RESEARCH REPORT Gambling advertising and promotions before ...

RESEARCH REPORT

October 2020

responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au

Gambling advertising and promotions before, during and after the initial COVID-19 lockdown and sports shutdown in Australia

Our vision: A Victoria free from gambling-related harm

© Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, October 2020

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs, branding or logos.

This report has been peer reviewed by two independent researchers. For further information on the foundation’s review process of research reports, please see responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au.

For information on the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Research Program visit responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au.

DisclaimerThe opinions, findings and proposals contained in this report represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the attitudes or opinions of the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation or the State of Victoria. No warranty is given as to the accuracy of the information. The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation specifically excludes any liability for any error or inaccuracy in, or omissions from, this document and any loss or damage that you or any other person may suffer.

Conflict of interest declarationThe authors declare no conflict of interest in relation to this report or project.

To cite this reportRussell, Dr A, Hing, Prof. N, 2020, Gambling advertising and promotions before, during and after the initial COVID-19 lockdown and sports shutdown in Australia, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Melbourne.

EnquiriesRosa Billi +61 3 9452 2625 [email protected]

Victorian Responsible Gambling FoundationLevel 6, 14–20 Blackwood StreetNorth MelbourneVictoria 3051

PO Box 2156Royal Melbourne HospitalVictoria 3050

Telephone: +61 3 9452 2600Facsimile: +61 3 9452 2660ABN: 72 253 301 291

vicrgf

responsiblegambling

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation

ResponsibleGambling


Dr Alex M. T. Russell and Professor Nerilee Hing

Experimental Gambling Research Laboratory CQUniversity Australia

October 2020

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Page ii


Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (Foundation) for commissioning this research. We would like to thank Nancy Greer for her assistance with the survey and data cleaning, and Professor Matthew Browne for assisting by writing an R function to help categorise the tweets. Special thanks to the participants for taking part. Thanks also to Qualtrics, particularly Mallory Colys and Veronica Smith, for recruiting most of the participants to the study, and to the Vicinitas Team for assistance with collecting Twitter data.

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Foundation.

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Page iii


Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ II

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................V

LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................VI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................1Background and research questions ........................................................................................................................ 1

Method ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Results ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Discussion and conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Limitations ................................................................................................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................6Effects on betting opportunities and advertising....................................................................................................... 6

The influence of wagering advertising on betting behaviour .................................................................................... 7

Research questions .................................................................................................................................................. 9

CHAPTER 2. OVERALL METHODOLOGY ........................................................... 10Twitter...................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Gambling operators’ websites ................................................................................................................................ 12

Survey of gamblers ................................................................................................................................................. 12

CHAPTER 3. RESULTS – TWITTER DATA ........................................................... 15Volume of tweets..................................................................................................................................................... 15

Content of tweets .................................................................................................................................................... 17

Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 30

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS – GAMBLING WEBSITES .............................................. 31Promotions offered on each website during the end of lockdown, and immediately following lockdown ............... 31

Examples of promotions ......................................................................................................................................... 34

Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 42

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS – SURVEY .......................................................................43Recalled frequency of exposure to advertisements and promotions by channel –

before and during lockdown .............................................................................................................................. 43

Recalled frequency of exposure to advertisements and promotions by gambling form – before and during lockdown .............................................................................................................................. 44

Recalled frequency of exposure to advertisements and promotions by promotion type – before and during lockdown .............................................................................................................................. 45

Recalled impact of advertisements and promotions on gambling behaviour – before and during lockdown .............................................................................................................................. 46

How does reported exposure to ads and promotions for each form vary by frequency of gambling on each form, before and during lockdown? ..................................................................................... 46

How does reported exposure to ads and promotions before and during lockdown vary by online betting behaviour? ............................................................................................................................. 47

Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 50

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Page iv


CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 51Summary of results by research question .............................................................................................................. 51

Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 52

Limitations ............................................................................................................................................................... 54

REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................55

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................58Appendix A: Inferential results for comparisons before and after lockdown for exposure to advertising............... 58

Appendix B: Descriptive statistics of survey sample .............................................................................................. 60

Appendix C: Frequency of seeing advertisements for different gambling forms .................................................... 62

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Page v


List of tables

Table 1: Which research methods answer each research question ......................................................................... 2

Table 2: Which research methods answer each research question ....................................................................... 14

Table 3: Relationship between frequency of gambling on each form, and frequency of exposure to ads for each form, before and during lockdown (Spearman correlations) .................................... 46

Table 4: Exposure to ads and promotions by gambler type – before lockdown (Spearman correlations) ............. 48

Table 5: Exposure to ads and promotions by gambler type – during lockdown (Spearman correlations) ............. 49

Table 6: McNemar-Bowker test values for comparisons between exposure to gambling advertising and promotions by channel, before and during lockdown ................................................................................. 58

Table 7: McNemar-Bowker test values for comparisons between exposure to gambling advertising and promotions by gambling form, before and during lockdown ...................................................................... 59

Table 8: McNemar-Bowker test values for comparisons between exposure to gambling advertising and promotions by promotion type, before and during lockdown ..................................................................... 59

Table 9: McNemar-Bowker test values for comparisons between impact of gambling ads on gambling behaviour, before and during lockdown ............................................................................................. 59

Table 10: Percentage of respondents who had gambled online in the 12 months before lockdown (N = 2,120) ......................................................................................................................................................... 60

Table 11: Number of accounts with wagering operators in the 12 months before lockdown (N = 2,120) ......................................................................................................................................................... 60

Table 12: Gambling frequency in the 12 months before lockdown by gambling form (N = 2,120) .......................... 61

Table 13: Frequency of exposure to gambling advertisements and promotions by gambling form - percentages ............................................................................................................................................ 62

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Page vi


List of figures

Figure 1: Example Twitter extraction from BetEasy’s Twitter account .................................................................... 11

Figure 2: Number of tweets per week by four gambling operators before, during and after COVID-19 lockdown .......................................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 3: Content of tweets per week before, during and after COVID-19 lockdown – Sportsbet ......................... 17

Figure 4: Content of tweets per week before, during and after COVID-19 lockdown – Ladbrokes ........................ 18

Figure 5: Content of tweets per week before, during and after COVID-19 lockdown – TAB .................................. 19

Figure 6: Content of tweets per week before, during and after COVID-19 lockdown – BetEasy ........................... 20

Figure 7: Example chess and table tennis bet tweet during lockdown – Sportsbet ............................................... 21

Figure 8: Example esports and table tennis bet tweet during lockdown – Ladbrokes ........................................... 21

Figure 9: Example table tennis and esports bet tweet during lockdown – BetEasy ............................................... 22

Figure 10: TAB indicating they would not offer esports markets, and then offering an esports market two months later ............................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 11: Example novelty bet tweets during lockdown – Sportsbet .................................................................... 23

Figure 12: Example novelty bet tweets during lockdown - Ladbrokes .................................................................... 23

Figure 13: Example novelty bet tweet during lockdown - TAB................................................................................ 24

Figure 14: Example novelty bet tweet during lockdown - BetEasy ......................................................................... 24

Figure 15: Example responsible gambling tweet during lockdown – Sportsbet ..................................................... 25

Figure 16: Example responsible gambling tweet during lockdown – TAB .............................................................. 25

Figure 17: Example responsible gambling tweet during lockdown – BetEasy........................................................ 25

Figure 18: Example sports betting tweet during lockdown – Sportsbet ................................................................. 26

Figure 19: Example sports betting tweet during lockdown – Ladbrokes ................................................................ 27

Figure 20: Example sports betting tweet during lockdown – TAB .......................................................................... 27

Figure 21: Example sports betting tweet during lockdown – BetEasy .................................................................... 28

Figure 22: Example race betting tweet during lockdown – Sportsbet .................................................................... 28

Figure 23: Example race betting tweet during lockdown – Ladbrokes ................................................................... 29

Figure 24: Example race betting tweet during lockdown – TAB ............................................................................. 29

Figure 25: Example race betting tweet during lockdown – BetEasy ...................................................................... 30

Figure 26: Promotions offered on the Sportsbet website during and immediately after COVID-19 lockdown. ...... 32

Figure 27: Promotions offered on the Ladbrokes website during and immediately after COVID-19 lockdown. ..... 32

Figure 28: Promotions offered on the TAB website during and immediately after COVID-19 lockdown. ............... 33

Figure 29: Promotions offered on the BetEasy website during and immediately after COVID-19 lockdown. ........ 33

Figure 30: Example sports promotion during lockdown - Sportsbet ...................................................................... 34

Figure 31: Example sports promotion during lockdown - Ladbrokes ...................................................................... 34

Figure 32: Example sports promotion during lockdown - TAB ............................................................................... 34

Figure 33: Example sports promotion during lockdown - BetEasy ......................................................................... 35

Figure 34: Example sports promotion after lockdown – Sportsbet ........................................................................ 35

Figure 35: Example sports promotion after lockdown - Ladbrokes ........................................................................ 35

Figure 36: Example sports promotion after lockdown - TAB .................................................................................. 36

Figure 37: Example sports promotion after lockdown - BetEasy ............................................................................ 36

Figure 38: Example race promotion – Sportsbet .................................................................................................... 37

Figure 39: Example race promotion – Ladbrokes ................................................................................................... 37

Figure 40: Example race promotion – TAB ............................................................................................................. 38

Figure 41: Example race promotion – BetEasy ...................................................................................................... 38

Figure 42: Example esports and table tennis promotion – Sportsbet .................................................................... 39

Figure 43: Example esports promotion – Ladbrokes .............................................................................................. 39

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Page vii


Figure 45: Example other promotion – Sportsbet ................................................................................................... 41

Figure 46: Example other promotions – TAB .......................................................................................................... 41

Figure 47: Example other promotion – BetEasy ..................................................................................................... 41

Figure 48: Recalled frequency of exposure to advertisements and promotions by channel, before and during lockdown .............................................................................................................................. 43

Figure 49: Recalled frequency of exposure to advertisements and promotions by gambling form, before and during lockdown .............................................................................................................................. 44

Figure 50: Recalled frequency of exposure to advertisements and promotions by promotion type, before and during lockdown .............................................................................................................................. 45

Figure 51: Recalled impact of advertisements and promotions on gambling behaviour, before and during lockdown .............................................................................................................................. 46

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Page 1


Executive summary

This research was directly commissioned by the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (Foundation) as an intelligence gathering project to explore wagering advertising and promotions in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background and research questionsThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the gambling industry through temporary suspension of almost all sports codes around the world, and through the closure of hotels, clubs, casinos and betting shops. The exact dates of these disruptions varied by jurisdiction and sporting event, but generally occurred from 23 March 2020 to at least late May 2020.

This disruption aligned with the start of the National Rugby League (NRL) and Australian Football League (AFL) seasons in Australia, which are major betting competitions for wagering operators. With the lack of sports, and in response to consumers not being able to bet in venues, operators may have changed their advertising, either through focusing on horse, greyhound or harness racing events (hereafter referred to as racing events, most of which continued to run), through a focus on the sporting events that were still occurring (e.g., Russian table tennis), or by focusing on other events that they would not otherwise promote (e.g., esports, weather markets).

Further, with the resumption of sporting activities in May–June 2020, a resumption of advertising activity was expected, but land-based venues remained closed in Victoria. Therefore, wagering operators may have taken the opportunity to increase their marketing compared to usual levels during this period. We note that a second round of restrictions occurred in Victoria, starting 22 June 2020. However, sporting contests had resumed, along with associated gambling activities, and thus this report only covers the initial lockdown period, defined as 23 March until 23 May 2020.

Exposure to wagering advertising and promotions has been associated with betting on impulse, higher expenditure than intended, and placing riskier bets (Hing et al., 2018a). An increase in online betting has already been observed during the initial COVID-19 lockdown period, so understanding marketing and promotions during, and after, this period is crucial, as operators may increase marketing as lockdown eases and sports resume.

The present study aimed to address four research questions:

1. What products did wagering operators advertise and promote during the COVID-19 lockdown period?

2. What products did wagering operators advertise and promote as sports (particularly AFL and NRL) resumed, and as venues re-opened?

3. How did these advertisements compare to pre-COVID advertising?

4. Did consumers notice any changes to marketing during the COVID-19 lockdown period, compared to before the COVID-19 lockdown period?



MethodWe collected data from three sources: 1) tweets from the Twitter accounts of four wagering operators (Sportsbet, Ladbrokes, TAB1 and BetEasy) from 24 February 2019 to 17 July 2020; 2) the promotions pages from the websites of the same four wagering operators from 14 May 2020 to 9 July 2020; and 3) an online survey of 2,120 respondents2, which captured reported exposure to gambling advertising before and during the initial COVID lockdown, conducted towards the end of, and immediately after, the lockdown period (30 May to 25 June 2020). These three sources of data were used to answer each of the research questions, as outlined in Table 1.

Overview of methods and research questions

Table 1: Which research methods answer each research question

Research question Twitter Operator websites

Survey

What products did wagering operators advertise and promote during the COVID-19 lockdown period?

✔ ✔ ✔

What products did wagering operators advertise and promote as sports (particularly AFL and NRL) resumed, and as venues re-opened?

✔ ✔

How did these advertisements compare to pre-COVID advertising? ✔ ✔

Did consumers noticed any changes to marketing during the COVID-19 lockdown period, compared to before the COVID-19 lockdown period?

✔

Other methods, such as examining television marketing data, were considered, but were too expensive and were not available within the time constraints of the current project.

ResultsThe three data sources (Twitter, website, survey) indicated changes in wagering marketing during and after the initial COVID-19 lockdown, compared to prior to lockdown (and the equivalent period in the previous year). These changes are summarised below in relation to each research question.

1 Note: NSW TAB, as this is where the researcher who collected the data lives.

2 50.8% male, 49.0% female, 0.2% reporting a gender other than male or female; aged 18 to 92, mean age 50.7, SD = 16.5; 78.9% Victorian; had gambled in the 12 months prior to 23rd March 2020; 1,512 recruited via Qualtrics, 608 from previous research participants



Research question 1: What products did wagering operators advertise and promote during the COVID-19 lockdown period?Due to the lack of live sporting events, particularly major competitions, the four operators examined focused on promoting race betting and introduced marketing around sporting events that they did not usually promote (Russian table tennis, esports), as well as novelty betting (e.g., weather markets), although sports betting advertising was still present. Race betting marketing was increased, particularly on Twitter, and race betting promotions made up a large proportion of the promotions offered by the four operators.

Interestingly, TAB started tweeting responsible gambling tweets twice a day during the initial lockdown, despite not doing so in the year before lockdown. Responsible gambling messages were more frequently tweeted by Sportsbet and BetEasy, both before and during lockdown. Ladbrokes rarely tweeted responsible gambling messages.

Research question 2: What products did wagering operators advertise and promote as sports (particularly AFL and NRL) resumed, and as venues re-opened?Tweeting about sports betting returned to pre-lockdown levels in the lead-up to the resumption of major competitions, as did sports betting promotions. The three operators who offered esports and/or table tennis promotions during lockdown continued to do so after lockdown, although Ladbrokes stopped offering these promotions two weeks after lockdown ceased.

Sports betting promotions were substantially reduced during the initial lockdown, but increased towards the end of lockdown. The number of promotions fluctuated during the week, reflecting the timing of most events, with more promotions available at the start of the weekend than at the end of the weekend, both for race betting and sports betting.

There was no indication of any venue-related promotions, apart from TAB suggesting that people use venue-mode in their TAB app to unlock additional features. TAB also stopped tweeting responsible gambling messages once the lockdown period ended.

Research question 3: How did these advertisements compare to pre-COVID advertising?Levels of Twitter activity varied by operator. Sportsbet and Ladbrokes tweeted less, and all operators except BetEasy had a reduced number of betting promotions available during lockdown compared to before the initial lockdown. However, BetEasy and TAB tweeted more during lockdown compared to both immediately before lockdown, and to the equivalent period in 2019. Promotion activity was not captured before lockdown, and therefore no comparison can be made. However, the increase in sports betting promotions after lockdown is likely indicative of promotions that would have been offered if sports competitions were running.



Research question 4: Did consumers notice any changes to marketing during the COVID-19 lockdown period, compared to before the COVID-19 lockdown period?Survey respondents generally recalled less frequent exposure to wagering advertisement and promotions during the initial lockdown, compared to before the lockdown. This was the case for all media channels (e.g., television, radio), all forms of gambling (e.g., sports betting, race betting, lotteries), and all types of promotions (e.g., bonus bets, money-back guarantees). Respondents were most likely to state that their gambling expenditure had neither increased nor decreased due to wagering advertisements, although respondents were significantly more likely to report that their expenditure had decreased due to advertisements during the lockdown, compared to beforehand. Those who were most exposed to gambling advertising were those who gambled most frequently, those who bet online, and those who had accounts with more online operators.

Discussion and conclusionsWagering marketing is prolific and remained so during and after the initial lockdown, as indicated by the tweets and betting promotions of the four operators. Marketing helps operators to gain market share and increase betting activity amongst existing customers. It may be particularly important to operators when consumers have less disposable income and require more encouragement to spend, which occurred as the effects of the pandemic were felt.

During the initial lockdown, and facing severely reduced sports betting revenue, it was expected that operators would focus their marketing on products that remained available, such as race betting; and extend their marketing for betting on sporting events they had not previously promoted and which were still available, such as esports, table tennis and minor overseas sports events. The four operators’ Twitter activity and betting promotions indicated that these expected changes occurred.

Once sporting events resumed, it was expected that operators would increase their advertisements and promotions for sports betting to try to make up for lost revenues and to capitalise on pent-up demand. This pattern was evident in the Twitter and website data of the four operators, who generally added sports betting promotions to their existing promotions, resulting in an overall increase in the volume of promotions after the initial lockdown. These changes reflect the agility of operators to adapt their marketing to changing conditions, facilitated by the speed with which changes to digital marketing can be made.

Also enabling the wagering operators to adapt their marketing to changing circumstances during the initial lockdown was the availability of newer forms of betting that do not rely on terrestrial events, notably on esports. The increased advertising and promotions for esports betting found during the lockdown reflects the opportunity that esports provided for wagering operators to attract new customers and convert revenue from traditional sports betting during the lockdown. It will be important to track whether the increased marketing and uptake of esports betting that occurred during the lockdown continue in Australia.

More intense bettors reported more frequent exposure to wagering marketing both before and during the initial lockdown, although causal directions could not be established. Nonetheless, previous research has found that exposure to wagering advertisements and promotions increases betting activity, including amongst vulnerable bettors (Hing et al., 2018a). Thus, the continued proliferation of wagering marketing, and evidence of an increase in wagering promotions following the resumption of sporting events after lockdown, indicate that the harm resulting from wagering marketing will continue and may even increase. Further, responsible gambling messages constitute only a very small proportion of tweets by wagering operators.



Evidence indicates that online gambling increased during the initial lockdown (AlphaBeta, 2020). Wagering marketing will likely continue to increase following the lifting of lockdown restrictions in an attempt to retain customers, maintain market share and increase wagering revenues. The continued monitoring of wagering marketing going forward is important, including through television, print and direct messaging advertising, which were out of scope for this study.

LimitationsWhile the study’s results were strengthened through the triangulation of different data collection methods, each method had limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. The Twitter and website data focused only on four large domestic operators. This was for practical reasons: promotions can only be viewed by account-holders, and the researchers had accounts with these operators. TAB products vary by state, and could only be assessed from NSW, as this was where the researcher who collected the data lives. It is possible that people in different jurisdictions are exposed to different content on websites, especially with TAB, but this is less likely for exposure via Twitter, which is more universal. For consistency, the Twitter search was also limited to these operators. Due to the timing of the project, the website audit could not capture betting promotions offered before and during the first part of the initial lockdown. Survey data were based on self-report, and were subject to recall and other biases. The advertising and promotions questions were limited because the survey was part of a larger study and survey space was limited. However, the questions about advertisements and promotions captured recollection before and during COVID lockdown, for multiple channels, gambling forms and promotion types. More broadly, this period refers to the initial lockdown period that coincided with the shutdown of major sporting competitions. In Victoria, a second round of restrictions started on 22 June 2020, due to a second wave of COVID infections. However, because sporting contests resumed, along with associated gambling activities, this second round of restrictions was not considered in this report. It was not possible to look at other forms of advertising, like television advertisements, given the scope and budget of this project. Finally, esports and table tennis were combined in analyses, despite being different sports that likely appeal to different people. This was done because they were sports that continued despite almost all other sports being suspended, and because advertising for them became more prominent.

Despite these limitations, the current study has provided useful insights into changes in wagering marketing which occurred with the COVID-19 restrictions on gambling, and provides a useful baseline for follow-up research to monitor longer-term effects.



Chapter 1. Background

During 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted most industries in Australia. For the gambling industry, the major forms of disruption involved enforced temporary closure of hotels, clubs, casinos and betting shops (affecting all forms of venue-based wagering) (Main, 2020), and the temporary suspension of almost all sports competitions around the world, with the exception of racing, minor sporting competitions and esports (The Guardian, 2020). In Australia, this initial lockdown generally occurred from around the 23 March to late May 2020, although exact dates varied by jurisdiction and for different sporting events. For the purposes of this report, the initial lockdown period was defined as 23 March to 23 May 2020.

Victoria Australia has had the longest total lockdown period due a ‘second wave’ of coronavirus cases, and gambling venues remained closed at the time of writing (31 August 2020). Off-course betting facilities (TAB outlets) in Victoria were also closed from 23 March 2020, re-opened on 22 June, but faced further closure from the start of August. However, other Australian jurisdictions re-opened gambling venues during June–July 2020. The suspension of major sporting events occurred mainly from mid-March to mid-May 2020, although exact dates varied for each sporting competition. The Australian Football League (AFL) competition, the most popular betting sport in Victoria, did not resume until early June 2020. Racing events have continued throughout the pandemic, although with restrictions on spectators and on-course betting facilities.

Effects on betting opportunities and advertisingWith venue closures, consumers were not able to play electronic gaming machines (EGMs) or engage in other land-based-based forms of gambling (e.g., keno, bingo, placing bets at TAB outlets). Wagering operators may have taken this opportunity to advertise their products in different ways to attract new customers who might otherwise have preferred venue-based gambling. These include people who usually engage in non-wagering forms of gambling, such as EGMs, as well as people who usually place bets on sports or races in retail outlets.

In Australia, racing events have largely continued unaffected, apart from a short suspension in Tasmania (Reynolds, 2020). However, the initial COVID-19 lockdown coincided with the start of the AFL and National Rugby League (NRL) seasons; two of the most popular sports for sports bettors in Australia, and thus a major disruption for wagering operators. Virtually all other sports competitions were also temporarily suspended or postponed around the world (Reuters, 2020). An examination of their websites indicated that wagering operators turned to featuring any available sporting contests on their websites, such as esports, or Russian table tennis competitions, as well as promoting novelty bets (ABC News, 2020). However, it is unclear the extent to which they were advertising these alternative events or providing promotions to bet on these events.

Both the NRL and AFL resumed their competitions in May–June 2020. It was expected that wagering operators would resume their sports advertising once the season started, and the present study captured this period. Wagering operators may have also increased their advertising to try to make up for loss of revenue when sporting fixtures were suspended, to capitalise on pent-up demand, and to retain new customers they may have gained while land-based venues were closed.

Online wagering expenditure has continued to increase in Australia since the start of the pandemic (AlphaBeta, 2020), in line with forecasts for the global online gambling market overall (ResearchAndMarkets, 2020). However, the evidence from early academic studies are mixed. One early self-report study found a decrease in expenditure for most people in Australia (Gainsbury & Blaszczynski, 2020). This study is contrasted with another Australian study that found that one in three survey participants signed up for a new online betting account during the

https://paperpile.com/c/580caC/vRiE

https://paperpile.com/c/580caC/KrCD

https://paperpile.com/c/580caC/01KZ

https://paperpile.com/c/580caC/m46S

https://paperpile.com/c/580caC/pA2C



COVID-19 lockdown, and that participants gambled more during this time (Jenkinson et al, 2020). The latter study includes a large proportion of people at-risk of or experiencing gambling-related harm, which may explain the discrepancy: it is possible that gambling has decreased for most people, but increased amongst those at-risk of or experiencing harm. As briefly reviewed below, research evidence indicates that exposure to wagering advertising influences betting behaviour. Accordingly, any increase in this advertising during or after the pandemic has the potential to increase wagering and wagering-related harm.

The influence of wagering advertising on betting behaviourWagering operators in Australia utilise a range of marketing strategies to secure brand recognition and market share. Several studies have documented these strategies. These studies include content analyses of advertising in live and broadcast sporting events (Milner et al., 2013; Sproston et al., 2015; Thomas et al., 2012a) and social media (Gainsbury, et. al., 2016; Thomas et al., 2015); environmental scans of this marketing (O’Brien & Iqbal, 2019; Sproston et al., 2015); and an audit of wagering promotions offered by Australian and offshore operators (Hing et al., 2015b). Studies have also conducted interviews with online bettors to explore marketing effects (Hing et al., 2014b, 2018a; Thomas et al., 2012b); and cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys with bettors examining exposure to, and reported effects of, wagering advertisements and promotions (Hing et al., 2014c, 2018a, 2018b). Some key findings are summarised below.

Wagering advertising is particularly prominent during commercial breaks in televised sports and racing broadcasts, and in sports entertainment shows, that promote betting brands and products (Lamont et al., 2016; Sproston et al., 2015; Thomas et al., 2012a). There are approximately five times as many gambling advertisements on television as there are alcohol advertisements (O’Brien & Iqbal, 2019). This has raised concerns in Australia, particularly in relation to its potential effects on children and young people (ACMA, 2019; O’Brien & Iqbal, 2019; Pitt et al., 2016). In response, from 2018 gambling advertising in live sporting events was restricted across all platforms to reduce the exposure of children to gambling. A subsequent study monitoring the effects of these restrictions revealed a marked decrease in the volume of gambling advertising broadcast during live sport and during pre- and post-game coverage (ACMA, 2019). However, the study also observed a shift in gambling advertising to later times, generally after 8.30 pm, and an increase in gambling advertising in non-sports content, generally between 6.00 pm to 10.30 pm. These findings demonstrate the capacity of wagering operators to quickly adjust their advertising to changing circumstances.

As well as using paid advertisements, wagering operators are also major sponsors of sport and racing, and their extensive brand exposure at sporting stadia, during TV and radio broadcasts, and in print, online and social media has been documented (Lamont et al., 2011; Milner et al., 2013; Sproston et al., 2015). This exposure is most noticeable during live and broadcast sports and racing events, where betting logos are abundant and clearly visible on player uniforms, scoreboards, stadium tiers, perimeter fencing and signage (Hing et al., 2014c; Sproston et al., 2015). Betting brands and products are also advertised via radio, print, and outdoor and storefront signage (Sproston et al., 2015). A recent study found high levels of recall of gambling advertising on social media, outdoor sources and print media (ACMA, 2019).

Wagering advertising is also extensive in digital media (Gainsbury et al., 2015; Hing et al., 2018b), enabling operators to circumvent some restrictions on advertising in traditional media. Gambling advertising via social media appears to be abundant. In the UK, wagering operators tweeted between 89 and 202 times a day (Bradley & James, 2019), using hashtags associated with major sporting events to draw attention, and numerous promotional campaigns (Killick & Griffiths, 2020). Digital media also present opportunities for customised, unmediated communication to account-holders via direct messages sent by SMS, email, phone and social media (Gainsbury

https://paperpile.com/c/580caC/E8x2



et al., 2015; Hing et al., 2018b). These messages usually contain a direct link to the betting website and app, which contain additional advertising content and an immediate opportunity to place the promoted bet. A longitudinal study found that this push marketing is intense, received by wagering account-holders almost daily, usually contains a promotion to bet, and is particularly influential in prompting more, larger and riskier bets (Russell et al., 2018a). These longitudinal analyses found that receiving emails was positively associated with betting intention, whereas receiving text messages predicted higher likelihood of betting and higher betting expenditure.

Promotions for wagering are also widely used by operators (Lopez-Gonzalez et al., 2017a, 2017b; Newall, 2015, 2017). An audit of wagering promotions promoted by Australian and international operators (Hing et al., 2015b) developed a typology of 15 generic types, and documented their proliferation and the different incentives offered, such as ‘something for nothing’ (e.g., bonus bets, improved odds, cash rebates) and reduced risk (e.g., refunds). Commonly advertised wagering promotions include sign-up, stake-back, multi-bet, early cash-out, and match your stake/deposit offers (Hing et al., 2017b). When advertisements are embedded within digital media, consumers can respond instantaneously by clicking on a link in the promotion message. By facilitating loss of control and impulse betting, these promotions are conducive to increasing the uptake, continuation and intensification of betting (Hing et al., 2017b, 2018b; Lopez-Gonzalez et al., 2017a, 2017b). A study of impulse betting with 1,813 sports bettors found that wagering promotions appear to be particularly effective in stimulating impulse in-play betting among problem gamblers and frequent sports viewers (Hing et al., 2018c).

Several Australian studies have found positive associations between exposure to wagering advertising and wagering attitudes, intentions, and behaviour. For example, greater exposure to wagering advertising during televised sport has been positively associated with gambling intentions in surveys with 212 university students (Hing et al., 2013), 131 adolescents (Hing et al., 2014a), and 1,000 adults (Hing et al., 2015c). Amongst 544 sports bettors, those with higher problem gambling severity reported more influence on their betting from these advertisements, including increased frequency, expenditure, and betting more than intended (Hing et al., 2015a). Using conjoint analysis to examine the effects of different message attributes in wagering advertisements, research has also found that the type of bet promoted was the most persuasive attribute, with a risk-free bet being the most persuasive; and further, that micro-bets were particularly attractive to problem gamblers (Hing et al., 2017a). A more recent study specifically on micro-bets confirmed this result (Russell et al., 2018b).

The influence of advertising on consumer behaviour is difficult to ascertain, because individuals are usually not conscious of its effects (limiting self-report) and because causal relationships are unclear. A recent study therefore used a range of innovative longitudinal, experimental and psychophysiological methods to better assess causal directions in the relationship between exposure to wagering marketing and betting behaviour (Hing et al., 2018a). Based on convergent results across these studies with Australian sports bettors and race bettors, this research found that wagering advertisements and promotions: encourage riskier betting; increase betting expenditure; elicit attention, excitement, and desire to bet, particularly amongst at-risk and problem gamblers; and have negative effects on all gambler risk groups. Aggregate exposure across all of the nine types of advertisements and 11 types of promotions examined increased betting expenditure. Those with most influence were: direct messages from wagering operators; advertisements on betting websites and apps; betting brands promoted during live and broadcast race/sports events; betting-related commentary during events; stake-back offers; multi-bet offers; and promotions for rewards points.

In summary, exposure to wagering advertising has been linked to more favourable attitudes to betting, increased betting intention, betting when one does not intend to, betting more than intended, more frequent betting, the placement of larger bets and placing riskier bets. Wagering promotions have been associated with people placing riskier bets and impulse betting. Given the volume and impact of wagering advertising, it is important to understand how wagering operators are responding to disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic by examining their advertising.



Research questionsThe present study aimed to address four research questions:

1. What products did wagering operators advertise and promote during the COVID-19 lockdown period?

2. What products did wagering operators advertise and promote as sports (particularly AFL and NRL) resumed, and as venues re-opened?

3. How did these advertisements compare to pre-COVID advertising?

4. Did consumers notice any changes to marketing during the COVID-19 lockdown period, compared to before the COVID-19 lockdown period?



Chapter 2. Overall methodology

We collected data from three different sources:

• the Twitter accounts of four major domestic gambling operators

• the websites of the same four major domestic gambling operators (specifically, the front page and the promotions page)

• an online survey of 2,120 gamblers.

Each of these sources and data collection techniques are described in more detail below. These sources allowed us to determine which products were being offered, how they were advertised, the promotions promoted, and how these changed during and after the initial lockdown.

These sources met the project specification by capturing data from social media and gambling operators’ websites. The specification also referred to marketing via mainstream media. Obtaining objective data for mainstream advertising (e.g., television, radio) is expensive, and data are typically not released immediately, meaning that it was not possible to explore these sources within the budget and timeline of this project. However, as outlined below, we asked consumers about their exposure to gambling advertising via mainstream media, including television, radio and print media, as well as social media. Thus we collected self-report data on exposure before and during the initial COVID-19 lockdown for mainstream media.

Each source of data provided different perspectives. Twitter data are available for all unprotected tweets for each operator, for as long as their account has been active. This allows for comparisons of the amount and the content of the tweets from before, during and after the initial COVID-19 lockdown. However, tweets are very short, previously limited to 140 characters, and now 280 characters for most accounts. Operator websites can provide more detail, such as around particular promotions. Furthermore, the front page of operator websites can give an insight into which types of bets they see as the most important, and therefore need to be most visible. Finally, while changes in advertising or promotions may be seen via analysis of Twitter accounts or gambling websites, it is also important to determine whether gamblers have noticed these changes, which is why an online survey was employed.

For the Twitter and operator website components, we focused on four operators: Sportsbet, BetEasy, Ladbrokes and TAB. This is because they are four of the largest operators in Australia, and also because the lead researcher has accounts with those four operators. Having an account with operators was necessary because promotions on their websites are only visible to people who have logged into their account, making collection of data from the websites possible. We opted to capture the data from the Twitter accounts from the same providers in the interests of consistency. All operators offer sports, race, esports and novelty betting.



TwitterThe specification referred to capturing data from social media. For the purposes of this study, we captured and analysed data from Twitter. The reason for using Twitter was that it is possible to extract previous tweets from any Twitter account, provided the account is not private. An example of this output is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Example Twitter extraction from BetEasy’s Twitter account

The initial COVID-19 lockdown period was designated as 23 March to 23 May 2020 as this reflected the period when all major sporting events and gambling venues were closed across Australia. The aim of the present analysis was to extract each tweet from 24 February 2019 until 17 July 2020 to determine how the tweets differed from the same period the previous year, and to determine longer term trends in tweets, both in terms of content and volume. The Twitter API limits the number of tweets that can be extracted from any account to the most recent 3,200 tweets. Gambling operators are prolific tweeters, and 3,200 tweets per operators only covered a few months. Thus we approached Vicinitas for access to historical tweet data. Vicinitas stores Twitter data, such as public (non-protected) tweets, and makes them available for purchase based on keywords, user account or other criteria.

The relevant data that were extracted for each tweet were: when the tweet was posted (date and time), how many other Twitter users favourited or retweeted each tweet, the actual text of the tweet, and whether the tweet included media (photos or videos). Each tweet was then classified into categories based on keywords within each tweet. Keywords were used because almost 53,000 tweets were extracted across the four operators (9,148 from BetEasy, 13,565 from Ladbrokes, 14,218 from Sportsbet and 15,991 from TAB), meaning that each tweet could not be viewed and classified individually. Instead, the most frequent 1,000 words or phrases (apart from words like “the”) were extracted, and classified as sports (e.g., AFL, NRL, Brownlow), racing (e.g., racing, races, gelding), responsible gambling (e.g., responsible, gambling, no longer in control) or novelty (e.g., weather markets, election, reality television show names). Table tennis and esports were considered separately because they were markets that were promoted on operators’ websites (see below) during the initial COVID-19 lockdown and would likely not have been promoted were it not for COVID-19 restrictions on other sports. Tweets were then categorised based on the number of relevant keywords per category. Of the ~53,000 tweets, approximately 4,000 could not be classified based on this procedure and were manually classified. A sample of 5,000 tweets were examined to determine classification accuracy, and very few was misclassified, indicating that the classification approach was largely accurate. Any tweets that could not be easily classified (e.g., tweets that only included smiley emojis, or tweets



that were not related to any of the above categories, or required clicking on a link to understand the content) were classified as “other”. The analyses in Chapter 3 show how the volume and content changed for each account between February 2019 and July 2020.

Twitter data were used to answer the first three research questions: 1) what products did wagering operators advertise and promote during the COVID-19 lockdown period?, 2) what products did wagering operators advertise and promote as sports (particularly AFL and NRL) resumed, and as venues re-opened? and 3) how did these advertisements compare to pre-COVID advertising?

Gambling operators’ websitesThe lead author started collecting data from the websites of the four gambling operators on 14 May 2020, when this project was conceived, and data were collected until 9 July 2020. The start date was towards the end of the initial lockdown period, but live sports had not yet started, so this source of data shows how gambling operators changed their promotions as sports restarted. This was considered important, given that two of the sports that restarted were NRL (28 May 2020) and AFL (11 June 2020), which are key betting markets for domestic online gambling operators.

Data were generally captured on the Thursday and Monday of each week. This approximately corresponded to the start and end of competition rounds, which are typically played mostly over the weekend. However, with changes to competitions during COVID-19, NRL and AFL have been conducting matches during the week as well as the weekend, in order to fit more matches into the already-abbreviated season. Thus, while the aim was to see if promotions changed before to after a round, the choice of days may not have achieved this goal.

Data were collected by taking a screenshot of the promotions page. Promotions were analysed based on the number of promotions offered and what was being promoted (sport, racing, esports or table tennis, other promotions). The content of promotions are presented later in terms of how they changed over time, as the initial lockdown eased and sport resumed.

Unfortunately, historical data for promotion content from the websites were not readily available, so these data cannot be compared to other time periods. However, this content can be used to answer research questions 1 and 2, specifically: 1) what products did wagering operators advertise and promote during the COVID-19 lockdown period? and 2) what products did wagering operators advertise and promote as sports (particularly AFL and NRL) resumed, and as venues re-opened?

Survey of gamblersWhile the two prior methods allowed us to observe objective measures of if and how gambling advertising changed during and after the COVID-19 restrictions, they did not capture whether consumers perceived any changes in terms of exposure to gambling advertising prior to and during the initial COVID-19 lockdown.

Survey datesThe survey was launched on 30 May 2020, one week after the initial lockdown period was deemed to have ended. Data collection was completed by 25 June 2020. Thus all survey data were captured close to the end of the initial lockdown period. Questions relating to before and during lockdown were therefore captured in one survey, from the same respondents.



EthicsApproval was obtained from CQUniversity’s Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC clearance number: 22418). As a requirement of this ethics approval, respondents gave informed consent and were presented with the phone numbers and websites for Gambler’s Help and Lifeline counselling services, were informed that these services are free and confidential, and that they operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Recruitment, inclusion criteria and data cleaningThe survey was completed by 2,120 gamblers, 1,512 recruited with the help of Qualtrics and 608 from previous research participants who had agreed to take part in subsequent research studies conducted by the research team. Respondents were required to currently live in Australia, be aged 18 or older, and to have taken part in at least form of gambling either during the initial lockdown period, or within the 12 months immediately before lockdown. An additional restriction was placed on the Qualtrics sample, in that all respondents were required to currently reside in Victoria, to ensure the results were relevant to the funding agency for this study.

Data were cleaned in line with the standard practices of the research team. Respondents were excluded if they failed an attention check question, entered gibberish into a text box, or straightlined through the survey (i.e., selected the same answer through a scale where doing so was not considered a reasonable way to answer the question). The 2,120 respondents included in the present results passed these checks. Qualtrics respondents were compensated for their time in line with the standard practices of the research panel from which they were recruited, while respondents on our panel went into the draw to win one of 20 $50 online gift vouchers.

MeasuresThe survey included questions beyond the scope of this research, as it is part of a larger “gambling during COVID-19” study that is being conducted by the research team. Relevant to the current study, the main types of questions that were captured were:

1. How frequently respondents reported seeing gambling ads or promotions via each of seven different channels (e.g., on television, in print advertising, online or social media, direct messages)

2. How frequently respondents reported seeing gambling ads or promotions for each of 13 forms of gambling (e.g., sports betting, race betting, EGMs, lotteries), or for loot boxes

3. How frequently respondents reported seeing gambling with each of five different types of promotions (e.g., sign-up bonuses, bonus bets)

4. (For those who reported seeing any type of ad or promotion), the extent to which they considered that advertisements for gambling had increased or decreased their gambling expenditure.

Response options are given in Figures 48 to 51 below. All questions were asked for the 12 months before the initial COVID-19 lockdown started (defined to respondents as the 12 month period before 23 March 2020), and for the two month lockdown period (defined as between 23 March 2020 and 23 May 2020). This relies on respondent recall for the period before lockdown. However, recall bias should have been minimised by the well-defined periods of before and during lockdown and the major differences in those periods and their effects on people’s lives. The results for the survey are mostly descriptive, with comparisons of before and during lockdown, using McNemar-Bowker tests (please see Appendix A for statistical reporting).

This survey also included basic questions about which forms of gambling the respondents typically engaged in, whether they have gambled online, and how many accounts they have with wagering operators. These



variables were correlated with frequency of exposure to advertising separately for before and during the initial COVID-19 lockdown.

Overview of methods and research questionsTable 2 shows which sources of data were used to answer each of the research questions.

Table 2: Which research methods answer each research question

Research question Twitter Operator websites

Survey

What products did wagering operators advertise and promote during the COVID-19 lockdown period?

✔ ✔ ✔

What products did wagering operators advertise and promote as sports (particularly AFL and NRL) resumed, and as venues re-opened?

✔ ✔

How did these advertisements compare to pre-COVID advertising? ✔ ✔

Did consumers noticed any changes to marketing during the COVID-19 lockdown period, compared to before the COVID-19 lockdown period?

✔



Chapter 3. Results – Twitter data

This chapter reports on the volume and nature of Twitter advertising by four major domestic wagering operators before, during and after the initial COVID-19 lockdown period. Importantly, historical data were extracted back to February 2019, in order to capture the equivalent period to the lockdown from 2020. This was necessary because the lockdown coincided with the start of the AFL and NRL seasons, which are typically peak betting products for gambling operators. Thus, seeing the level of tweeting during 23rd March to 23rd May 2019 allows for a determination of what is considered “normal” at this time of the year, and to take into account seasonal effects. Tweets were considered for this project because historical Twitter data are readily available and inexpensive to access compared to marketing figures for channels such as television and radio, and tweets are more public than advertising forms such as direct messaging.

Volume of tweetsAs seen in Figure 2 below, the impact of the initial lockdown on the level of tweeting differed by operator. Sportsbet (blue line) tweeted less than the equivalent period last year, although their tweeting picked up dramatically when lockdown ended. A similar trend was observed for Ladbrokes (red line), with a decrease in tweeting during lockdown, but a peak as lockdown eased. TAB (green line) reached historical highs for tweeting during lockdown and maintained this level of tweeting after the lockdown period. BetEasy (purple line) is a relatively new company, and their tweeting has been on a steady incline. Their level of tweeting increased compared to the equivalent period in 2019, but this is more likely an ongoing trend. However, their level of tweeting during lockdown was higher than the period immediately before lockdown, and increased towards the end of the lockdown period, in anticipation of the resumption of sport, particularly AFL and NRL.



Figure 2: Number of tweets per week by four gambling operators before, during and after COVID-19 lockdown



Content of tweetsAs indicated in Figures 3 to 6 below, the content of tweets during the initial lockdown changed for each operator, in different ways. Sportsbet changed their mixture to include more racing, less sports, and some novelty events, although Sportsbet has tweeted about novelty events before, and since. There was a small number of tweets about esports and table tennis at the start of lockdown.

Figure 3: Content of tweets per week before, during and after COVID-19 lockdown – Sportsbet



Ladbrokes started tweeting about novelty bets just prior to the start of the initial lockdown, and some tweets about topics other than sports or racing, which have not been a large part of their Twitter content before or since. Ladbrokes also tweeted less about sports, but their race tweeting was generally similar.

Figure 4: Content of tweets per week before, during and after COVID-19 lockdown – Ladbrokes



During the initial lockdown, TAB tweeted more about races, less about sports. TAB has tweeted very little about esports or table tennis, or other types of bets, before, during or after lockdown. Interestingly, TAB started tweeting twice a day with responsible gambling content, during lockdown, something they had done very little before or since lockdown.

Figure 5: Content of tweets per week before, during and after COVID-19 lockdown – TAB



BetEasy tweeted very little about sport at the start of the initial lockdown, and changed their tweeting to include far more content about race betting, and some. They started tweeting about esports and table tennis prior to the start of lockdown, and have kept doing so since lockdown ended. Towards the end of lockdown, the sport content increased, and race and novelty bet content decreased, but the general level of Twitter content remained high. BetEasy has consistently tweeted about responsible gambling.

Figure 6: Content of tweets per week before, during and after COVID-19 lockdown – BetEasy



Example esports and table tennis tweets during lockdownPresented below are example tweets from during the initial lockdown by the four operators. As noted above, while we’ve classified this category of tweets as esports or table tennis, because most were about this topic, there were also a very small number of tweets about other unlikely betting events, such as chess.

Figure 7: Example chess and table tennis bet tweet during lockdown – Sportsbet

Figure 8: Example esports and table tennis bet tweet during lockdown – Ladbrokes



Figure 9: Example table tennis and esports bet tweet during lockdown – BetEasy

Figure 10: TAB indicating they would not offer esports markets, and then offering an esports market two months later



Example novelty betting tweets during lockdownPresented below are example tweets from during the initial lockdown by the four operators. First, novelty events are shown, with examples of betting on the Prime Minister’s tie colour, the weather and elections.

Figure 11: Example novelty bet tweets during lockdown – Sportsbet

Figure 12: Example novelty bet tweets during lockdown - Ladbrokes



Figure 13: Example novelty bet tweet during lockdown - TAB

Figure 14: Example novelty bet tweet during lockdown - BetEasy



Example responsible gambling tweets during lockdownExamples of responsible gambling messages are shown below. Sportsbet.com.au and BetEasy regularly tweeted about their responsible gambling tools, and TAB started tweeting regular RG messages during the initial COVID-19 lockdown, but tweetsed them very rarely after lockdown ended. There was no evidence of Ladbrokes tweeting RG messages either before, during or after COVID-19 lockdown.

Figure 15: Example responsible gambling tweet during lockdown – Sportsbet

Figure 16: Example responsible gambling tweet during lockdown – TAB

Figure 17: Example responsible gambling tweet during lockdown – BetEasy



Example sports betting tweets during lockdownDuring the initial COVID-19 lockdown, sports betting tweets generally related to sports that were still running (e.g., motor racing, some football competitions), discussed sport-related topics (such as the toughest player to play NRL), or joked about the lack of sports.

Figure 18: Example sports betting tweet during lockdown – Sportsbet



Figure 19: Example sports betting tweet during lockdown – Ladbrokes

Figure 20: Example sports betting tweet during lockdown – TAB



Figure 21: Example sports betting tweet during lockdown – BetEasy

Example race betting tweets during lockdownBecause racing was generally unaffected, race betting tweets were popular and prominent during the initial COVID-19 lockdown. Examples are given below, generally highlighting upcoming race meets, and some successful tips or bets.

Figure 22: Example race betting tweet during lockdown – Sportsbet



Figure 23: Example race betting tweet during lockdown – Ladbrokes

Figure 24: Example race betting tweet during lockdown – TAB



Figure 25: Example race betting tweet during lockdown – BetEasy

SummaryThe four operators changed their Twitter marketing in different ways during the initial lockdown, compared to immediately prior to lockdown, and compared to a similar period last year. Ladbrokes and Sportsbet tweeted less than usual, while TAB and BetEasy tweeted more than usual, although BetEasy’s increase was in line with a general increase in Twitter marketing over time. Analysis of content revealed a general compensation for the lack of sports tweets by tweeting about novelty events and increasing the race betting content, and in the case of TAB, increasing RG content temporarily. The immediate period post lockdown indicated that tweeting content generally returned to normal, including generally no longer tweeting about novelty events, and in the case of TAB, no longer tweeting about responsible gambling. Notably, Sportsbet and BetEasy have generally tweeted about responsible gambling on a regular basis.



Chapter 4. Results – gambling websites

From 14 May to 9 July 2020, the researchers collected data from the promotions page of each of four operators: Sportsbet, Ladbrokes, TAB and BetEasy. Data collection generally occurred on Monday and Thursday of each week, i.e., immediately prior to and following each weekend’s sports and racing events. The contents of the promotions were categorised into one of four categories:

• sports, including any promotions related to sports, such as streaming of sporting events

• racing, including greyhound and horse racing, and including promotions such as live streaming of racing events

• esports or table tennis, as these events may not otherwise have been promoted had COVID-19 restrictions not occurred

• other promotions, such as promotions that were not exclusively for any of the above categories (e.g., general promotions that could be used for race and sports events).

Promotions offered on each website during the end of lockdown, and immediately following lockdownAs indicated in Figures 26 to 29 below, three of the four operators (Sportsbet, Ladbrokes and BetEasy) offered promotions on esports or table tennis events during the initial lockdown, while TAB did not promote these events on their website. Once lockdown was lifted, Ladbrokes persisted with promoting bets on esports or table tennis events, for approximately 10 days, then removed them from their website, while Sportsbet and BetEasy promoted them throughout the observation period.

Towards the end of the initial lockdown period, as sports resumed, promotions on sports bets became more common. In all cases, these were offered in addition to existing race, novelty and other promotions, rather than reducing the number of other promotions available.

More promotions were generally available on the Thursdays (the peaks evident in all Figures 26 to 29), and fewer on the Mondays (the troughs). This is because some promotions were specifically for events occurring that weekend, and these promotions were removed once the event had occurred.



Figure 26: Promotions offered on the Sportsbet website during and immediately after COVID-19 lockdown.

Figure 27: Promotions offered on the Ladbrokes website during and immediately after COVID-19 lockdown.

Note: Ladbrokes did not offer “other” promotions during the observation period.



Figure 28: Promotions offered on the TAB website during and immediately after COVID-19 lockdown.

Note: TAB did not offer esports or table tennis bet promotions during the observation period.

Figure 29: Promotions offered on the BetEasy website during and immediately after COVID-19 lockdown.



Examples of promotions

Example sports betting promotions – During lockdown, 14 May 2020

As shown in Figures 30 to 33 below, sports promotions during COVID-19 promoted whichever sports were running, including Bundesliga, US basketball, and Ultimate Fighting Championship. One operator (Sportsbet) offered e generic “same game multi” promotion.

Figure 30: Example sports promotion during lockdown - Sportsbet

Figure 31: Example sports promotion during lockdown - Ladbrokes

Figure 32: Example sports promotion during lockdown - TAB



Figure 33: Example sports promotion during lockdown - BetEasy

Example sports betting promotions – After lockdown, 3 July 2020Figures 34 to 37 below show sports promotions towards the end of the observation period. Promotions focused on NRL and AFL, including specific promotions.

Figure 34: Example sports promotion after lockdown – Sportsbet

Figure 35: Example sports promotion after lockdown - Ladbrokes



Figure 36: Example sports promotion after lockdown - TAB

Figure 37: Example sports promotion after lockdown - BetEasy



Example race betting promotions – 14 May 2020Race betting promotions did not change substantially during and after the initial COVID-19 lockdown, in terms of content. Figures 38 to 41 below show the general nature of race betting promotions throughout the observation period from the four operators. Some promotions included promotions (e.g., bonus bets, better odds), while others highlighted specific services for race betting offered by each operator, such as form guides and blackbooks.

Figure 38: Example race promotion – Sportsbet

Figure 39: Example race promotion – Ladbrokes



Figure 40: Example race promotion – TAB

Figure 41: Example race promotion – BetEasy



Example esports and table tennis betting promotions – 14 May 2020We focused on esports and table tennis, as we thought they were unlikely to have been promoted had COVID-19 not occurred. Sportsbet and BetEasy offered the same esports and table tennis promotions throughout the observation period. Ladbrokes offered a promotion on an esport multi but removed this promotion shortly after the end of the initial lockdown. TAB did not promote novelty bets on their website. See Figures 42 to 44 below for examples.

Figure 42: Example esports and table tennis promotion – Sportsbet

Figure 43: Example esports promotion – Ladbrokes



Figure 44: Example esports and table tennis promotion – BetEasy



Example other promotions – 14 May 2020Sportsbet and BetEasy promoted specific services that they offered, which were not necessarily associated with sports or race betting exclusively. TAB promoted different types of “other” promotions, such as a Big Pub Raffle. Ladbrokes did not offer other types of promotions during the observation period. Please see Figures 45 to 47 below.

Figure 45: Example other promotion – Sportsbet

Figure 46: Example other promotions – TAB

Figure 47: Example other promotion – BetEasy



SummaryObservation of the promotions pages of four operators found that all operators quickly returned to providing sports betting promotions once the initial lockdown ended, as expected. Three operators offered promotions on esports and/or table tennis events, although one removed those promotions shortly after sport resumed. For most operators, after lockdown, the number of promotions available generally increased. Race betting promotions were generally the same before, during and after COVID-19 lockdown.



Chapter 5. Results – survey

This chapter reports results from the online survey of people who had gambled in the 12 months prior to the initial lockdown (before 23 March 2020), or in the two months of lockdown (23 March 2020, to 23 May 2020). The 2,120 respondents who completed the survey were approximately evenly split in terms of gender (50.8 per cent male, 49.0 per cent female, with 0.2 per cent reporting a gender other than male or female), and were aged between 18 and 92 (mean = 50.7, SD = 16.5, median = 52). Most respondents (78.9 per cent) were from Victoria. Further sample characteristics are given in Appendix B. Please see Appendix A for results from statistical analyses comparing before and during lockdown.

Recalled frequency of exposure to advertisements and promotions by channel – before and during lockdownFigure 48 below shows that, both before and during the initial lockdown, television advertisements were noticed the most, followed by radio and online or social media. For all channels of gambling advertising, the proportion of respondents who reported seeing this advertising at least two to three times a month was higher before lockdown than during lockdown.

Figure 48: Recalled frequency of exposure to advertisements and promotions by channel, before and during lockdown



Recalled frequency of exposure to advertisements and promotions by gambling form – before and during lockdownThe most recalled forms of advertising both before and during the initial lockdown were lotteries/lottos/pools, sports betting and race betting. For all gambling forms, the proportion of respondents who reported seeing this advertising at least two to three times a month was higher before lockdown than during lockdown (see Figure 49). Some of the smaller percentages are difficult to read in this figure, so a table is presented in Appendix C with figures.

Figure 49: Recalled frequency of exposure to advertisements and promotions by gambling form, before and during lockdown



Recalled frequency of exposure to advertisements and promotions by promotion type – before and during lockdownThe most commonly recalled promotions both before and during the initial lockdown were bonus bets, followed by money back guarantees and better odds and winnings. For all promotions types, the proportion of respondents who reported seeing them at least two to three times a month was higher before lockdown than during lockdown (Figure 50).

Figure 50: Recalled frequency of exposure to advertisements and promotions by promotion type, before and during lockdown



Recalled impact of advertisements and promotions on gambling behaviour – before and during lockdownRespondents were most likely to state that their gambling expenditure had neither increased nor decreased due to advertisements. However, a significant difference was observed from before to during the initial lockdown, with respondents more likely to report that their gambling expenditure had decreased a little during lockdown due to gambling advertising (Figure 51).

Figure 51: Recalled impact of advertisements and promotions on gambling behaviour, before and during lockdown

How does reported exposure to ads and promotions for each form vary by frequency of gambling on each form, before and during lockdown?Table 3 below indicates the correlations between frequency of engagement on each form of gambling and reported exposure to gambling advertising for that particular form, separately before and during the initial lockdown. Respondents who gambled more frequently on each form, both before and during lockdown, recalled seeing advertising for that form more frequently.

Table 3: Relationship between frequency of gambling on each form, and frequency of exposure to ads for each form, before and during lockdown (Spearman correlations)

Gambling form Before lockdown (Prior to March 23 2020)

During lockdown (23 March 2020 to 23 May 2020)

Instant scratchies .213*** .276***

Lotteries/lottos/pools .211*** .278***

Sports betting .164*** .095***

Novelty betting .220*** .310***

Race betting .373*** .381***

Bingo .329*** .546***

Keno .333*** .480***



Gambling form Before lockdown (Prior to March 23 2020)

During lockdown (23 March 2020 to 23 May 2020)

Poker .446*** .521***

Casino games .303*** .487***

EGMs .260*** .463***

Esports betting .378*** .436***

Fantasy sports betting .412*** .477***

Skin gambling .593*** .605***

Loot boxes .625*** .665***

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

How does reported exposure to ads and promotions before and during lockdown vary by online betting behaviour?To answer this question, we considered two key variables: first, whether or not they had bet online at all before or during COVID-19, and second, the number of online accounts that they had with different operators. The first variable was coded as no vs yes, while the second variable was coded based on the number of accounts, with people who reported more than six accounts trimmed to have a value of six, due to a long tail of number of accounts. Each of these two variables was then correlated with reported frequency of exposure to gambling advertisements and promotions by channel, gambling form, and promotion type, using non-parametric Spearman correlations.

As indicated in Table 4 below, respondents who bet online at all during the initial lockdown were significantly more likely to report seeing ads and promotions more frequently in all channels, for all gambling forms apart from sports and esports betting ads, and for all promotion types. Furthermore, people who had a higher number of accounts were significantly more likely to report seeing ads and promotions more frequently on all channels, for all forms and for all promotions.



Table 4: Exposure to ads and promotions by gambler type – before lockdown (Spearman correlations)

Advertisements and promotions Bet online at all Number of online accounts

Channels

At live sports or racing events .207*** .245***

On television .054* .074**

On the radio .118*** .157***

In print advertising .116*** .178***

On outdoor advertising .111*** .144***

In online and social media .204*** .222***

In direct messages .307*** .398***

Forms

Instant scratchies .056** .099***

Lotteries/lottos/pools .061** .088***

Sports betting .032 .074***


Race betting .110*** .186***

Bingo .083*** .193***

Keno .070** .158***

Poker .119*** .224***

Casino games .095*** .213***

EGMs .076*** .176***

Esports betting .022 .135***



Loot boxes .112*** .230***

Promotions

Sign-up bonuses .116*** .173***

Refer-a-friend bonuses .163*** .228***

Bonus bets .117*** .204***

Better odds or winnings .110*** .177***

Money-back guarantees .108*** .198***

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001



As indicated in Table 5 below, respondents who bet online at all during the initial lockdown, and who had more online accounts during lockdown, were significantly more likely to recall seeing gambling ads and promotions more frequently on all channels, for all gambling forms and for all promotions.

Table 5: Exposure to ads and promotions by gambler type – during lockdown (Spearman correlations)

Advertisements and promotions Bet online at all Number of online accounts

Channels

At live sports or racing events .183*** .261***

On television .091*** .100***

On the radio .129*** .164***

In print advertising .165*** .208***

On outdoor advertising .126*** .191***

In online and social media .220*** .275***

In direct messages .346*** .443***

Forms

Instant scratchies .116*** .137***

Lotteries/lottos/pools .150*** .128***

Sports betting .082*** .086***


Race betting .188*** .209***

Bingo .142*** .212***

Keno .140*** .183***

Poker .142*** .226***

Casino games .132*** .209***

EGMs .139*** .208***

Esports betting .111*** .181***



Loot boxes .137*** .215***

Promotions

Sign-up bonuses .153*** .193***

Refer-a-friend bonuses .177*** .235***

Bonus bets .206*** .242***

Better odds or winnings .181*** .223***

Money-back guarantees .202*** .240***

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001



SummaryRespondents generally reported less frequent exposure to gambling advertising during the initial lockdown, compared to before the lockdown. This was true for all advertising channels (e.g., television, print, online and social media), all forms of gambling, and all types of promotions. However, respondents who reported seeing promotions more frequently were significantly more likely to: bet more frequently on the form being promoted, bet online, and have a higher number of accounts with different operators, both before and during lockdown.



Chapter 6. Discussion

Summary of results by research questionThe three data sources examined for this study (Twitter, website and survey) indicated changes in wagering marketing during the initial COVID-19 lockdown (23 March to 23 May 2020), compared to prior to lockdown and the equivalent period in the previous year. This chapter summarises these changes to address the four research questions. It also provides a brief discussion of the results and identifies the study’s limitations.

Research question 1: What products did wagering operators advertise and promote during the COVID-19 lockdown period?With a lack of sports to promote during the initial lockdown, the four domestic wagering operators examined focused on promoting race betting, and introduced marketing around esports betting, table tennis and novelty betting, both through Twitter, and through betting promotions. For example, race betting was a relatively small part of Sportsbet’s Twitter content in 2019, except around the Spring Racing Carnival, whereas during lockdown, race betting content accounted for a large proportion of Sportsbet’s tweets. Promotions on all four operators’ websites during lockdown largely consisted of race betting promotions, or general promotions that applied across all bets, with some operators offering promotions on sports that they would likely otherwise not have promoted (esports, table tennis).

Interestingly, TAB started tweeting responsible gambling messages twice a day during the initial lockdown, despite not doing so in the year before lockdown. Responsible gambling messages were more frequently tweeted by Sportsbet and BetEasy, both before and during lockdown. In contrast, Ladbrokes rarely tweeted responsible gambling messages.

Research question 2: What products did wagering operators advertise and promote as sports (particularly AFL and NRL) resumed, and as venues re-opened?Once sport resumed in late May 2020, tweeting about sport betting and sports betting promotions made up a larger proportion of the advertising and promotions mix for all four operators. Operators who previously offered esports or table tennis promotions continued to do so after the initial lockdown, with the exception of Ladbrokes, which stopped offering these promotions two weeks after lockdown ceased.

Sports betting promotions increased on the operators’ websites, from being greatly reduced throughout the initial lockdown, to being more numerous and prominent after the lockdown. The number of promotions fluctuated during the week to reflect when most betting events were held, with more promotions available at the start of the weekend than at the end of the weekend, both for races and sports.



There was no indication of any venue-related promotions, apart from TAB suggesting that people use venue-mode in their TAB app to unlock additional features. TAB also stopped tweeting responsible gambling messages once the initial lockdown ceased.

Research question 3: How did these advertisements compare to pre-COVID advertising?Levels of Twitter activity varied by operator. Some operators tweeted less (Sportsbet, Ladbrokes), and all except BetEasy offered fewer promotions during the initial COVID-19 lockdown.

Promotion activity on the four operators’ websites was generally similar during lockdown compared to afterwards for races, esports and table tennis bets and other general promotions. Promotion activity was not captured before lockdown, and therefore no comparison could be made. However, the increase in sports betting promotions after lockdown is likely indicative of promotions that would have been offered if sports competitions were running.

Research question 4: Did consumers notice any changes to marketing during the COVID-19 lockdown period, compared to before the COVID-19 lockdown period?Respondents generally reported recalling less frequent exposure to advertisements and promotions during the initial lockdown, compared to after the lockdown. This was the case for all channels (e.g., television, radio), all forms of gambling (e.g., sports betting, race betting, lotteries), and all types of promotions (e.g., bonus bets, money-back guarantees). Respondents were most likely to state that their gambling expenditure had neither increased nor decreased due to advertisements, although respondents were significantly more likely to report that their expenditure had decreased due to gambling advertisements during COVID-19, compared to beforehand. Those who were most exposed to gambling advertisements and promotions both before and during the lockdown were those who gambled most frequently, those who bet online, and those who had more accounts with online operators.

Discussion and conclusionsMarketing activity by wagering operators is prolific and remained so during and after the initial COVID-19 lockdown (23 March to 23 May, 2020), as indicated by the Twitter activity and betting promotions offered by the four major domestic wagering operators examined. Wagering is a highly competitive industry and advertising and promotions help operators to gain and retain market share (Hing et al., 2014b). Wagering advertisements and promotions have also been found to increase betting activity amongst existing customers (Hing et al., 2018a). Thus, marketing may be particularly important to operators during times when consumers have less disposable income and require more encouragement to spend, which was clearly the case as unemployment and underemployment increased in Australia as the effects of the pandemic were felt.

Restrictions during the initial COVID-19 lockdown were expected to result in certain changes in wagering marketing, as operators adapted to the cessation of most sporting events worldwide and the temporary closure of land-based gambling venues. During the initial lockdown, and facing a severe reduction in sports betting revenue, it was expected that operators would focus on, or even increase, their marketing for products that remained available, such as race betting. This in fact did occur, as indicated by the Twitter activity of the four domestic operators. It was also expected that operators would extend their marketing for betting on sporting events they had not



previously offered or promoted and which were still available, such as esports and minor overseas sports events. This also occurred and was evident through the four operators’ Twitter activity and promotions for esports, table tennis and novelty bets such as on the weather. Operators may have also increased their marketing activity in the hope of attracting new customers because land-based gambling facilities were closed. This marketing may have encouraged some land-based bettors to transition to online betting, and some gamblers on other products, such as EGMs, to substitute online betting for land-based gambling – although examining this was beyond the scope of the current study.

After the initial lockdown of sporting events ended, it was expected that operators would increase their advertisements and promotions for sports betting to try to make up for lost revenues during the lockdown and to capitalise on pent-up demand amongst customers. This pattern was again evident in the Twitter and website data relating to the four operators. Further, operators generally added promotions for sports betting after the lockdown, while retaining the existing volume of promotions for race betting, and for some operators, for esports and novelty bets. An overall increase in the volume of promotions was evident after the lockdown amongst the four operators.

These changes in products and advertising indicate the agility of the operators to adapt their marketing to changing conditions. This was facilitated by the quick responses that can be made to marketing on social media and online platforms. The ability of wagering operators to adapt quickly to restrictions has been observed previously. For example, when wagering advertising was restricted during televised sporting matches broadcast after 8.30pm, operators shifted their advertising to later times and increased their advertising during non-sports content (ACMA, 2019). Similarly, as wagering advertising restrictions have tightened on traditional and digital platforms, operators have increased their direct marketing through texts, emails and phone calls to customers (Russell et al., 2018a).

It appears that this agility of operators was successful in terms of compensating for the lack of sporting events. Interim results for Flutter Entertainment, the parent company of Sportsbet and BetEasy, were presented on 27 August 2020 (Flutter Entertainment, 2020). These results showed that the decrease in sports betting was compensated almost entirely by a shift to race betting. Race betting was noted as a higher margin product compared to sports betting, and Flutter also noted that retail customers preferred higher margin products within race betting options. Further, race betting remained approximately 50 per cent higher than usual at June 2020, at which point sports betting was close to returning to pre-COVID levels. Thus, in the cases of Sportsbet and BetEasy (now merged), their agility resulted in no appreciable decrease in performance, and actually an increase in take.

A further development that enabled the wagering operators to adapt their marketing to changing circumstances during the initial lockdown was the availability of newer forms of betting that do not rely on terrestrial events, notably esports. Overseas research has found that esports betting revenues increased during the lockdown of sporting events (Gambling Commission, 2020), and that some sports bettors transitioned to esports betting (EveryMatrix, 2020). Amongst a sample of gamblers in Australia, 13.4 per cent reported starting and 18.0 per cent increasing their esports betting during lockdown (Greer et al., 2020). Thus, the increased advertising and promotions for esports betting found in the current study reflects the opportunity that esports provided for wagering operators to attract new customers and convert revenue from traditional sports betting during the lockdown. It will be important to track whether the increased marketing and uptake of esports betting that occurred during the lockdown continue in Australia.

The current study also found that survey respondents who reported the most frequent exposure to wagering advertising and promotions both before and during the initial lockdown were more frequent bettors, bet online and had accounts with more operators. That is, wagering marketing is more likely to be seen by more intense bettors, but it is unclear whether greater exposure to this marketing intensifies betting, or whether more intense bettors are likely to see and recall more wagering advertising. Nonetheless, previous research has found that exposure to wagering advertisements and promotions increases betting activity, including amongst vulnerable bettors (Hing et al., 2018a). Thus, the continued proliferation of wagering marketing, and early evidence of an increase in wagering promotions following the resumption of sporting events after lockdown, as found in this study, indicate that the

https://paperpile.com/c/hlbvOz/Vqbv



harm resulting from wagering marketing will continue and may even increase. Further, the promotion of responsible gambling messages was found to constitute only a very small proportion of tweets by wagering operators.

Early evidence indicates that online gambling increased during the initial COVID-19 lockdown (AlphaBeta, 2020), at least in part due to the closure of land-based venues. Results from two Australian studies provide conflicting results (Gainsbury & Blaszczynski, 2020; Jenkinson et al, 2020). Results from Sportsbet and BetEasy indicate that at least those operators performed well, with a shift to race betting, and a quick return to usual sports betting figures upon resumption of sports (Flutter Entertainment, 2020). Wagering advertising and promotions will likely continue to increase following the lifting of lockdown restrictions in an attempt to retain customers, maintain market share and increase wagering revenues. The continued monitoring of wagering marketing going forward is important, including through television, print and direct messaging advertising, which were out of scope for this study.

LimitationsWhile the study’s results were strengthened through the triangulation of different data collection methods, each method had limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. For both the Twitter and website data, we focused on only four of the largest domestic operators. This was for practical reasons: promotions can only be viewed by account-holders, and the researchers had accounts for these four operators. TAB products can vary by state, and could only be assessed from NSW, as this was where the researcher who collected the data lives. It is possible that people in different jurisdictions are exposed to different content on websites for other operators, but this is less likely for exposure via Twitter, which is more universal. For consistency, the Twitter search was also limited to these operators. The website audit started when this project was conceived, so the promotions offered before the initial COVID lockdown, and during the first part of the lockdown, were not captured. Survey data were based on self-report, and were subject to recall and other biases. Further, the advertising and promotions questions in the survey were limited because the survey was part of a larger study, and survey space was limited. However, the questions about advertisements and promotions captured recollection before and during the COVID lockdown, for multiple channels, gambling forms and promotion types. The lockdown period does not take into account subsequent restrictions in Victoria due to a second COVID wave. However, sports events were running during these restrictions, and online betting was available to Victorian residents during this time. Due to the scope and budget of this project, it was not possible to examine other forms of advertising, such as television advertisements. Finally, we note that we combined esports and table tennis together into a single category, despite these being quite different sports that likely appeal to different people. This was done for two reason: they were sports that continued despite almost all other sports being suspended, and because advertising for them became more prominent.

Despite these limitations, the current study has provided useful insights into changes in wagering marketing which occurred with the COVID-19 restrictions on gambling, and provides a useful baseline for follow-up research to monitor longer-term effects.



References

ABC News. (2020, March 29). With casinos and TABs closed, problem gamblers find other ways to lose their money. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-29/coronavirus-and-problem-gambling/12095714

AlphaBeta (2020). COVID-19 economic impact: Real time tracking. Retrieved from: https://www.alphabeta.com/illiontracking/

Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). (2019). Gambling advertising in Australia: Consumer and advertising placement research. Canberra: ACMA.

Bradley, A., & James, R.J.E. (2019). How are major gambling brands using Twitter? International Gambling Studies, 19(3), 451-470.

EveryMatrix. (2020). The state of esports betting 2020. https://issuu.com/everymatrix/docs/esports-report-may-2020?fr=sODM1OTEzMzY4ODg

Flutter Entertainment. (2020). Flutter Entertainment Plc, Interim Results 2020. https://www.flutter.com/sites/paddy-power-betfair/files/result-center/2020/flutter-entertainment-2020-interims-presentation.pdf

Gambling Commission. (2020). Gambling business data on gambling during Covid-19 [Updated July 2020]. Gambling Commission, United Kingdom. https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news-action-and-statistics/Statistics-and-research/Covid-19-research/Covid-19-updated-July-2020/Gambling-business-data-on-gambling-during-Covid-19-updated-July-2020.aspx

Gainsbury, S., & Blaszczynski, A. (2020, August). The impact of the COVID-19 shutdown on gambling in Australia: Preliminary results from Wave 1 cross-sectional survey. https://www.sydney.edu.au/content/dam/corporate/documents/brain-and-mind-centre/usyd-covid-gambling-research-report-aug-2020.pdf

Gainsbury, S., King, D., Delfabbro, P., Hing, N., Russell, A., Blaszczynski, A., Derevensky, J. (2015). The use of social media in gambling. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia

Gainsbury, S.M, Delfabbro, P., King, D.L., & Hing, N. (2016). An exploratory study of gambling operators’ use of social media and the latent messages conveyed. Journal of Gambling Studies, 32, 125-141.

Greer, N., Hing, N., & Russell, A. M. T. (2020, in press). Gambling during COVID-19: Esports, social casino games and online casino gambling. Report commissioned by the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

Hing, N., Cherney, L., Blaszczynski, A., Gainsbury, S., & Lubman, D. (2014b). Do advertising and promotions for online gambling increase gambling consumption? An exploratory study. International Gambling Studies, 14(3), 394-409.

Hing, N., Lamont, M., Vitartas, P., & Fink, E. (2015a). How sports bettors respond to sports-embedded gambling promotions: Implications for compulsive consumption. Journal of Business Research, 68, 2057-2066.

Hing, N., Lamont, M., Vitartas, P., & Fink, E. (2015c). Sports-embedded gambling promotions: A study of exposure, sports betting intention and problem gambling amongst adults. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 13(1), 115-135.

Hing, N., Russell, A. M. T., & Rawat, V. (2018b). Direct messages received from wagering operators. Melbourne: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

Hing, N., Russell, A. M. T., Li, E., & Vitartas, P. (2018c). Does the uptake of wagering promotions predict impulse betting on sport? Journal of Behavioural Addictions.7(1), 146-147.

Hing, N., Russell, A. M. T., Rockloff, M.J., Browne, M., Langham, E., Li, E., Lole, L., Greer, N., Thomas, A., Jenkinson, R., Rawat, V., & Thorne, H. (2018a). Effects of wagering marketing on vulnerable adults. Melbourne: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.



Hing, N., Sproston, K., Brading, R., & Brook, K. (2015b). Review and analysis of sports and race betting promotions. Melbourne: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

Hing, N., Sproston, K., Brook, K., & Brading, R. (2017b). The structural features of sports and race betting promotions: Issues for harm minimisation and consumer protection. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33(2), 685-704.

Hing, N., Vitartas, P., & Lamont, M. (2013). Gambling sponsorship of sport: An exploratory study of links with gambling attitudes and intentions. International Gambling Studies, 13(3), 281-301.

Hing, N., Vitartas, P., & Lamont, M. (2014c). Promotion of gambling and live betting odds during televised sport: Influences on gambling participation and problem gambling. Brisbane: Report prepared for the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General.

Hing, N., Vitartas, P., & Lamont, M. (2017a). Understanding persuasive attributes of sports betting advertisements: A conjoint analysis of selected elements. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6(4), 658-668.

Hing, N., Vitartas, P., Lamont, M., & Fink, E. (2014a). Adolescent exposure to gambling promotions during televised sport: An exploratory study of links with gambling intentions. International Gambling Studies, 14(3), 374-393.

Jenkinson, R., Sakata, K., Khokhar, T., Tajin, R., & Jatkar, U. (2020, October 8). Gambling in Australia during COVID-19. https://aifs.gov.au/agrc/publications/gambling-australia-during-covid-19

Killick, E., & Griffiths, M.D. (2020). A content analysis of gambling operators’ Twitter accounts at the start of the English Premier League football season. Journal of Gambling Studies, 36, 319-341.

Lamont, M., Hing, N., & Gainsbury, S. (2011). Gambling on sport sponsorship: A conceptual framework for research and regulatory review. Sport Management Review, 14, 246-257.

Lamont, M., Hing, N., & Vitartas, P. (2016). Affective responses to gambling promotions during televised sport: A qualitative analysis. Sport Management Review, 19(3), 319-331.

Lopez-Gonzalez, H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017a). ‘Cashing out’ in sports betting: implications for problem gambling and regulation. Gaming Law Review, 21(4), 323-326.

Lopez-Gonzalez, H., Estévez, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017b). Marketing and advertising online sports betting: A problem gambling perspective. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 41(3), 256-272.

Main, L. (2020, March 21). Pubs, clubs, churches to close tomorrow. Australian Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/government-to-release-extra-66b-australians-with-covid-19-over-1000-20200322-p54clz

Milner, L., Hing, N., Vitartas, P., & Lamont, M. (2013). An exploratory study of embedded gambling promotion in Australian football television broadcasts. Communication, Politics and Culture, 46, 177-198.

Newall, P. W. S. (2015). How bookies make your money. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(3), 225-231.

Newall, P. W. S. (2017). Behavioral complexity of British gambling advertising. Addiction Research & Theory, 25(6), 505-511.

O’Brien, K., & Iqbal, M. (2019). Extent of, and children and young people’s exposure to, gambling advertising in sport and non-sport TV. Melbourne: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

Pitt, H., Thomas, S. L., Bestman, A., Stoneham, M., & Daube, M. (2016). ‘It’s just everywhere!’ Children and parents discuss the marketing of sports wagering in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 40(5), 480-486.

ResearchAndMarkets (2020). Global online gambling market report 2020-30: COVID-19 growth and change. Retrieved from: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-online-gambling-market-report-2020-30-covid-19-growth-and-change-301063851.html



Reuters. (2020, May 15). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on sports events around the world. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sport-idUSKBN22R38N

Reynolds, R. (2020, April 2). Racing suspended in Tasmania. Racing.com. https://www.racing.com/news/2020-04-02/news-racing-suspended-in-tasmania

Russell, A. M. T., Hing, N., Browne, M., & Rawat, V. (2018a). Are direct messages (texts and emails) from wagering operators associated with betting intention and behaviour? An ecological momentary assessment study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7(4), pp. 1079–1090.

Russell, A. M. T., Hing, N., Browne, M., Li, E., & Vitartas, P. (2018b). Who bets on micro events (microbets) in sports? Journal of Gambling Studies, 35(1), 205-223.

Sproston, K., Hanley, C., Brook, K., Hing, N., & Gainsbury (2015). Marketing of sports betting and racing. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia.

The Guardian. (2020, March 24). Coronavirus and Australian sport – a list of the major cancellations. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/mar/16/coronavirus-and-australian-sport-a-list-of-the-major-cancellations

Thomas, S. L., Bestman, A., Pitt, H., Deans, E., Randle, M. J., Stoneham, M., & Daube, M. (2015). The marketing of wagering on social media: An analysis of promotional content on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. Melbourne: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

Thomas, S. L., Lewis, S., Duong, J., & McLeod, C. (2012a). Sports betting marketing during sporting events: a stadium and broadcast census of Australian Football League matches. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 36(2), 145-152.

Thomas, S. L., Lewis, S., McLeod, C., & Haycock, J. (2012b). ‘They are working every angle’. A qualitative study of Australian adults’ attitudes towards, and interactions with, gambling industry marketing strategies. International Gambling Studies, 12(1), 111-127.



Appendices

Appendix A: Inferential results for comparisons before and after lockdown for exposure to advertisingTables 6 to 9 below show statistical test results for comparisons between before and during the initial lockdown. All but two results were statistically significant, with respondents reporting less frequent exposure to all gambling advertising by channel, gambling form and promotion type during COVID-19 lockdown, compared to before. The exceptions were advertising for loot boxes and skin gambling, which did not differ significantly before and during COVID lockdown, but were very infrequently reported both before and during COVID-19 lockdown.

Table 6: McNemar-Bowker test values for comparisons between exposure to gambling advertising and promotions by channel, before and during lockdown

Channel McNemar-Bowker value df p

On television 261.36 10 <.001

On the radio 177.58 10 <.001

Online or social media 113.65 10 <.001

In print advertising 163.75 10 <.001

On outdoor advertising 273.94 10 <.001

Direct messages 24.46 10 .006

At live sports or racing events 233.48 10 <.001



Table 7: McNemar-Bowker test values for comparisons between exposure to gambling advertising and promotions by gambling form, before and during lockdown

Gambling form McNemar-Bowker value df p

Lotteries/lottos/pools 217.32 10 <.001

Sports betting 412.45 10 <.001

Race betting 150.57 10 <.001

Instant scratchies 71.83 10 <.001

Novelty events 76.80 10 <.001

Keno 89.24 10 <.001

EGMs 76.97 10 <.001

Esports betting 26.25 10 .003

Casino games 60.31 10 <.001

Fantasy sports betting 25.77 10 .004

Bingo 29.11 10 .001

Poker 45.82 10 <.001

Loot boxes 8.64 10 .567

Skin gambling 11.71 10 .305

Table 8: McNemar-Bowker test values for comparisons between exposure to gambling advertising and promotions by promotion type, before and during lockdown

Promotion type McNemar-Bowker value df p

Bonus bets 124.61 10 <.001

Money-back guarantees 131.01 10 <.001

Better odds or winnings 114.82 10 <.001

Sign-up bonuses 116.51 10 <.001

Refer-a-friend bonuses 26.25 10 <.001

Table 9: McNemar-Bowker test values for comparisons between impact of gambling ads on gambling behaviour, before and during lockdown

Variable McNemar-Bowker value df p

Impact of ads on gambling 97.53 10 <.001



Appendix B: Descriptive statistics of survey sampleDescriptive statistics are given below for the whole sample, specifically frequency of gambling on each form in the 12 months before the initial lockdown, whether or not they had gambled online in the 12 months before lockdown, and number of active accounts with operators in the 12 months before lockdown.

Note that most of the sample were Victorian residents. Victorian residents were younger than respondents from other jurisdictions (Spearman’s rho = -.11, p < .001), and were more likely to be female (53.7 per cent compared to 31.3 per cent for residents from other jurisdictions; chi-square (2, N = 2,120) = 73.27, p < .001, phi = .19). Victorian residents reported gambling less frequently on sports (Spearman’s rho = -.14, p < .001) and racing (Spearman’s rho = -.20, p < .001), but more frequently on bingo (Spearman’s rho = .09, p < .001). Effect sizes for these differences are small.

Table 10: Percentage of respondents who had gambled online in the 12 months before lockdown (N = 2,120)

Gambled online in the 12 months before lockdown % of total sample

Yes 62.5

No 37.2

Missing (but had gambled during COVID lockdown, so were still eligible) 0.3

Table 11: Number of accounts with wagering operators in the 12 months before lockdown (N = 2,120)

Number of accounts in the 12 months before lockdown % of total sample

0 50.7

1 27.5

2 10.5

3 3.9

4 1.6

5 2.1

6 or more 3.9



Table 12: Gambling frequency in the 12 months before lockdown by gambling form (N = 2,120)

Gambling form Not at all before

lockdown

Less than once a month

Once a month

2-3 times a month

Once a week

2-3 times a week

4 or more times a week

Purchased instant scratch tickets 44.0% 33.6% 9.2% 5.3% 4.9% 2.2% 0.8%

Purchased lottery, lotto or pools tickets 16.6% 29.6% 12.6% 10.9% 23.2% 5.3% 1.8%

Bet on sporting events 62.5% 14.1% 5.9% 5.2% 5.8% 4.1% 2.5%

Bet on horse, harness or greyhound races 52.5% 20.1% 5.5% 4.4% 6.9% 5.4% 5.2%

Bet on non-sporting events, such as who will win an Academy Award, a political election, or a reality TV show

86.7% 7.2% 2.6% 1.3% 1.2% 0.5% 0.4%

Played bingo 82.7% 9.1% 2.5% 1.7% 2.1% 1.3% 0.6%

Played keno 78.5% 12.4% 3.1% 2.2% 2.3% 1.0% 0.4%

Played poker 83.9% 7.4% 3.1% 1.9% 1.7% 1.4% 0.6%

Played casino games, not including poker (e.g. blackjack, roulette) 77.7% 13.3% 3.7% 2.5% 1.6% 0.6% 0.5%

Played gaming machines, such as pokies 54.8% 24.1% 7.0% 6.1% 4.5% 2.6% 0.8%

Bet on video game competitions, known as esports 91.1% 2.9% 1.7% 1.7% 1.2% 0.9% 0.4%

Bet on fantasy sports 91.4% 2.9% 2.0% 1.5% 1.1% 0.7% 0.5%

Used skins or skin deposits for gambling 93.5% 1.8% 1.3% 1.1% 1.4% 0.6% 0.3%

Purchased loot boxes or loot box keys 92.6% 2.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.3% 0.6% 0.2%



Appendix C: Frequency of seeing advertisements for different gambling forms

Table 13: Frequency of exposure to gambling advertisements and promotions by gambling form - percentages

Gambling form Not at all or once a month or

less

2-3 times a month

Once a week

2-3 times a week

4 or more times a week

Before lockdown - Lotteries/lottos/pools 39.0 17.2 17.9 16.7 9.3

During lockdown - Lotteries/lottos/pools 54.1 10.8 14.7 13.2 7.2

Before lockdown - Sports betting 33.4 11.8 11.3 19.5 24.1

During lockdown - Sports betting 55.7 7.8 8.8 12.5 15.1

Before lockdown - Race betting 43.6 10.5 11.1 16.7 18.2

During lockdown - Race betting 55.6 7.3 8.2 12.9 16.0

Before lockdown - Instant scratchies 71.6 9.5 9.4 6.0 3.4

During lockdown - Instant scratchies 78.9 6.7 7.3 4.5 2.6

Before lockdown - Novelty events 76.7 7.1 6.7 5.5 4.1

During lockdown - Novelty events 84.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.1

Before lockdown - Keno 83.9 6.3 5.1 3.3 1.4

During lockdown - Keno 90.7 2.9 3.3 2.2 0.9

Before lockdown - EGMs 85.8 5.4 4.7 2.8 1.2

During lockdown - EGMs 91.7 2.6 2.4 2.1 1.2

Before lockdown - Esports betting 86.4 4.9 4.1 2.5 2.2

During lockdown - Esports betting 88.8 3.3 3.2 3.0 1.7

Before lockdown - Casino games 86.8 5.5 4.0 2.5 1.3

During lockdown - Casino games 91.5 2.7 2.4 2.1 1.2

Before lockdown - Fantasy sports betting 89.2 4.3 3.5 2.2 0.8

During lockdown - Fantasy sports betting 91.4 2.6 3.2 1.9 0.9

Before lockdown - Bingo 90.0 3.7 3.8 1.6 0.9

During lockdown - Bingo 92.8 2.9 2.3 1.2 0.8

Before lockdown - Poker 90.5 3.6 3.3 1.9 0.7

During lockdown - Poker 93.6 2.2 1.8 1.7 0.7

Before lockdown - Loot boxes 93.8 2.1 2.2 1.2 0.8

During lockdown - Loot boxes 94.2 2.1 1.5 1.4 0.8

Before lockdown - Skin gambling 94.4 1.7 2.1 1.3 0.5

During lockdown - Skin gambling 95.1 1.7 1.6 1.2 0.4

Online magazine

See Inside gambling for the latest information, evidence and expert opinion on gambling issues in

Australia and overseas.

Footy, friends and fun On stigma and how we can tackle it

It’s never too late to give up gambling

Hear from:• public health experts• gambling sector professionals• people with firsthand experience of gambling harm.

Let us know what you’d like to readIf you have ideas for themes or stories for Inside gambling, we would love to hear from you.Visit: insidegambling.com.au/contact-us

Subscribe to Inside gambling FREE! insidegambling.com.au

responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au

CONNECT WITH US ON:vicrgf

responsiblegambling

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation

ResponsibleGambling


RESEARCH REPORT

October 2020

RESEARCH REPORT Gambling advertising and promotions before ...

Documents

Transcript of RESEARCH REPORT Gambling advertising and promotions before ...