a deeper dive into positive play · 2020-06-23 · 14.6% 15.1% 16.5% 19.5% 20.2% 20.1% 20.1% 22.3%...

A Deeper Dive into Positive PlayNEW HORIZONS IN RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING, 2019

Our presenters

Dr. Richard Wood

President at GamRes Limited

Bev Mehmel

Dir. of CR at Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries

Ryan Persaud

Director of Business Intelligence at BCLC

Dr Richard Wood, gamres Limited

Drs Michael J. A. Wohl and Nassim , Tabri,

Department of Psychology, Carleton

University

Measuring responsible

gambling in CanadaBenchmarking with the

Positive Play Scale

Three key questions about RG strategy

“HOW DO WE KNOW IF A RESPONSIBLE

GAMBLING STRATEGY IS WORKING?”

“WHICH PARTS OF A RESPONSIBLE

GAMBLING STRATEGY WORK THE BEST?”

“WHAT WORKS BEST FOR DIFFERENT

PLAYERS?”

Measure and optimize

success of your RG

strategy (what works,

what doesn’t work?)

Segment RG strategy (e.g., by

age, games played…) by what

works best with different

players?

Benchmark RG success or

failure (i.e., is the level of

player RG improving over

time?)

5

the Positive Play

Scale (PPS)

(Wood, Wohl, Tabri, Philander,

2017)

Better understand your

whole player base

The Properties of the PPS

There are two belief subscales:

the extent to which a player

believes they should take

ownership of their gambling

behavior

the extent to which a player has

an accurate understanding

about the nature of gambling

6

Personal

Responsibility Gambling literacy

7

Beliefs:

I believe that….......

Personal Responsibility

I should be able to

walk away from

gambling at any

time

Gambling Literacy

I should be aware of

how much MONEY I

spend when I gamble

It’s my responsibility

to spend only money

that I can afford to

lose

I should only

gamble when I

have enough

money to cover all

my bills first

Gambling is not a

good way to make

money

My chances of

winning get better

after I have lost

(reverse coded)

If I gamble more

often, it will help me

to win more than I

lose (reverse

coded)

The Properties of the PPS

There are two behavior

subscales:

Honesty &

control

how honest a players is with others

about their gambling behavior and

feels in control of their behavior

the extent to which a player

considers how much money

and time they should spend

gambling

8

Pre-commitment

9

Behaviors:

In the last

month……..

Honesty and Control

I only gambled with

MONEY that I could

afford to lose

Pre-commitment

I only spent TIME

gambling that I

could afford to

lose

I considered the

amount of MONEY I

was willing to lose

BEFORE I gambled

I considered the

amount of TIME I

was willing to

spend BEFORE I

gambled

I felt in control of

my gambling

behavior

I was honest with

my family and/or

friends about the

amount of MONEY

I spent gambling

I was honest with my

family and/or friends

about the amount of

TIME I spent gambling

The PPS is not a measure of

disordered gambling

A low PPS score is not an

indicator of disordered

gambling. However, low positive

beliefs and behaviors may

contribute to disordered play

(over time).

10

PPS beliefs and behaviors are

typically moderately correlated

with disordered gambling

severity (as measured with the

PGSI).

24%PPS

BeliefsPGSI 22%

PPS

BehavioursPGSI

Clearly a positive playerA positive player

with room for

improvement

MEDIUM PPS:

Not an overall positive

player, but may have

some positive play

tendencies and/or

beliefs

LOW PPS:

These scores constitute benchmark data that

can be compared again at a later date, to help

identify changes in players’ RG related beliefs

and behaviors.

Players can be placed

into positive play

categories

HIGH PPS:

11

12

Measuring responsible

gambling in Canada

Measuring responsible gambling in Canada

Study commissioned by the Canadian Responsible Gambling

Association (CRGA).

In 2017, a representative sample of 7,980 players were

contacted.

Online survey including PPS, other scales and items about

demographics and game play.

80% played in last month, all played in last year.

13

14

PPS scores: all players

3.2%

14.7% 11.3%7.2%

8.6%

20.3%

6.8% 13.1%

88.2%

65.1%

81.9% 79.6%

Personalresponsibility

Gambling literacy Honesty & Control Pre-commitment

Low Medium High

15

PPS scores: by age

5.1% 4.3% 3.1% 3.0% 2.3% 2.4%

26.9%

20.7%15.5%

11.8% 10.2% 12.0% 12.7%9.1% 7.4% 6.4% 6.9%

4.2%

12.7%9.5% 7.4% 6.3% 6.1% 5.1%

18.7%

12.6%10.1%

8.0%5.2% 3.7%

36.7%

29.7%

24.7%

14.9%14.2%

13.1%

20.9%

14.1%12.3%

10.2% 8.1%

6.7%

24.1%

19.9%

15.4%12.6%

8.8%

4.5%

76.3%

83.1%86.8% 89.0%

92.5% 93.9%

36.4%

49.6%

59.8%

73.2%75.5% 74.9%

66.5%

76.8%80.3%

83.4% 85.0%89.2%

63.3%

70.6%

77.2%81.1%

85.0%90.4%

18-2

4

25-3

4

35-4

4

45

-54

55-6

4

65+

18-2

4

25-3

4

35-4

4

45-5

4

55-6

4

65+

18-2

4

25-3

4

35-4

4

45-5

4

55-6

4

65+

18-2

4

25-3

4

35-4

4

45-5

4

55-6

4

65

+

Personal responsibility Gambling literacy Honest & control Pre-commitment

low PPS medium PPS high PPS

16

Personal responsibility scores: Land-based games

3.2% 3.4% 3.6% 3.9% 3.9% 4.1% 4.1% 4.9% 4.5%

8.7% 9.3% 11.5% 12.9% 13.5% 14.6% 15.4% 16.0% 17.5%

88.1% 87.4% 84.9% 83.2% 82.7% 81.3% 80.5% 79.1% 78.0%

Lotterydraw

games

Scratch-tickets

Slotmachines

Quiz/puzzlegames

Bingo Casinostyle card

games

Videolottery

Sportsbetting

Casinostyle table

games


17

Gambling literacy scores: Land-based games

14.6% 15.1% 16.5% 19.5% 20.2% 20.1% 20.1% 22.3% 23.6%

20.2% 21.6%23.0%

23.8% 23.5% 25.4% 26.8%27.0%

28.6%

65.2% 63.3% 60.5%56.7% 56.4% 54.5% 53.1% 50.6% 47.8%

Lo

tte

ry d

raw

gam

es

Scra

tch

-tic

ke

ts

Slo

t m

achin

es

Qu

iz/p

uzzle

gam

es

Bin

go

Vid

eo

lotte

ry

Ca

sin

o s

tyle

ca

rd g

am

es

Spo

rts b

ettin

g

Ca

sin

o s

tyle

tab

le g

am

es


18

Honesty and control scores: Land-based games

7.1% 7.7% 8.8% 9.2% 9.7% 10.0% 11.3% 10.9% 11.3%

11.2% 11.7%14.5% 15.9% 17.7% 19.0% 18.6% 20.1% 19.7%

81.7% 80.6%76.7% 74.9% 72.6% 71.0% 70.1% 69.1% 69.0%

Lotte

ry d

raw

gam

es

Scra

tch

-tic

ke

ts

Slo

t m

achin

es

Qu

iz/p

uzzle

gam

es

Bin

go

Ca

sin

o s

tyle

ca

rd g

am

es

Vid

eo

lotte

ry

Spo

rts b

ettin

g

Ca

sin

o s

tyle

tab

le g

am

es


7.2% 7.8% 8.6% 10.0% 10.2% 11.1% 11.6% 11.8% 12.4%

13.3% 14.3%17.0%

19.1% 19.6%21.3% 21.6% 21.6% 22.7%

79.5% 77.9%74.4%

70.9% 70.2% 67.6% 66.8% 66.6% 64.9%

Lotte

ry d

raw

gam

es

Scra

tch

-tic

ke

ts

Slo

t m

achin

es

Bin

go

Qu

iz/p

uzzle

gam

es

Ca

sin

o s

tyle

card

gam

es

Spo

rts b

ettin

g

Vid

eo

lotte

ry

Casin

o s

tyle

tab

le g

am

es


Pre-commitment scores: Land-based games

Conclusions

01

20

Most Canadian players scored

high on the PPS,

demonstrating that they

engage in responsible

gambling behaviours and have

a good understanding about

how to play responsibly.

03 Younger players scored lower

than older players on every PPS

sub-scale. A potentially useful

strategy could be to focus more

RG attention on younger players.

02Players scored lowest in terms

of their gambling literacy,

pointing to an area of interest

for future RG strategic planning.

04

Targeting specific player

segments likely to be more

effective than a one-size-fits-all

approach. Using the PPS over

time can help optimise RG

strategy and more effectively

utilise resources.

[email protected]

www.gamres.org

Publication available on request:

Wood, R. T.A., Wohl, M. J., Tabri, N., & Philander, K. (2017).

Measuring responsible gambling amongst players: Development of

the Positive Play Scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 227.

Positive Play Research Outcomes(MBLL 2018)

Relationships With Gambling Literacy Subscale

RELATIONSHIP SIGNIFICANCE DESCRIPTION

Marital Status StatisticallySignificant

Widowed or divorced = lower gambling literacy.

Gender StatisticallySignificant

Males tend to have a lower gambling literacy.

Household Income

Notable (not significant)

Lower household income = lower gambling literacy.

Education Notable (not significant)

Lower education = lower gambling literacy.

Customer Satisfaction

Statistically Significant

Lower customer satisfaction = lower gambling literacy.

Positive Play outcomes guide campaigns

• Manitoba PPS research outcomes are helping us build more effective campaigns.

• The segments with lower Gambling Literacy become our targets:

o Widowed / Divorced / Single

o Male (55+)

o Lower household income

o Lower education

Shifting Positive Play Behavior

• Gambling Literacy: Opportunity to influence customers:

oA clear repeatable message … and understandable

oA short term advertising calendar capable of delivering multiple campaigns.

oAn advertising platform that is capable of attracting the attention of gamblers.

• MBLL’s ‘Randomness’ campaign almost complete

• Research will follow to assess gains with target groups

Demonstrating ROI for RG

• Correlation between low gambling literacy and low casino

customer satisfaction (MBLL 2018)

• Improving gambling literacy has double the benefit

(sustainable customers and satisfied customers)

• One way to demonstrate the ROI for RG on the business.

Wins Are Always RandomMessaging Examples Elevator Wrap Example

BCLC & Positive Play ScaleRyan Persaud, Director of Enterprise Business Intelligence

BCLC’s Journey with PPS

1. Development

2. Ongoing Learning

3. Making It Real

• Received proposal Nov 2015• Supported development by

providing BCLC player sample

• Phase I: Item selection (40 potential items to be included in PPS)

• Phase II: Scale construction and validation

• Phase III: Final Index and Reporting

• Focusing on defining measures for BCLC

• Internal socialization and education

• Setting targets

• Collecting results since Nov 2016 on PH Tracker

• Methodology comparisons: online vs. telephone

• Compared to Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI)

• Cross-tabulated by BCLC’s Player Health Segmentation

High PPS x PGSI

89%

80%

51%

20%

70%

41%

28%

8%

Non-problem Low-risk Moderate-risk High-risk

Hig

h P

PS

%

PGSI Categories


Gambling Literacy

Honest & control

Pre-commitment

2. Ongoing Learning

5 Player Health Segments

25% 21% 19% 25% 10%

Highly Driven Deniers

Positive Play Modelers

Highly Involved, Positive Play

Acknowledgers

Lotto & RG Receptive

Low Exposure, Low Involvement

2. Ongoing Learning

92%89%

85%

77%

21%

73%

81%

60%

39%

9%

88%

81%77%

65%

21%

72%

67%

57%

51%

17%

Positive Play Modelers Low Exposure, Low Involvement Lotto & RG Receptive Highly Involved, Positive PlayAcknolwedgers

Highly Driven Deniers

Hig

h P

PS

%

Player Segments


Gambling Literacy

Honest & Control

Pre-commitment

High PPS x Player Segments

2. Ongoing Learning

Player HealthOther Business Units

Corporate Strategy:Responsible Growth

Player Health Directors Club

3. Making It Real

24% 24%19%

23%29%

26% 27%

26%

29%

26%

50% 49%55%

48% 44%

FY18(n=1,042)

FY19YTD

(n=1,192)

Lottery (Net) [A](n=1,178)

Casino (Net) [B](n=741)

PlayNow (Net) [C](n=274)

High

Medium

Low

Gambling Literacy: By Business Unit

BY BUSINESS UNIT YTD

BC

A

ABA

FY20 Targets Set: 52%

3. Making It Real

Significantly higher than subgroup indicated by letter.(at 95% confidence level).

ABC

17% 20% 20% 20% 21%

29%28%

24%29%

31%

55% 51%55%

51% 48%

FY18(n=1,042)

FY19YTD

(n=1,192)

Lottery (Net) [A](n=1,178)

Casino (Net) [B](n=741)

PlayNow (Net) [C](n=274)

High

Medium

Low

Pre-commitment: By Business Unit

BY BUSINESS UNIT YTD

BC

A

FY20 Targets Set: 56%

A

3. Making It Real

Significantly higher than subgroup indicated by letter.(at 95% confidence level).

ABC

Planned InitiativesGambling Literacy

• Develop ongoing content for GameSense program that included targeted messaging for special populations

• Effectively communicate returns on slot machines

Pre-Commitment

• Rollout PlayPlanner across the province

• Develop and execute player-focused educational activities, including player self-assessments

• Assess PlayNow play management tools

3. Making It Real

Thank youRyan Persaud, Director of Business Intelligence, BCLC

E: [email protected]

M: 604-313-4383

Questions/Discussions

a deeper dive into positive play · 2020-06-23 · 14.6% 15.1% 16.5% 19.5% 20.2% 20.1% 20.1% 22.3%...

Documents