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

1. Dynamic warning messages for
electronic gaming machines:
A live trial
Sally Gainsbury & David Aro

2. Warning Messages for Electronic Gaming
Machines
• EGMs recognised as important target for
harm minimisation
• Existing static warning messages are
ineffective
• Dynamic and pop-up messages have
greater recall & impact
• No live trials

3. Trial Goals
Trial Goals:
• Design, implement and evaluate dynamic warnings and cost
of play messages on electronic gaming machines (EGMs).
• To inform broader problem gambling policy:
– Best approaches for:
• Display
• Message content
• Frequency
• Duration
• Format
• Type of delivery

4. Trial Goals
Targets for Warnings:
• Non-Problem / Recreational Gambler
– Minimal impact
– Maintain ‘healthy gambling norms’
– Maintain appropriate spending
• Moderate Gambler
– Messages to resonate with this group
– Positive impact
• Problem Gambler
– Minimal change
– Many complex reasons for addiction level

5. Research Questions
Research Questions:
1. What is an effective suite of messages to communicate relevant
and accurate information to EGM users about odds and statistics,
risks of gambling and self-monitoring behaviour?
2. How can these messages be delivered to encourage responsible
gambling behaviours? What is the most effective format for
delivery?
3. What are the overall findings? What messages where most
effective for different types of gamblers?

6. Trial location

7. Brisbane Clubs & Hotels

8. Message Display
•
•
QCOM 1.5 – Top/bottom
QCOM 1.6 – Middle

9. Venue & Machine Profiles
% of CQCOM machines
80
70
60
50
40
30
% QCOM 1.5
(Top/bottom)
20
% QCOM 1.6 (Middle)
10
0
Large
Club 1
Small
Small
Small
Small
Club Hotel 1 Hotel 2 Hotel 3
Regional
Venue

10. Messages
Developed based on:
• Literature review
• Expert stakeholder consultation
• EGM capabilities
• Linguistic Inquiry software
• Regulatory requirements
• Focus groups with gamblers

11. Messages
• In your opinion, what would be the most
appropriate message to display on an
electronic gaming machine during play?

12. Messages
A total of eight messages, categorised into
two themes, were tested in the trial:

13. Trial methodology
Message presentation
•
4 times per hour for 15 seconds
– Except large club 1, 1 time per hour for 10 seconds
Surveys
Data Period 2013
Month 2 of trial April
(Data Period 1)
Month 4 of trial - June
(Data Period 2)
Month 6 of trial August
(Data Period 3)
Month 8 of trial October
(Data Period 4)
Total
Anticipated Survey
Numbers
Actual Survey
Numbers
300
269
100
150
100
129
100
119
600
667

14. Participants
• 72% male
30
25
20
Consistent with regular EGM
players in QLD population
Problem
Moderate risk
15
10
5
Low risk
Non-problem
0
0
20
40

15. Message recall
Which messages do you think were most commonly recalled?
• Top/bottom
• Middle

16. Message recall
Small venues mostly
displayed top/bottom
messages
90
80
% of respondents
70
60
50
Top/Bottom
40
Middle
30
20
10
0
Large Club 1
Small Club
Regional
Small Pub 1
Venue
Small Pub 2
Small Pub 3

17. Message recall
Which messages do you think were most commonly recalled?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Message
Message
Message
Message
Message
Message
Message
Message
A: Have you spent more than you can afford?
B: Is money all you are losing?
C: Set your limit. Play within it.
D: Only spend what you can afford to lose.
E: Do you need a break? Gamble responsibly.
F: Are you playing longer than planned?
G: A winner knows when to stop gambling.
H: You are responsible for your gambling.

18. Message Free Recall
70
% of respondents
60
Have you spent
more than you
can afford?
50
Do you need to take a
break? Gamble
responsibly.
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
Set your limit.
D
E
Play within it.
Message
F
G
H

19. Message Impact
Which messages do you think were most effective?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Message
Message
Message
Message
Message
Message
Message
Message
A: Have you spent more than you can afford?
B: Is money all you are losing?
C: Set your limit. Play within it.
D: Only spend what you can afford to lose.
E: Do you need a break? Gamble responsibly.
F: Are you playing longer than planned?
G: A winner knows when to stop gambling.
H: You are responsible for your gambling.

20. Message Impact
30
Have you spent
more than you
can afford?
% of respondents
25
Only spend what you
can afford to lose.
20
Even lower
recalled messages
had impact
15
10
High recall, but
low impact
5
0
A
B
C
D
E
Message
F
G
H

21. Message Impact
60
Read, but didn’t
react to
messages
% of respondents
50
40
Immediately
pushed button
to continue
30
Informative
Self-appraisal
20
Thought about money and
time 10
spent & taking a
break, reduced intensity
0
Useful /
beneficial
Neutral
Useless
Frustrating /
annoying
Wanted to keep
playing

22. Message Impact - Enjoyment of Play
90
80
% of respondents
70
60
50
Informative
Self-appraisal
40
30
20
10
0
Significantly Slightly reduced
reduced
Unchanged
Slightly better
Significantly
better

23. Message Impact - Position
60
Middle messages more
useful/beneficial
% of respondents
50
40
30
Middle
Top/Bottom
20
10
0
Useful /
beneficial
Neutral
Useless
Frustrating /
annoying

24. Message Impact – Problem Gambling
Severity
70
% of respondents
60
Non-PGs see
most benefit
Non-problem (n = 66)
Low risk (n = 75)
50
PGs see less
usefulness
40
30
Moderate Risk (n = 51)
Problem (n = 19)
PGs were not
frustrated
20
10
0
Useful /
beneficial
Neutral
For middle messages
Useless
Frustrating /
annoying

25. Mostly
Message Recall by Venue
Mostly
90
80
middle
messages
top/bottom
messages
Messages 4 x
hour, 15
seconds
% of respondents
70
60
50
Top/Bottom
40
Middle
30
Messages 1 x
20
hour, 10
seconds
10
0
Large Club 1
Small Club
Regional
Small Pub 1
Venue
Small Pub 2
Small Pub 3

26. Oct-13
Sep-13
Aug-13
Jul-13
Jun-13
May-13
Apr-13
Mar-13
Feb-13
Jan-13
Dec-12
Nov-12
Oct-12
Sep-12
Aug-12
Jul-12
Jun-12
May-12
Apr-12
Mar-12
Feb-12
Jan-12
Dec-11
Nov-11
Oct-11
Sep-11
Aug-11
Jul-11
Jun-11
May-11
Apr-11
Mar-11
EGM Turnover
No obvious impact of messages on EGM turnover

27. Discussion of Results
• First live trial to specifically investigate dynamic messages
• Messages encourage responsible gambling thoughts &
behaviours
• Messages in middle of screen have greater impact
• Nil negative impacts observed
• Self-appraisal & informative messages effective
• Concepts of affordability has greatest impact

28. Dynamic warning messages for
electronic gaming machines:
A live trial
Conducting a live trial to produce
meaningful results

29. Project Oversight
Trial Coordination Group:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Department of Social Services
Queensland Government
Communio
Clubs Queensland
Queensland Hotels Association
ALH Group
Maxgaming
Odyssey Gaming

30. Trial Preparation
Project Initiation:
• Stakeholder engagement and collaboration
• Venue engagement and enrolment
• Message prescription
Message Development and Testing:
• Message selection constraints
– Regulator
– EGM technical capabilities
– Alignment with Queensland Health campaign requirements

31. Trial Implementation
Intervention Period:
• Six Months
– Trial Go Live - 4th March 2013
– Intervention removal 31st August 2013
– Surveys completed in months 2, 4, 6, & 8
Trial Maintenance:
• Regular communication with venues
• Venue feedback
• Research Assistant feedback

32. What We Would Do Differently
Change to Regulation
•
“Communication Protocol” to enable research
– Message delivery systems
– Consistency between EGMs
– Prescription more reflective of literature
Trial Environment
•
•
Delivery consistent
Geographic zoning
Effect Understood in Wider Context
•
•
•
Behavioural change
Capturing indication of change
Increase longitudinal time frame

33. What Worked Well
Engagement Model:
•
•
•
•
TCG
Venues
Project team
Research Assistants
Project Approach:
•
•
•
•
•
Open
Collaborative
Flexible
Well balanced
Problem solving
–
–
–
–
Identification
Escalation
Solution
Mitigation

34. What Worked Well
Careful Balance Between:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FaHCSIA requirements
Regulation
EGM technical capability
LMO software
Venue requirements
Patron experience
Research requirement

35. Acknowledgments
Research Team:
• Dianne Ball
• Christian Tobar
• Alex Russell
Funding:
• Australian Department of Social Services (Previously
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs)

36. Thank you
• Sally Gainsbury
Sally.gainsbury@gmail.com
• David Aro
David.aro@communio.com.au