Successfully reported this slideshow.
Dynamic warning messages for
electronic gaming machines:
A live trial
Sally Gainsbury & David Aro
Warning Messages for Electronic Gaming
Machines
• EGMs recognised as important target for
harm minimisation
• Existing sta...
Trial Goals
Trial Goals:
• Design, implement and evaluate dynamic warnings and cost
of play messages on electronic gaming ...
Trial Goals
Targets for Warnings:
• Non-Problem / Recreational Gambler
– Minimal impact
– Maintain ‘healthy gambling norms...
Research Questions
Research Questions:
1. What is an effective suite of messages to communicate relevant
and accurate info...
Trial location
Brisbane Clubs & Hotels
Message Display

•
•
QCOM 1.5 – Top/bottom

QCOM 1.6 – Middle
Venue & Machine Profiles
% of CQCOM machines

80
70

60
50
40
30

% QCOM 1.5
(Top/bottom)

20

% QCOM 1.6 (Middle)

10
0
L...
Messages
Developed based on:
• Literature review
• Expert stakeholder consultation
• EGM capabilities
• Linguistic Inquiry...
Messages
• In your opinion, what would be the most
appropriate message to display on an
electronic gaming machine during p...
Messages
A total of eight messages, categorised into
two themes, were tested in the trial:
Trial methodology
Message presentation
•

4 times per hour for 15 seconds
– Except large club 1, 1 time per hour for 10 se...
Participants
• 72% male
30
25
20

Consistent with regular EGM
players in QLD population

Problem

Moderate risk

15
10

5
...
Message recall
Which messages do you think were most commonly recalled?
• Top/bottom
• Middle
Message recall
Small venues mostly
displayed top/bottom
messages

90
80

% of respondents

70
60

50

Top/Bottom

40

Midd...
Message recall
Which messages do you think were most commonly recalled?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Message
Message
Message
Message
M...
Message Free Recall
70

% of respondents

60

Have you spent
more than you
can afford?

50

Do you need to take a
break? G...
Message Impact
Which messages do you think were most effective?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Message
Message
Message
Message
Message
M...
Message Impact
30

Have you spent
more than you
can afford?

% of respondents

25

Only spend what you
can afford to lose....
Message Impact
60

Read, but didn’t
react to
messages

% of respondents

50
40

Immediately
pushed button
to continue

30
...
Message Impact - Enjoyment of Play
90
80

% of respondents

70
60
50

Informative
Self-appraisal

40
30

20
10

0
Signific...
Message Impact - Position
60

Middle messages more
useful/beneficial

% of respondents

50
40

30

Middle
Top/Bottom

20
1...
Message Impact – Problem Gambling
Severity
70

% of respondents

60

Non-PGs see
most benefit

Non-problem (n = 66)
Low ri...
Mostly
Message Recall by Venue
Mostly
90
80

middle
messages

top/bottom
messages

Messages 4 x
hour, 15
seconds

% of res...
Oct-13

Sep-13

Aug-13

Jul-13

Jun-13

May-13

Apr-13

Mar-13

Feb-13

Jan-13

Dec-12

Nov-12

Oct-12

Sep-12

Aug-12

Ju...
Discussion of Results
• First live trial to specifically investigate dynamic messages
• Messages encourage responsible gam...
Dynamic warning messages for
electronic gaming machines:
A live trial
Conducting a live trial to produce
meaningful result...
Project Oversight
Trial Coordination Group:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Department of Social Services
Queensland Government
Communio
...
Trial Preparation
Project Initiation:
• Stakeholder engagement and collaboration
• Venue engagement and enrolment
• Messag...
Trial Implementation
Intervention Period:
• Six Months
– Trial Go Live - 4th March 2013
– Intervention removal 31st August...
What We Would Do Differently
Change to Regulation
•

“Communication Protocol” to enable research
– Message delivery system...
What Worked Well
Engagement Model:
•
•
•
•

TCG
Venues
Project team
Research Assistants

Project Approach:
•
•
•
•
•

Open...
What Worked Well
Careful Balance Between:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

FaHCSIA requirements
Regulation
EGM technical capability
LMO soft...
Acknowledgments
Research Team:
• Dianne Ball
• Christian Tobar
• Alex Russell

Funding:
• Australian Department of Social ...
Thank you
• Sally Gainsbury
Sally.gainsbury@gmail.com

• David Aro
David.aro@communio.com.au
Prochain SlideShare
Chargement dans…5
×

Sally Gainsbury and David Aro. Dynamic Warning Messages for Electronic Gaming Machines: A Live Trial to Inform Australian Gambling Reforms

1 358 vues

Publié le

Sally Gainsbury and David Aro. Dynamic Warning Messages for Electronic Gaming Machines: A Live Trial to Inform Australian Gambling Reforms
Session 4A
Presented at the New Horizons in Responsible Gambling Conference in Vancouver, January 27-29, 2014

  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Sally Gainsbury and David Aro. Dynamic Warning Messages for Electronic Gaming Machines: A Live Trial to Inform Australian Gambling Reforms

  1. 1. Dynamic warning messages for electronic gaming machines: A live trial Sally Gainsbury & David Aro
  2. 2. Warning Messages for Electronic Gaming Machines • 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
  3. 3. Trial Goals 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. Research Questions 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?
  6. 6. Trial location
  7. 7. Brisbane Clubs & Hotels
  8. 8. Message Display • • QCOM 1.5 – Top/bottom QCOM 1.6 – Middle
  9. 9. Venue & Machine Profiles % of CQCOM machines 80 70 60 50 40 30 % QCOM 1.5 (Top/bottom) 20 % QCOM 1.6 (Middle) 10 0 Large Club 1 Small Small Small Small Club Hotel 1 Hotel 2 Hotel 3 Regional Venue
  10. 10. Messages Developed based on: • Literature review • Expert stakeholder consultation • EGM capabilities • Linguistic Inquiry software • Regulatory requirements • Focus groups with gamblers
  11. 11. Messages • In your opinion, what would be the most appropriate message to display on an electronic gaming machine during play?
  12. 12. Messages A total of eight messages, categorised into two themes, were tested in the trial:
  13. 13. Trial methodology Message presentation • 4 times per hour for 15 seconds – Except large club 1, 1 time per hour for 10 seconds Surveys Data Period 2013 Month 2 of trial April (Data Period 1) Month 4 of trial - June (Data Period 2) Month 6 of trial August (Data Period 3) Month 8 of trial October (Data Period 4) Total Anticipated Survey Numbers Actual Survey Numbers 300 269 100 150 100 129 100 119 600 667
  14. 14. Participants • 72% male 30 25 20 Consistent with regular EGM players in QLD population Problem Moderate risk 15 10 5 Low risk Non-problem 0 0 20 40
  15. 15. Message recall Which messages do you think were most commonly recalled? • Top/bottom • Middle
  16. 16. Message recall Small venues mostly displayed top/bottom messages 90 80 % of respondents 70 60 50 Top/Bottom 40 Middle 30 20 10 0 Large Club 1 Small Club Regional Small Pub 1 Venue Small Pub 2 Small Pub 3
  17. 17. Message recall Which messages do you think were most commonly recalled? • • • • • • • • Message Message Message Message Message Message Message Message A: Have you spent more than you can afford? B: Is money all you are losing? C: Set your limit. Play within it. D: Only spend what you can afford to lose. E: Do you need a break? Gamble responsibly. F: Are you playing longer than planned? G: A winner knows when to stop gambling. H: You are responsible for your gambling.
  18. 18. Message Free Recall 70 % of respondents 60 Have you spent more than you can afford? 50 Do you need to take a break? Gamble responsibly. 40 30 20 10 0 A B C Set your limit. D E Play within it. Message F G H
  19. 19. Message Impact Which messages do you think were most effective? • • • • • • • • Message Message Message Message Message Message Message Message A: Have you spent more than you can afford? B: Is money all you are losing? C: Set your limit. Play within it. D: Only spend what you can afford to lose. E: Do you need a break? Gamble responsibly. F: Are you playing longer than planned? G: A winner knows when to stop gambling. H: You are responsible for your gambling.
  20. 20. Message Impact 30 Have you spent more than you can afford? % of respondents 25 Only spend what you can afford to lose. 20 Even lower recalled messages had impact 15 10 High recall, but low impact 5 0 A B C D E Message F G H
  21. 21. Message Impact 60 Read, but didn’t react to messages % of respondents 50 40 Immediately pushed button to continue 30 Informative Self-appraisal 20 Thought about money and time 10 spent & taking a break, reduced intensity 0 Useful / beneficial Neutral Useless Frustrating / annoying Wanted to keep playing
  22. 22. Message Impact - Enjoyment of Play 90 80 % of respondents 70 60 50 Informative Self-appraisal 40 30 20 10 0 Significantly Slightly reduced reduced Unchanged Slightly better Significantly better
  23. 23. Message Impact - Position 60 Middle messages more useful/beneficial % of respondents 50 40 30 Middle Top/Bottom 20 10 0 Useful / beneficial Neutral Useless Frustrating / annoying
  24. 24. Message Impact – Problem Gambling Severity 70 % of respondents 60 Non-PGs see most benefit Non-problem (n = 66) Low risk (n = 75) 50 PGs see less usefulness 40 30 Moderate Risk (n = 51) Problem (n = 19) PGs were not frustrated 20 10 0 Useful / beneficial Neutral For middle messages Useless Frustrating / annoying
  25. 25. Mostly Message Recall by Venue Mostly 90 80 middle messages top/bottom messages Messages 4 x hour, 15 seconds % of respondents 70 60 50 Top/Bottom 40 Middle 30 Messages 1 x 20 hour, 10 seconds 10 0 Large Club 1 Small Club Regional Small Pub 1 Venue Small Pub 2 Small Pub 3
  26. 26. Oct-13 Sep-13 Aug-13 Jul-13 Jun-13 May-13 Apr-13 Mar-13 Feb-13 Jan-13 Dec-12 Nov-12 Oct-12 Sep-12 Aug-12 Jul-12 Jun-12 May-12 Apr-12 Mar-12 Feb-12 Jan-12 Dec-11 Nov-11 Oct-11 Sep-11 Aug-11 Jul-11 Jun-11 May-11 Apr-11 Mar-11 EGM Turnover No obvious impact of messages on EGM turnover
  27. 27. Discussion of Results • 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
  28. 28. Dynamic warning messages for electronic gaming machines: A live trial Conducting a live trial to produce meaningful results
  29. 29. Project Oversight Trial Coordination Group: • • • • • • • • Department of Social Services Queensland Government Communio Clubs Queensland Queensland Hotels Association ALH Group Maxgaming Odyssey Gaming
  30. 30. Trial Preparation 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
  31. 31. Trial Implementation 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
  32. 32. What We Would Do Differently 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
  33. 33. What Worked Well Engagement Model: • • • • TCG Venues Project team Research Assistants Project Approach: • • • • • Open Collaborative Flexible Well balanced Problem solving – – – – Identification Escalation Solution Mitigation
  34. 34. What Worked Well Careful Balance Between: • • • • • • • FaHCSIA requirements Regulation EGM technical capability LMO software Venue requirements Patron experience Research requirement
  35. 35. Acknowledgments Research Team: • Dianne Ball • Christian Tobar • Alex Russell Funding: • Australian Department of Social Services (Previously Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs)
  36. 36. Thank you • Sally Gainsbury Sally.gainsbury@gmail.com • David Aro David.aro@communio.com.au

×