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%...
Transcript of 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
low PPS medium PPS high PPS
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
low PPS medium PPS high PPS
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
low PPS medium PPS high PPS
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
low PPS medium PPS high PPS
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.
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
Personal Responsibility
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
Personal Responsibility
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
Questions/Discussions