating a live frog with magnets. A few years later, the Chinese government took inspiration to build the lunar gravity research facility while Geim won the Nobel prize for his work on graphene.

One of most notable winners of this prestigious award, though, is a study that took place at the Koorana Saltwater Crocodile Farm in Queensland, Australia. Imagine stepping into the world of gambling research, where the thrill of the game meets the cold-blooded gaze of a crocodile. This is not a scene from a bizarre movie, but the setting of real research conducted by Matthew J. Rockloff and Nancy Greer, aptly titled ‘Never Smile at a Crocodile: Betting on Electronic Gaming Machines is Intensified by Reptile-Induced Arousal’. The experiment involved 103 participants randomly assigned to gamble on a simulated Electronic Gaming Machine (EGM) before or after handling a 1-meter saltwater crocodile. The primary aim was to investigate how this emotional arousal influenced various aspects of gambling behavior, such as bet size, speed of betting, final payouts, and the number of trials played, with a particular focus on how these effects varied among at-risk gamblers and based on the gamblers’ affective state.

The findings revealed that at-risk gamblers who reported fewer negative emotions placed higher average bets after interacting with the crocodile compared to those in the control condition. This suggests that high arousal can exacerbate gambling behaviors in individuals at risk of gambling problems, but only when the arousal is not interpreted as a negative emotion. In contrast, at-risk gamblers with a high level of self-reported negative emotions demonstrated more conservative gambling behaviors under the same conditions. The study builds on existing research by offering a novel approach to understanding the complex relationship between emotion, physiological arousal, and gambling. Methodologically, the study involved measuring participants’ gambling behavior on an EGM simulated on a laptop, with the EGM’s outcomes predetermined to ensure consistent conditions. The results underscore the significant role of arousal in gambling behavior, particularly among at-risk individuals. The study demonstrates that arousal, when not perceived as negative, can lead to more aggressive gambling, likely due to a misattribution of the source of arousal to the gambling experience itself. This finding is crucial for developing strategies to mitigate gambling harm, as it highlights the need to understand the underlying emotional and physiological drivers of gambling behavior.

How has this affected my own PhD research you may wonder.  Well, in the study just discussed, galvanic skin response (GSR) was employed to evaluate arousal differences stemming from exposure to a crocodile scenario versus a control situation. GSR, an index of the skin’s electrical conductance, fluctuates with its moisture levels, reflecting sweat gland activity governed by the sympathetic nervous system. This component of the autonomic nervous system orchestrates the body’s fight-or-flight response, making GSR a reliable indicator of emotional arousal. As I set out to investigate how gambling ads affect young people, I investigated this measure further.

Indeed, I found that GSR’s application extends into consumer neuroscience, or neuromarketing, to gauge consumer arousal in response to stimuli, such as advertisements. While GSR sheds light on physiological arousal, it falls short in differentiating between similar arousal levels triggered by distinct emotions, like fear and excitement. Moreover, it does not tell us much in terms of cognitive processes. The latter limitation led to the integration of GSR with electroencephalography (EEG) in my research, “Mind games: deciphering the youth’s neurophysiological responses to (e)sports gambling ads on social media.” EEG tracks brain wave pattern changes across various frequencies, correlating to different brain states and processes, including attention, emotional valence, memory, and semantic processing. This combination of techniques aims to provide objective, unbiased insights into consumer preferences, focusing on how (e)sports gambling advertisements on social media trigger cognitive and affective processes. Overall, I hope that my research will open a window into the mind of adolescents and young adults, providing some potentially novel insights to fight what initiates gambling harm.  And maybe, just maybe, I too will win the (Ig) Nobel prize.

By Dr Jamie Wheaton and Ben Ford

The prevention of gambling harms requires many different approaches, and the co-operation of many different stakeholders, including (but not limited to) researchers, charities, treatment providers and policymakers. Gambling harms can be classified in different ways, but our framework uses a previous classification of gambling harms as resource harms (for example, loss of money or assets), relationship harms, and health harms. Harms which do not fall into these categories could also be categorised as ‘non-specific harms’.

While there are many frameworks that detail how to prevent or reduce gambling harms, or how harms can be measured, there are no frameworks that can help to promote collaboration between these stakeholders and map where approaches to prevent gambling harms can be most effective.

The Hub has developed a framework, recently published in PLOS ONE, that  can help to encourage collaboration between stakeholders, map existing research, initiatives or interventions, and allow stakeholders to identify where these are most needed.

The Framework

The framework emerged from research that explored public health approaches to the prevention or reduction of harms from gambling, tobacco, products high in fat, salt and sugar, and alcohol.

The framework is derived from four key factors which we will briefly explore in turn:

• goals that lead to the prevention or reduction of harms;
• the overarching groups of strategies that can achieve these goals;
• the types of gambling harms that can be prevented or reduced through the achievement of these goals; and
• the levels of society at which strategies can be targeted.

The research indicated three goals that – when achieved – can lead to the prevention or reduction of harms. These goals were identified as the ‘prevention’ of harms from occurring in the first instance; the ‘regulation’ of the industry or its products; and ‘support’ for those experiencing gambling harms, including those harmed by another person’s gambling.

Additionally, we found that these goals could be achieved through three broad groups of strategies. These were defined as ‘education and awareness’ strategies that introduce an understanding or awareness of gambling harms; ‘screening, measurement and intervention’ strategies that seek to identify and measure the scale of gambling harms as well as provide interventions to reduce the harms; and an understanding of how the ‘environments and products’ can lead to gambling harms.

These strategies and goals can also overlap, meaning individual initiatives or interventions that consist of one or more strategy type, can be targeted towards one or more of the goals. We contend that strategies mapped against this framework will prevent or reduce gambling harms.

These strategies for reducing harm can be targeted at different levels of society. They can be targeted towards societies as a whole, specific groups or communities, families and friends of those experiencing harms, and the individual themselves. These aspects when combined create a framework which can foster collaboration between stakeholders, allowing them to map previous research or initiatives to a particular area of interest, and to identify gaps where future research or initiatives are most needed.

How the framework can be used

To illustrate how this framework could be used, we give some potential examples on how it could help to inform future approaches to prevent or reduce gambling harm.

At the societal level, previous research tells us that the framing of messaging around ‘responsible gambling’ or ‘safer gambling’ is unlikely to alter gambling behaviours. Research also tells us that changing the environment – for example, altering the design of gambling-related products – is more likely to reduce harm at a societal level. Recent developments in the sector provide evidence of collaboration in these areas, such as the reduction of maximum stakes for online slots games, the introduction of a slower speed of play, or the promise of centrally-developed messaging on gambling harms made in the White Paper.

Stakeholders may be interested in exploring how to prevent or reduce gambling harms for certain groups. For example, existing research tells us that those with the least economic resources are more likely to experience gambling harms, while gambling harms also disproportionately impact minority ethnic groups. The framework can help them identify strategies such as:

• developing ‘education and awareness’ programmes aimed at specific groups in order to improve their awareness of the risks of engaging with certain gambling products,
• developing ‘screening, measurement and intervention’ schemes to provide support for those experiencing harms and to track the prevalence of gambling harms at community level. Such strategies would help achieve the goals of ‘prevention’ and ‘support’.
• enacting regulation relating to ‘environment and product’, whether through the regulation of marketing in the local area, or managing the positioning, and number of, land-based gambling outlets in specific areas.

Stakeholders such as local treatment providers, local authorities, and charities could use the framework to collaborate and to map previous or similar strategies which have been developed for other groups. They could also use the framework to develop and deploy strategies to prevent harms amongst the specific groups, and then to evaluate the progress of such strategies.

At the level of family and friends, possible strategies may be to raise awareness that gambling harms can affect not only the person who gambles but also their relationships. The framework could therefore help those interested in this area by:

• exploring how awareness around the harms and stigma possibly experienced by family and friends could be raised (through ‘education and awareness’ strategies),
• ensuring that those who are being harmed by – or are concerned about – a loved one’s gambling behaviour has access to sufficient support.

The mapping of these strategies represents an overlap of the goals of ‘support’ and ‘prevention’, developing awareness and reducing the stigma around gambling harms that may be experienced by family and friends, as well as providing the support to those who need it. Additionally, stakeholders such as researchers, treatment providers and charities may use the framework to target such approaches over local or more national levels.

Finally, the framework highlights how strategies can be targeted towards the individual. As highlighted above, focusing specifically on the individual when trying to reduce gambling harms can be stigmatising and can also detract from the harmful nature of products. Strategies developed within the framework could therefore explore:

• how centrally-developed messaging is received at the individual level in a way which is not stigmatising (education and awareness),
• how treatment is more accessible (screening, measurement and intervention),
• how an individual’s behaviour is impacted by modifications of the gambling environment (environment and product), such as marketing or specific products.

These are some broad examples of how the framework could be used, and many other approaches could be mapped against and developed within the framework. In summary, the framework has the ability to bring together numerous stakeholders to explore how best to prevent or reduce gambling harms for a wide range of people. Developing initiatives can be mapped against previous research or approaches, to allow stakeholders to best target future initiatives where they most prevent or reduce harms in the future.

By Dr Philip Newall, Lecturer in Psychology.

This blog was originally published by the Society for the Study of Addiction.  The original article can be viewed on their website.

Dr Philip Newall writes about the public health impact of gambling, and reflects on the promise of the government’s 2023 gambling White Paper.

On 27 April 2023, the UK Government published its White Paper on gambling – “High stakes: gambling reform for the digital age”. This long-awaited document was the government’s response to the 16,000 pieces of evidence submitted in response to its December 2020 call for evidence.

In common with other White Papers, the key recommendations were not enacted immediately upon publication, but have themselves been subject to a number of public consultations from the relevant government department and the regulator, the Gambling Commission. This has felt to many of us working in the area as a frustratingly slow pace of change.

Given that a year has now passed since the White Paper was published, I am writing to give my independent assessment of some key changes thus far. This blog reflects a public health perspective, which highlights the need to reduce the population’s risk of experiencing harm from gambling. In the well-known ‘cliff analogy’, this is expressed as the need to invest in better fences around a high cliff to prevent people from falling off, compared to the alternative of spending money on ambulances to take people who have fallen off the cliff to hospital.

Incremental changes to products and marketing

There have been wide-ranging changes within the gambling industry, and in comparison, more incremental changes to gambling policy. New technologies have delivered new ways to gamble, including mobile devices, video game loot boxes, and cryptocurrencies. This is not to forget more traditional gambling formats, such as lottery tickets, which are still available in any newsagent, high-street gambling machines, and seaside fruit machines, which are still legal for children to use. Many of these gambling opportunities are marketed aggressively to potential consumers, for example, via the ‘gamblification’ of professional sport, social media marketing, and bingo adverts shown during daytime television.

Online slots were singled out in the White Paper as a particularly high-risk gambling product (with 64 mentions in total). Compared to high-street gambling machines, online slots are faster (2.5 seconds per spin, compared to 20 seconds on a high-street roulette machine), more available (24-hours a day, with remote access), and also result in higher losses per £1 wagered (with slot games taking around 10% of all money bet, compared to 2.7% in high-street roulette machines).

In February 2024 the government announced a £5 maximum stake for online slots, which would reduce to £2 for 18–24-year-olds. Campaigners had been hoping for a £2 maximum stake for everyone, to mirror the £2 maximum stake introduced in 2019 for high-street gambling machines. However, even a £2 maximum stake for everyone would have been at best a small step in public health terms.

The maximum stake for online slots acts only on the highest-risk subset of gamblers using one specific gambling product. The maximum stake does nothing to prevent harm occurring from someone who bets only £1 a spin on online slots, let alone someone who bets throughout a football match via an ‘in-play’ betting app on their phone – another new type of gambling invented in the last 20 years, which shows conceptual similarities with slots-based gambling due to its fast and immersive nature. People who tend to lose the most money from online slots also tend to live in more deprived parts of the country, and their losses occur not by betting larger amounts than other gamblers, but by spending more time gambling.

Reliance on industry to regulate itself

Gambling marketing has seen less government-led action, despite this being one of the aspects of gambling that is visible even to non-gamblers. There are two stated reasons for this, which I discuss below.

The White Paper approvingly mentioned the Premier League’s decision to remove gambling logos from the front of football shirts from August 2026 onwards. While strong self-regulatory action would mean that government regulation is unnecessary, a study published later last year suggested that this particular action would only remove around 7% of all gambling logos from an average Premier League football match, due to the preponderance of gambling logos on pitch-side hoardings and in other locations. This change also does nothing to address gambling marketing in other leagues, such as the Women’s Super League or the Scottish Premier League.

The White Paper also said that there is “little evidence of a causal link” between advertising and harm. However, a letter in Addiction, authored by 53 gambling researchers (myself included), argued that this is because of the methodological difficulties in establishing causality given the tools and datasets available to researchers. What some stakeholders call a lack of evidence of harm, could equally be described as a lack of evidence of safety.

What could a more effective public health approach to gambling look like?

A public health approach to gambling could take many forms, as long as it keeps the main feature of acting on as great a proportion of the overall population of gamblers as possible. Two proposals include maximum speed limits and a centralised payment system.

Maximum stake limits only act on the subset of gamblers betting at above the proposed limit on that specific gambling product. By comparison, policies that act to reduce the speed and ease of gambling work no matter how much or little a gambler is staking, and can be inventively applied to a wide range of gambling products.

While the Gambling Commission has placed a minimum spin time of 2.5 seconds for online slots, this minimum spin time could be increased, which would reduce the speed at which people can gamble. Similar minimums could also be placed in other online casino games, which can be played much faster than their land-based equivalents. Even live sports betting can be made slower than it is now. For example, an Australian Government policy forces live in-play bets to be made via telephone call, instead of via the faster and more immersive interface of a mobile phone app.

While much online gambling revenue is hard to track, the government could take control of this issue by introducing a mandatory centralised payment system for all gambling. Since each high-spending gambler has active accounts with an average of six gambling operators, this would be more effective in tracking and limiting the spending of vulnerable gamblers than the current system where this is the responsibility of gambling operators. This system could also be designed in a way that helps all gamblers to keep track of and limit their spend, which would make it a population-based intervention, and could provide a wealth of data for researchers to build a stronger evidence base on effective ways of preventing gambling harms.

Overall, my view is that the changes in UK gambling policy have been frustratingly slow and overly incremental. The forthcoming changes to online slots will leave most gamblers unaffected, and therefore provide no additional protections for most compared to the current status quo. The same is true for gambling marketing, where the industry has misleadingly framed the methodological difficulties of conducting research as a justification to largely support the status quo – even though this status quo is as unsupported by the ‘evidence’ as any other potential arrangement.

 

The Bristol Hub for Gambling Harms Research is launching its latest round of Research Innovation Fund Strategic Awards.

The aim of the Research Innovation Fund is to build capacity for innovative and impactful research that clearly outlines how it will benefit the public good.

The Strategic Awards will run for up to 12 months from August 2024 – July 2025. Awards are expected to be for up to £50K.

The deadline for applications is 31st May 2024.

There are more details on how to apply for the Strategic Award on our website or you can contact the Hub Research Development Associate, Dr Emily Crick.

Projects should fit with the Hub’s aims to help prevent and reduce gambling harms at all levels of society (e.g., individual, family and social networks, community and societal), deliver significant impact on the gambling research landscape and show the proactive engagement and involvement of people who are likely to benefit from the project. Projects can be co-designed with non-academic partners, but the awards must be led by academic staff or postgraduate researchers from Higher Education Institutions in the UK or internationally.

The Research Innovation Fund supports interdisciplinary research which transgresses boundaries and actively seeks to integrate and synthesise insights from one or more academic disciplines. The Research Innovation Fund aims to support researchers to work with scholars from other disciplines or under-represented disciplines e.g. Arts and Humanities.

Projects must align with at least one of our four Challenges? The four challenges are:
• Challenge 1 – Perceptions, Motivations, Decisions. What initiates harmful gambling?
• Challenge 2 – Narratives, Practice, Representation. What is the everyday practice and portrayal of gambling in social groups?
• Challenge 3 – Experience, Risk, Harm. What social inequalities exacerbate gambling harms?
• Challenge 4 – Innovation, Transition, Change. What socio-technical innovations can help combat gambling harms?

The Research Innovation Fund will also fund research into cross-cutting themes related to these four Challenges, such as inequality, vulnerability, resilience and social justice.

In the first year of the Research Innovation Fund the Hub awarded five projects:
• Enforcing ‘responsible gambling’ regulations: the (irresponsible?) impact on employees of betting and gambling outlets lead by Jo Large and Sam Kirwan (University of Bristol)
• Investigating neural signals during risky decision making lead by Paul Dodson (University of Bristol)
• The spatial signatures of gambling behaviours: access to online vs. brick-and-mortar facilities lead by Emmanouil Tranos (University of Bristol)
• A pilot study to assess the possibility of generating a quantitative analysis of the time evolution of gambling-related practices within cryptocurrency trading platforms lead by Sam Kirwan and Luca Giuggioli (University of Bristol)
• Mapping the data landscape in gambling harms research lead by Sharon Collard, Emmanouil Tranos and Jamie Evans (University of Bristol)

The Hub funded seven Strategic Award projects in 2023:
• Exploring the diffusion of gambling information impact on consumer’s behaviours, and to design a mitigating model to address harmful gambling in Namibia lead by Dr Selma Iilonga (University of Namibia)
• Gambling related harm: an urban perspective of betting shop and crime lead by Dr Oluwole Adeniyi (Nottingham Trent University)
• Live-Gam: Exploring the impact of viewing gambling on livestream platforms on the attitudes, behaviours, and engagement in young adults and adolescents towards gambling lead by Dr Glen Dighton (Swansea University)
• Understanding the relationship between stigma and gambling-related harm lead by Prof Zsolt Demetrovics, Dr Andrea Czakó and Yanisha Soborun (University of Gibraltar)
• Examining gambling harms within LGBTQ+ communities in the UK lead by Dr Reece Bush-Evans (Bournemouth University)
• Gambling harms among those under probation supervision in England and Wales lead by Dr Julie Trebilcock (Brunel University)
• Online help-seeking searches and gambling harm lead by Dr Sebastian Whiteford (Swansea University)

The Hub awarded six seedcorn projects in 2023:
• Delving into youth perspectives on in-game gambling-like elements lead by Dr Thomas Krause (University of Hohenheim, Germany)
• The role of performing arts in educating the youth against harmful gambling in Uganda lead by Dr Branco Sekalegga (Makerere University, Uganda)
• Stump the odds: developing an international network for collaborative research into gambling harms in professional cricket lead by Dr Carolyn Plateau (Loughborough University)
• Identification of and intervention in gambling effects among vulnerable groups in public universities in Kenya lead by Gregory Jumah Nyongesa (Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology (JOOUST), Kenya)
• Scoping, consensus building and raising awareness of gambling-related harms among rugby players in Wales lead by Cerys Head (Swansea University)
• Starting conversations about harmful gambling with ethnic minority women lead by Dr Emily Arden-Close (Bournemouth University)

By Dr Raffaello Rossi, Lecturer in Marketing

In 2020, the UK government announced an overhaul of the Gambling Act to make the laws “fit for the digital age”.  Having spent a couple of years researching gambling ads on social media – I thought: “wow, this is exactly what we need” – not only because our own research had shown:

• 1m UK gambling ads per year on Twitter only,
• Two-thirds of all gambling accounts followers online are under 25,
• Gambling ads on social media are highly appealing to children – but not to adults, and that
• During one weekend, gambling ads on X (Twitter) reap an incredible 34 million views – putting social media marketing now at the heart of the industries marketing efforts.

However, my enthusiasm waned when the Gambling Act Review White Paper was unveiled in April 2023. Surprisingly, it lacked in actual interventions around (online) gambling marketing, and did not follow what most of our European neighbours have recently done. Whilst Belgium and Italy have recently almost entirely banned gambling marketing, Germany and Netherlands have intervened in several key areas – making Great Britain increasingly an outliner by allowing almost all forms of gambling marketing with minimal restrictions on online efforts.

Source: Rossi, R., Nairn, A., Ford, B., and Wheaton, J. (2023). Gambling Act review: how EU countries are tightening restrictions on ads and why the UK should too. The Conversation. UK.

The challenges of regulating online advertising

The core challenge lies in the fundamental differences between online and offline marketing, rendering our current regulatory framework, rooted in the offline world’s regulations from the 1960s, inadequate and unable to work efficiently.  Online marketing presents distinct features that require tailored regulations, and I’d like to highlight three crucial differences:

Firstly, the advent of “targeted ads” – enables incredible precise demographic targeting, surpassing traditional marketing capabilities. This enables brands, for example, to show ads only to males, age 18-25, that play football, and follow sports-related accounts online. This targeting far exceeds the possibilities of traditional marketing, and if not restricted, could enable gambling brands to focus their marketing communications on young and vulnerable audience – who, from a business point of view, is the most lucrative audience.

Secondly, the transient nature of online ads, such as “stories” or paid-for ads, poses a challenge to accountability.  Unlike TV commercials with a centralised database were ads are stored, there’s no mechanism to store and monitor online ads. Once they are gone (e.g. after 24h for stories, or after being deleted by the account) – they are gone!  So, how is this policed?  Currently, we are mainly relying on users to report potential breaches.  This means users need to act quickly when encountering a suspicious gambling ad, screenshot the ad, and finally, report it the Advertising Standards Authorities.  However, I don’t think many people do so.  But, what this means, is that the lack of policy in place to deal with this systemically, has created a “dark space” where advertising may go unchecked. In other words, I believe, that neither researchers, policy-makers nor enforcement officers at the ASA have a clue of what is actually happening out there, as we do not have the provisions to monitor it.

The final challenge stems from the unprecedented volume of online and social media advertising.  With 1 million unique UK gambling ads on Twitter alone, the sheer diversity of content makes policing and monitoring a daunting task. With AI coming into the mix – as Edoardo Tozzi has shown – this might make things even worse.  So far, gambling brands’ main costs in creating their 1m ads per year has been paying for their staff to design them.  Now, with AI being able to create ads within seconds, soon we might not see 1m ads per year, but 10-times or 100-times as much – there is virtually no limit.  And no policies in place that would protect us.

So, where are we going from here? 

Well, first of all, I believe we need to start accepting that online marketing is so fundamentally different, that our old laws and regulations don’t work. What should follow is the introduction of online specific marketing regulations.  However, I also believe that we need to start facing an uncomfortable truth: we need to start regulating the volume of (gambling) marketing, as opposed to solely focusing on the content.  Because even if the 100m AI-generated ads adhere to all regulations, do we really want to see our world plastered in gambling ads?

Reposted from the University of Bristol Business School blog

 

By Billy Greville, PhD Researcher at University of Bristol Business School

As I approached the M SHED museum, the impressive event space located in one of Bristol’s key cultural harbourside landmarks, I was reflecting on the colloquium’s theme this year: Building capacity in gambling harms research. As a 2nd year PhD researcher this seemed to not only capture the sentiment of my own journey over the past 12 months, but also the journey we are all on, as those who are pushing hardest to prevent and reduce gambling harms.

To build capacity sounded like a rallying cry; an opportunity to sharpen our conceptual and empirical tools, and hear directly from those with lived experience, campaigners, regulators and policymakers — all of whom are needed to effectively address the challenges emerging from a global gambling industry estimated to reach over $1 Trillion by 2030.

The whole is more than the sum of its parts…

Capacity building by silos would soon fail, however. So, the key premise of the colloquium was to bring together, both online and in person, a diverse mix of expertise from across the world — including governmental representatives, research experts and those with lived experience — to discuss ways of tackling gambling harms. The holistic approach provided what felt to me like a credible foundation on what is often the wide-reaching yet slippery grounds of gambling, requiring interdisciplinary knowledge and often transdisciplinary solutions.

The morning welcome speech by Co-chairs of the Hub, Sharon Collard and Agnes Nairn, echoed this, emphasising the importance of encouraging new kinds of people and perspectives to work with the Hub, as it continues its mission to raise awareness of gambling harms, strengthen consumer protection, and enhance support and treatment.

The day included a lively poster session, with over 20 researchers showcasing their work, and centred around four thought-provoking keynotes and panel speaker sessions, each anchored within one of the key research challenges of the Hub.

Session 1: Perceptions, Motivations, Decisions: What initiates gambling harms?

Lord Foster, long-time gambling reform campaigner and sitting House of Lords member, kicked things off with an impassioned keynote speech, pointing out that regulation needs continuous reform. He discussed some limitations of the White Paper, lacking proper restrictions on gambling products and marketing and advertising, especially sports betting. He also reiterated his belief that in a smartphone era gambling must now be treated as a public health issue.

Not surprisingly, advertising featured prominently in the panel session. University of Bristol’s Michael Banissy discussed how advertising and other cues in our environment play on specific networks in the brain, increasing the possibility of gambling harms.

Andy Taylor, from the Committee of Advertising Practice, offered insight into the restrictions they face as a downstream regulator, advising researchers wishing to collaborate to align projects within their regulatory scope.

Ghent University’s Steffi De Jans brought a fascinating case study to the session, talking about the implications on the recent ban of gambling advertising in Belgium. I wondered how much Belgium’s cultural morality played into this success, perhaps encouraging more political will as voters’ values may have aligned with a ban, and what this might mean in a UK context.

Another interesting topic that emerged was product design. Guy Bray from GamCare spoke about how advertising pulls young gamblers in, however it’s an app that traps them in a state of play. I thought about how this contrasts with advertising regulation. Addiction by design in a risky context such as gambling is highly problematic, yet, to me, seems to get less regulatory emphasis.

Session 2: Narratives, Practice, Representation: What is the everyday practice and portrayal of gambling in social groups?

During this session, the voices of those with lived experience of gambling harms came through strongly. Peter and Steph Shilton’s keynote speech demonstrated the secretive nature of gambling, and the extensive lengths people can go to hide it from their loved ones. Steph also highlighted the challenges loved ones face as “silent victims”, often overlooked for treatment and support.

This was echoed by BetKnowMore UK’s Liz Riley, who highlighted the issues women face as affected others, often carrying the extra burden of financial responsibility, feelings of Isolation and shame, or even coerced into keeping gambling secrets from other family and friends.

Wendy Knight, from GLEN, powerful reading of the poem, “I am Addiction”, authored by an anonymous writer, further brought me viscerally into the world of somebody suffering from gambling harms. I recommend anybody working in gambling harms research to read it also.

Another important theme of this session was the evolving nature of gambling, its craftiness in finding new gamblers through emerging contexts.

University of Bremen’s Tobias Hayer discussed the growth of sports betting in Germany; it’s portrayal by advertising as low-risk and harmless, just a new type of fan activity, helping create social norms linking gambling to supporting your team.

Sam Kirwan, from the University of Bristol, discussed how unregulated crypto assets are a new form of investing practice but moulded in the shape of gambling. What I found particularly interesting was how young people, often described as being worse off than previous generations, were lured into using cryptocurrencies as a hope device for longer term life goals such as buying a house. The similarity to gambling struck me, how in recessionary times gambling is often highest amongst people who face the most severe financial problems.

Session 3: Experience, Risk, Harm. What social and special inequalities exacerbate gambling harms?

Gambling harms can play out and affect groups of people and places differently. As the Guardian’s Rob Davies discussed in his keynote, the clustering of betting shops in less affluent areas target communities and embed gambling harms. This session also pointedly demonstrated the need to consider other marginalised or overlooked groups.

Bournemouth University’s Reece Bush-Evans talked about how marginalised groups such as the LGBTQIA+ community can suffer more or in unexpected ways from gambling harms. Bristol University’s Jo Large also discussed the hidden harms of betting shop employees; how they felt unqualified to handle the levels of problematic behaviour they witnessed daily and felt a burden was placed on them to enforce regulatory rules.

All different examples yet display brilliantly how we must continue to understand the full ecology of gambling harms.

Linking to this, Lee Kah Wee, from the National University of Singapore, brought another unique perspective to the session. He talked about how casinos in Singapore use public transport infrastructure as a form of advertising, targeting customers with a private bus service, bringing the casino to the doors of locals and high-net-worth tourists. Ultimately, they act like mobile advertising, providing a brand experience of luxury. He finished his talk by posing a question: Are casinos exporting harms beyond their buildings?

This occupied my thoughts during the afternoon coffee break. If we consider gambling as a public health issue, as Public Health England suggests, could we create a powerful narrative by framing all PR, sponsorship, marketing or advertising as examples of operators exporting gambling harms beyond their sites?

Session 4: Innovations, Transition, Change: What socio-technical innovations can help combat gambling harms?

The gambling industry is highly innovative, driving profits by leveraging data and new technology while employing the best talent. This informative session showcased how we must continually seek out our own innovations, to both understand and effectively make use of emerging technology and big data to combat gambling harms. The speakers all provided compelling ideas on this call to action.

In her keynote speech, Carolyn Harris, Labour MP for Swansea East, stated that gambling is now firmly on the political agenda. She spoke about how machines are dictating our lives more than ever, and how the impacts of the first iPhone and the gambling act, both from 2007, has transformed gambling into what it is today.

Jamie Wheaton, from University of Bristol, provided an excellent overview of the status of socio-technical innovations in the gambling industry today. Chris May, from Mayden Health tech, discussed how a data-driven approach can be used to help with prevention and treatment, offering bespoke services for gamblers. From the Behavioural Insights Team, Ruth Persian spoke about their Activity Statement research in Australia and how having personal statistics on gambling usage made a big difference to people, empowering more informed financial decisions. I found Clean Up Gambling’s Matt Zarb-Cousin’s idea of gamifying recovery particularly interesting. His notion of using technology to maximise recovery, not profit, seemed like a perfect mantra for this session, inverting the traditional tech model.

The end yet just the beginning

This year’s inaugural colloquium created a rich and lively environment facilitating a cross-pollination of ideas amongst a fantastic intersection of people, all passionate about reforming the gambling industry. I walked away knowing much more about the broad challenges faced yet, perhaps more importantly, inspired by the growing body of expertise on display and a steadfastness to continue working hard on my own research. I look forward to carrying on the conversations at next year’s event.

 

By Sharon Collard, Personal Finance Research Centre and Bristol Hub for Gambling Harms Research
Please note: This blog discusses harmful gambling and its impacts.  

In July 2023, a team from the Personal Finance Research Centre, FinTech West and the lived experience-led charity Gambling Harm UK delivered a workshop to consider how FinTech can help reduce harm from gambling. This was a great example of ‘grounded innovation’ in action: bringing FinTechs together with people who have lived experience of gambling harms to focus on real-life issues and how to solve them.  

It highlighted useful products and services that FinTech firms already offer as well as opportunities for further innovation. Most of all, it showed the invaluable contribution that experts-by-experience like Gambling Harm UK bring to the table.  

We are grateful to Higher Education Innovation Funding for funding the workshop.  

Helping FinTechs understand the harms caused by gambling problems 

A key part of the workshop was Chris Gilham, Julie Martin and John Gilham from Gambling Harm UK sharing their own personal experiences, which illustrated the complex and messy nature of gambling problems and their serious long-term impacts.  

Chris told us about having been diagnosed with Adult ADHD just over eighteen months ago at almost 40 years of age, and how he has battled with his mental health since his mid-teens and using alcohol to cope. Then when he was 30 years old, having had no previous interest in gambling, he saw an advert and that day, he decided to try it. He explained that whilst gambling initially made him feel calmer, it wasn’t long before he was suffering from gambling harm. After almost five years of harm he finally found recovery following a two-day gambling binge, when he was planning to win and leave money to his family before ending his own life. Julie described the severe financial toll that her ex-husband’s gambling had on her and her children, meaning she had to work four jobs just to pay off loans he had taken out in her name, as well as the verbal, mental and sometimes physical abuse that she experienced. John (Chris’s dad) told us about his experiences as the parent of someone with a gambling addiction, how his life and that of his wife and family had been turned upside down and his role now supporting Chris in his recovery journey, including helping Chris keep tight control of his money.  

These real-life experiences really resonated with workshop participants – even if they had no experience of gambling harms. Our rich discussion touched on many issues including the links between ADHD and impulse behaviours such as gambling; the fact that there is no single reason for gambling problems; and the normalisation of gambling-like behaviours in online games that are so popular among children and young people, through features like microtransactions and loot boxes that are played to get an edge. John reminded us that 55,000 young people aged 11-16 in Britain are categorised as ‘problem’ gamblers – a term which stigmatises those suffering from this illness – with a further 85,000 young people estimated to be at risk of harm from gambling. 

How FinTechs can help reduce harms from gambling 

There is no perfect solution to help someone control their gambling. Blocks, self-exclusion schemes and other features can all be circumvented if gambling has become the most important activity in someone’s life and dominates their thinking, feelings, and behaviour. Nonetheless, the workshop highlighted a whole range of things that FinTechs are already doing as well as challenges still to be solved, such as joint accounts that give more control and protection. It also illustrated the invaluable contribution that experts-by-experience like Gambling Harm UK can bring to the table in terms of product ideation, design, and testing.  

Data-driven early intervention: Starling Bank described how it had a specialist team that proactively contacted loan customers to offer help where their underwriting team identified potential harm from gambling (or where they were in other potentially vulnerable situations), including links to external sources of support. It accepted that the message won’t always land well with customers but in its experience, there was more positive than negative feedback from customers. Saying the right things, in the right way is key, which Chris, Julie and Julie all confirmed was so important, means testing the language and training staff. Indicators of potentially harmful gambling might include applying for large loans late at night and multiple gambling transactions across several sites in a very short space of time.  

Enhanced friction and control features: At a time when it is quicker and easier than ever to set up a new bank account or take out a sizable loan, there is significant potential to give customers more control over their spending from the get-go. This might be a bank account where you have to opt-in to be able to gamble rather than opting out; or a non-gambling banking app with enhanced transaction monitoring. Through its personal financial management features, Moneyhub enables its users to set up spending flags across multiple accounts, making it easier for people to see what they are spending on different expenditure categories (such as gambling) where they may want to exercise more control and set spend limits. As Chris attested from his personal experience, tools to help people set up, and stick to, a budget can be an invaluable part of someone’s recovery from gambling addiction, ideally with a human element as well.  

Joint accounts: As an affected other, Julie highlighted the problems that resulted from having a joint account with her then-husband. He took her earnings and their savings from the joint account to gamble leaving her in dire financial straits, but Julie was unable to close the account without his permission. While joint accounts nowadays offer both parties easier visibility of the account data, for example via banking apps, in practice there may not be equal access or control if one partner is the victim of coercive control or financial abuse. Other research has highlighted the potential for a safer joint account using Open Banking payment initiation, but while the technology exists to build such a product, it is not yet available.  

Help to rebuild finances in recovery: John wanted to see financial services do more to support people with gambling problems to achieve sustainable recovery, by helping them rebuild their finances and their credit rating. Partly this is about raising awareness among FinTechs and other financial firms that gambling addiction is an impulse control disorder; and that people in recovery may be returning to a life they need help to cope with. 

In practical terms, it is about helping people build their finances so they can rebuild their lives, for example offering lower interest rates to people who have shown they can stick to a loan repayment schedule; allowing people to pay back debt over longer periods without penalising them; providing money management features such as ‘account sweeping’ to help repay debt or to start saving.  

Make gambling harms a normal thing to talk about: making it normal for us to talk about gambling harms and their potentially devastating impacts makes a lot of sense, given that millions of people in the UK are affected – not just the person who gambles but those around them as well. And taking the conversation to FinTechs and other financial services firms has the potential to stimulate even greater innovation for good.  

“Thank you so much for speaking to us in Bristol today. You really brought home how important it is for financial service providers to engage and to think bigger and better about how we can prevent and reduce harm and aid recovery. And for me most importantly, some immediately actionable insights which we can do something to address now in our own lending practices. Every step in the right direction, however, small, is very valuable in making change.” James Berry CEO, Great Western Credit Union. 

“Thank you for organising such a fascinating yet poignant discussion. Matthew Barr, John Dyer and I left energised planning how we at Moneyhub can do more to support those affected by gambling harm and how financial institutions can position themselves as a first line of defence to protect those who are vulnerable.” Jonathan Bell, Sales Director (Decisioning), Moneyhub. 

---

If you have been affected by any of the issues in this blog, you can contact the National Gambling Helpline which provides confidential advice, information and support by telephone and webchat free of charge.  

To find out more about the work of Gambling Harm UK, please contact John Gilham, CEO: john@gamharm.co.uk 

This blog was originally posted on the Personal Finance Research Centre’s (PFRC) blog.

Prof. Agnes Nairn, Co-Director of the Bristol Hub for Gambling Harms Research, and Dr. Raffaello Rossi, Hub Communications Lead, feature in this impact story for the University of Bristol Business School about their research into protecting children from the harmful effects of gambling advertising on social media.  The full story can be read below, or by following this link.

Gambling problems in children
If you’ve never heard of skin gambling, loot boxes or matched betting, try asking the nearest teenager. In fact, these are all ways in which children and young people can be lured into online gambling.

The number of UK children with gambling problems has quadrupled to more than 50,000 in just four years. With the opening of child gambling clinics to tackle rising rates of problem gambling, the NHS and government have recognised this serious and growing issue. Indeed, the manifestos of all main political parties at the last general election pledged to tackle gambling regulation as a priority. There are strict regulations regarding advertising for online gambling, but for a few reasons, these are not always being followed when it comes to social media platforms.

The role of advertising
Focusing on the role advertising plays in these developments, research by Professor Agnes Nairn and Dr Raffaello Rossi investigated the effects of social media gambling ads on children and young people. Their first research project with Ipsos MORI and Demos focused on gambling ads on Twitter.

Using big data analytics of over 880,000 UK gambling ads, along with data of 1,000,000 users, they found that:

• 41,000 UK children follow Twitter gambling accounts
• two-thirds of engagements with these ads were made by under 24-year-olds
• the big UK gambling brands post around 29,000 ads per year

71% of gambling ads failed to fully comply with regulations set by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

Esports, a form of competitive video gaming, that predominantly attracts amateur and professional players in their early 20s or younger, was of particular concern. The research offered novel insights into esports gambling adverts, highlighting the stark difference between these and traditional gambling (such as football betting) and their strong appeal for children.

This research was published in Biddable Youth, a major report by the University of Bristol Business School and the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media at Demos. The report formed part of a much larger research project funded by GambleAware, aiming ‘to assess the extent, nature and impact of gambling advertising on children, young people and vulnerable groups in the UK.’ Some of the results were also published in an academic paper in the top peer-reviewed Journal of Public Policy and Marketing.

The initial study aimed to understand the ecosystem of gambling ads on Twitter, this presented some serious concerns surrounding the potential effect the ads on children. As a result, Nairn and Rossi moved on to a second study, to examine whether children and young people find gambling advertising more appealing than adults.  Conducting an online experiment withover 650 participants aged 11-78, the research found that gambling advertising on Twitter is strongly and significantly more appealing to children and young people than to adults. Esports ads and ads using content marketing (a form of stealth advertising that is harder to recognise) were found to be especially appealing, triggering happiness, excitement and delight in under 25-year-olds.

A lack of awareness
Agnes Nairn, Professor of Marketing at the University of Bristol Business School, says that the lack of awareness about this trend is a real problem: ‘Parents don’t have a clue about esports at all. And if they do, they don’t know about the gambling that goes alongside it. So, they’re not likely to be talking to their kids about it, in the way they might talk about online poker or regular sports gambling.’

 As with many other technology sectors, esports is developing faster than its regulators can move to control it. There are rules that should prevent esports betting advertisers from targeting children and young people such as disallowing the use of images of under-25s in gambling adverts. However, Professor Nairn found they were being flouted time and again: ‘Most of the superstars in esports are under 25. When you show a picture of them in a betting promotion, you are already breaking regulations.’

 A further concern was that, of the 888,000 tweets sent by betting-related accounts that were examined using computer-aided analysis, only 7.3% were found to contain any warning about the minimum age for gambling, responsible gambling, or terms and conditions in the text. For esports accounts, this number fell to just 0.1%, displaying the very worst in advertising practices.

 There is also an issue with the time of day these tweets are posted, Professor Nairn explains: ‘There are huge esports communities in China, South Korea or the USA, meaning that although this may not be a strategy, children are seeing esports bookmakers’ tweets posted in the middle of the night here in the UK.’

 Manual content analysis by the researchers found that 17% of esports tweets encourage betting late at night or in the small hours. Separate research has shown that esports marketing late at night is more likely to effect vulnerable users and make them spend more.

Strong appeal to children
Dr Raffaello Rossi said: “The overwhelming strong appeal of gambling advertising on social media to children is of huge concern, as the earlier people start gambling the more likely it will become habitual and problematic.

 “That’s why there needs to be much stricter and clearer rules in place to clamp down on the issue, which could easily spiral out of control given how long children and young people spend on social media these days. Many of the adverts may look entirely innocent and harmless, but they in fact pose a serious risk of getting a whole new generation of gamblers hooked on a serious addiction which has devastating consequences.”

Recommendations
The research contains several recommendations, aimed at industry and advertisers, technology companies, and regulators. These include:

• Making existing age verification tools available to all advertisers.
• Integrating more explicit references to age restrictions and safe gambling in advertising content.
• Ensuring existing regulations and best practices in regard to licenced betting are followed.
• Considering the potential value of education initiatives for parents and young people.
• Esports gambling advertising, which automatically appeals to children and young people, should be banned.
• Gambling content marketing, which masquerades as something appealing, to be rigorously regulated and informed by what is proven to attract young people.
• Regulators to broaden the age range of a ‘young person’ from 16-17 to 16-24-year-olds.
• Social media platforms to only allow gambling ads on social media when users actively opt-in to receive them.

Professor Nairn is pleased with the response so far. ‘We’ve had really good dialogues with the Advertising Standards Authority,’ she says. As a result, they have changed the regulation that stipulates that gambling adverts should not be “of particular appeal” to children (i.e. more appealing to children than adults) to “of strong appeal”.  This is a breakthrough because under the previous regulation, an advert could be extremely appealing to children (for example something related to premier league football) yet not prohibited just because if was equally appealing to adults.’  Beyond this, Dr Rossi said: ‘It is great to see that the advertising regulator is taking our work seriously – they have now included content marketing in their remit – a big breakthrough.’

Impact
Beyond receiving substantial national and international media coverage, the researchers were invited to give evidence to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS), the National Digital Ethics Expert Group by the Scottish Government, and the House of Lords’ Peers for Gambling Reform.  The research was extensively debated in the House of Lords, repeatedly mentioned in House of Commons, and cited in the DCMS Gambling Act Review White Paper.

The research led to three direct changes in current advertising regulations:  First, a public consultation into the appeal regulations that should protect children from harm via gambling ads was announced by the ASA in response to the research findings. The consultation led to updated and clearer regulations to improve the protection of children.

Second, an advice notice clarifying the regulations for esports betting advertising has been published by the advertising regulators.

Finally, the ASA has addressed a loophole raised by Nairn and Rossi; namely, that content marketing (a form of advertising very appealing to children) was not in their remit. Following the research, the ASA announced a change in position, such that all content marketing is now in remit – not just for gambling, but for other products and services too, creating an important change in how social media ads are regulated.

In addition to Bristol offering advice to UK organisations such as the ASA, international interest in the report has resulted in invitations to speak to European and Asian audiences. ‘There are very different views about gambling in different countries,’ says Professor Nairn. ‘This makes it a very rich area to consider internationally: there’s a lot of mileage in it yet.’