Sell division: The use of technology in commercial marketing

Today’s blog is only loosely connected to the types of behaviour that I usually cover but relates to the issue of excessive technological use. However, rather than focusing on the individual, my article today focuses on corporate technological excess, and more specifically the seemingly excessive use of technological marketing. Technology continues to invade almost every area of our lives. Although the advantages of these technologies significantly outweigh the disadvantages, technology is increasingly being used in commercial settings that some citizen’s rights groups claim are exploitative, unethical, and border on the criminal.

Shopping loyalty cards are now an every day part of consumer behaviour. Most people probably don’t stop to think about the reasons behind their introduction but they have the potential to be exploitative. In short, loyalty cards track every purchase a consumer makes over a long period (often years) including the store shopped at, the date and time, and the price paid. The long tracking period allows for monitoring of trends in purchasing. Stores may also record the method of payment, whether the card was swiped or keyed into the till, and the checkout that was used. The supermarkets use these data to categorize customers. In addition to the data provided when the loyalty card was issued, commercial operators can draw conclusions from the address using sophisticated categorization systems. Many companies now use customer relationship marketing software to help make sense and synthesize the information gathered. Ever since they were introduced, underhand uses of loyalty cards have been mooted. As long ago as 1999, the UK Ministry of Agriculture suggested cross checking purchases of genetically modified food with health records, effectively making the cards part of a huge medical experiment. However, the supermarkets declined to take part.

It’s probably a fair assumption to make that the online population views the Internet as much a tool for information gathering and communication as for commercial transactions. The most powerful impacts are social rather than commercial. Just like the companies that run loyalty card schemes, Internet service providers can record when you logged on and off, how many seconds the connection lasted, and the Internet protocol address allocated during the session. They can also compile a detailed e-mail history. This can contain the header information from every e-mail received by the account in the period, the return address provided by the sender, the ISP from which the e-mail originated, the date and the time of the sending, an ID code, and the title of the e-mail. Most people have no idea how much potential there is for invasion of privacy.

There are some areas that are potentially more worrying than others. Take the case of online gambling (that I have covered in previous blogs relating to behavioural tracking). When it comes to gambling, there is a very fine line between providing what the customer wants and exploitation. The gaming industry now sells gambling in much the same way that any other business sells things. On joining Internet gambling sites, players supply lots of information including name, address, telephone number, date of birth, and gender. Internet gambling operators will know the player’s favourite game and the amounts they have wagered. Basically they can track the playing patterns of any gambler. They will know more about the gambler’s playing behaviour than the gamblers themselves. They will be able to send the gambler offers and redemption vouchers, complimentary accounts, etc. All of these things are introduced to supposedly enhance customer experience. Benefits and rewards to the customer include cash, food and beverages, entertainment and general retail. However, more unscrupulous operators are able to entice high spending gamblers (some of which will be problem gamblers) back onto their sites with tailored freebies (such as the inducement of ‘free’ bets and bonuses).

The Internet also appears to be a rapidly growing medium for child-oriented marketing with sites ranging from Pokemon and Barbie to Lego. These sites provide what appears to be a safe environment for children to play in online (and something my own children used to do). Today’s children are computer literate and the Internet empowers them to influence what they want for Christmas or their birthday. However, how ethical is it for businesses to use advertising to pitch to children – individuals who in most other spheres (e.g., voting, sex, legal documents) are treated as incapable of making decisions. Many claim the adverts carry a similar message (i.e., “If you haven’t got this product, you are abnormal”). The aim of most marketing is to sell goods, but adverts aimed at children are designed to get them to pressurize their peers and parents.

A number of years ago, the US Center for Media Education (CME) claimed that advertisers and marketeers exploit children by advertising products on the Internet in ways that manipulate children and violate their privacy. They urged the US Federal Trade Commission to develop safeguards for children and claimed that these advertisements would infringe American regulations that put safeguards on broadcast media like the television. They recommend that there should be no children’s content directly linked to advertising and that direct interaction between children, and that product spokescharacters (such as Kellogs ‘Tony the Tiger’) should not be allowed.

The CME claimed advertisers used a variety of online methods (such as ‘infomercials’) to collect detailed data and compile individual child profiles. This information they claimed, was used to establish direct and intimate relationships with children online. The CME claimed children’s privacy is routinely threatened to encourage children to disclose personal information about themselves and their families with some sites offering gifts and prizes. This technology makes it possible to monitor every interaction between the child and the advertisement allowing firms to create personalized marketing for a child. Again, questions need to be asked about how far advertisers can go and what protection vulnerable groups should have.

Other new technologies are also making an impact – often without the person’s knowledge. For instance, television set top boxes can monitor viewer activities. Those who operate set top boxes say they are doing it in order to develop personalized advertising. However, many claim that Internet video providers should not be able to track and sell information about what you viewers are watching in the privacy of your own home. Companies who use these systems claim they only keep anonymous viewing information. They also stress that their viewers can opt out of the data collection but the reality is that very few do. Perhaps the best way forward is to see the introduction of ‘opt-in’ rather than opt-out clauses.

Given the increasingly sophisticated technology on offer, companies have to do a lot of planning to get most out of their databases. There are two main sorts of database. The first type is a ‘flat file’ databases with information on them, set one after the other. The second type is a ‘relational database’ that can build relationships between different fields of information. For instance, if a company wanted to find a number of customers who had bought a particular product from them in the last month or sort their customers by their address, a flat file database could do those tasks individually whereas relational databases would do it simultaneously. The really creative part (and some might say potentially exploitative and unethical part) in database use starts when companies begin to look seriously at what the information can do for them. This is the stage when companies start to ask intelligent questions about the actual purpose of the information they have gathered.

Over the two decades, customer relationship management (CRM) has become integrated with database management. Companies offer insight into CRM processes that become available when information is managed electronically. Analytical CRM is geared towards understanding a series of interactions with customers over time in activity-based terms, with a view to understanding whether a given customer is profitable to the company and satisfied with the quality of that relationship. For this to work, the company needs in-depth detail on finance, human resources, distribution, and manufacturing so that they know exactly what a customer is costing them. Companies then know whether the customer is worth hanging on to. While the majority of companies may be using CRM for genuine customer enhancement, there are always those who are less scrupulous and may use such information to exploit.

Even a brief examination of how technology is being used in commercial situations demonstrates that the potential for exploitation of the customer is ever present and that such technologies should be monitored closely. Whether any of these practices will be seen as in some way criminal in the future remains to be seen.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Delfabbro, P.H., King, D.L & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Behavioural profiling of problem gamblers: A critical review. International Gambling Studies, 12, 349-366.

Griffiths, M.D. (2003). Exploitation and fraud on the Internet: Some common practices, The Criminal Lawyer, 132, 5-7.

Griffiths, M.D. (2003). Dot cons: Exploitation and Fraud on the Internet (Part 2). The Criminal Lawyer, 134, 3-5.

Griffiths, M.D. (2005).  Exploitative, unethical, criminal? The use of technology in commercial marketing. Justice of the Peace, 169, 916-917.

Griffiths, M.D. (2008). Digital impact, crossover technologies and gambling practices. Casino and Gaming International, 4(3), 37-42.

Griffiths, M.D. (2009). Social responsibility in gambling: The implications of real-time behavioural tracking. Casino and Gaming International, 5(3), 99-104.

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Social responsibility in marketing for online gaming affiliates. i-Gaming Business Affiliate, June/July, p.32.

Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Online behavioural tracking: Identifying problem gambling. World Online Gambling Law Report, 10(5), 10-11.

Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Responsible marketing and advertising of gambling. i-Gaming Business Affiliate, August/September, 50.

Griffiths, M.D. & Whitty, M.W. (2010). Online behavioural tracking in Internet gambling research: Ethical and methodological issues. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3, 104-117.

Zangeneh, M., Griffiths, M.D. & Parke, J. (2008). The marketing of gambling. In Zangeneh, M., Blaszczynski, A., and Turner, N. (Eds.), In The Pursuit Of Winning (pp. 135-153). New York: Springer.

Common markets: Has gambling advertising increased problem gambling in the UK?

Arguably the most noticeable change in the British gambling landscape since the 2005 Gambling Act came into force on September 1, 2007 is the large increase of gambling advertising on television. Prior to September 2007, the only gambling adverts allowed on television were those for National Lottery products, bingo, and the football pools. Back in January 2012, Liberal Democrat MP Tessa Munt told Parliament that there were almost 36 hours a week of gambling adverts on television. She called for a review of the situation by Ofcom (the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries). She asked Prime Minister David Cameron to “please protect consumers, children and the vulnerable from this kind of activity [especially] at a time when we are encouraging people to be moderate in their expectations and behaviour”. The PM acknowledged Munt’s plea and described the issue as “a question of responsibility by the companies concerned. Anyone who enjoys watching a football match will see quite aggressive advertisements on the television, and I think companies have to ask themselves whether they are behaving responsibly when they do that”.

The day-to-day responsibility for enforcing rules about advertising content (and its scheduling) rests with the Advertising Standards Authority. However, for radio and television, the 2005 Gambling Act requires Ofcom to set, review, and revise standards for gambling advertisements in these media. In short, Ofcom is the regulating watchdog for all communications and retains overall responsibility for the advertising rules that gaming operators have to adhere to. Earlier this year, Ofcom commissioned some research to examine the volume, scheduling, frequency and exposure of gambling advertising on British television.

In November 2013, Ofcom finally published their findings research and showed that there had been a 600% increase in gambling advertising in the UK in 2012 compared to 2006 (more specifically there were 1.39 million adverts on television in 2012 compared to 152,000 adverts in 2006). In 2005, the number of televised gambling adverts was 90,000 and rose to 234,000 by 2007, and 537,000 in 2008. The research findings were based on analysis of the Broadcasting Audience Research Board (BARB) viewing data by Zinc Research & Analytics that categorized gambling adverts into one of four types (i.e., online casino and poker services; sports betting; bingo; and lotteries and scratch cards).

The bingo sector had the largest proportion of adverts with bingo adverts accounting for 38.3% of all British gambling adverts (approximately 532,000). Online casino and poker adverts comprised 29.6% of all television gambling advertising (approximately 411,000) with lotteries and scratchcards in third place with 25.6% (approximately 355,000), and sports betting in fourth place with 6.6% (approximately 91,000). The report also reported that gambling adverts accounted for 4.1% of all advertising seen by viewers in 2012 (up from 0.5% in 2006; 1.7% in 2008).

As someone who has written two books on adolescent gambling (see ‘Further reading’ below), one of the more worrying statistics reported was that children under 16 years of age were exposed to an average of 211 gambling adverts a year each (compared to adults who saw an average of 630). I am a firm believer that gambling is an adult activity and that gambling adverts should be shown after the 9pm watershed.

In addition to the relaxation of the laws relating to television advertising, another reason for the large increase in the number of adverts is the increase in the number of digital television channels. Over the time period, he total amount of television advertising airtime doubled from 17.4m to 34.2m spots. The report also highlighted that the 1.39m television adverts for gambling produced 30.9bn ‘impacts’ in 2012 (i.e., the number of times a commercial was seen by viewers) – up from 8 billion in 2006.

So is the large increase in gambling advertising having any effect on gambling and problem gambling? Well, the most recent British Gambling Prevalence Survey (BGPS) published in 2011 showed that 73% of the British adult population (aged 16 years and over) participated in some form of gambling in the past year (equating to around 35.5 million adults). The most popular British gambling activity was playing the National Lottery (59%), a slight increase from the previous BGPS in 2007 (57%). There was an increase in betting on events other than horse races or dog races with a bookmaker (6% in 2007, 9% in 2010), buying scratchcards (20% in 2007, 24% in 2010), gambling online on poker, bingo, casino and slot machine style games (3% in 2007, 5% in 2010) and gambling on fixed odds betting terminals (3% in 2007, 4% in 2010), football pools (3% in 2007, 4% in 2010, 9% in 1999). There were some small but significant decreases in the popularity of slot machines (13% in 2010, 14% in 2007) and online betting (4% in 2007, 3% in 2010). For all other gambling activities, there was either no significant change between survey years or estimates varied with no clear pattern.

Men were more likely to gamble than women overall (75% men; 71% women). Among women, past year gambling increased from 65% in 2007 to 71% in 2010. Among men, past year gambling estimates were higher in 2010 than 2007 (75% and 71% respectively). Perhaps the most noteworthy statistic (particularly in relation to the substantial increase in televised gambling advertising) was that the prevalence of problem gambling was higher in 2010 (0.9%) than in 2007 (0.6%) equating to a 50% increase in problem gambling. One of the possible reasons for this statistically significant increase in problem gambling could well have been the increased exposure to gambling adverts on television.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Banham, M. (2013). Gambling TV ads up nine-fold since laws relaxed. Brand Republic, November 19. Located at: http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/1221494/Gambling-TV-ads-nine-fold-laws-relaxed/

Griffiths, M.D. (1995). Adolescent Gambling. London: Routledge.

Griffiths, M.D. (2002). Gambling and Gaming Addictions in Adolescence. Leicester: British Psychological Society/Blackwells.

Press Association (2012). Gambling adverts soar. November 19. Located at: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/gambling-ads-tv-soar-152721196.html#IPrymtu

Stradbrooke, S. (2011). UK puts TV gambling ads on notice; Ireland blames gambling for suicides. CalvinAyre.com, January 19. Located at: http://calvinayre.com/2012/01/19/business/uk-puts-gambling-tv-ads-on-notice/

Sweney, M. (2013). TV gambling ads have risen 600% since law change. The Guardian, November 19. Located at: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/19/tv-gambling-ads

Wardle, H., Moody. A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R., Jotangia, D., Griffiths, M.D., Hussey, D. and Dobbie, F. (2011).  British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010. London: The Stationery Office.

Wardle, H., Sproston, K., Orford, J., Erens, B., Griffiths, M.D., Constantine, R. and Pigott, S. (2007). The British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007. London: The Stationery Office.

Time out: Are voluntary self-exclusion services about responsible gambling or problem gambling?

Responsible gambling practices have now become the norm within the gaming industry. One of the first types of responsible gambling practice introduced by gaming companies was the introduction of self-exclusion schemes for problem gamblers, particularly in offline casinos. More recently, online gaming companies have begun to introduce self-exclusion schemes. This blog briefly examines the question of whether such schemes should be underpinned by concerns around problem gambling or whether they should be about responsible gambling more generally. This is a particularly important issue for accreditation agencies who typically recommend to online gaming companies very specific periods that online gamblers should be excluded for.

Self-exclusion initiatives are now very common and although these contracts have some value in containing the harms to established problem gamblers, they could certainly be a lot more effective. There is little research demonstrating whether they stop gambling in either the short-term or long-term as exclusion from one or more venues still leaves opportunities to gamble elsewhere. However, a small proportion of problem gamblers appreciate the opportunity to self-exclude and this is clearly a valuable service for them.

In a 2007 report by Dr. Robert Williams and his Canadian colleagues, they noted that the effectiveness of offline self-exclusion programs can be measured in three ways. These are the: (i) utilization rate, (ii) percentage of self-excluders who successfully refrain from entering the gaming venue during the self-exclusion period, and (iii) impact self-exclusion has on overall gambling behaviour. Utilization rates are typically very low across most jurisdictions (0.5% to 7%) although countries with a proactive self-exclusion program (e.g., Holland) are typically much higher.

There has been only a limited amount of research examining how many self-excluders refrain from gambling at a venue where they have excluded themselves. According to researchers like Dr. Robert Ladouceur, typical rates suggest around 20-25% of self-excluders attempt to re-gain access to the gambling venue they excluded themselves from, although higher compliance rates have been reported in Holland. There have been very few empirical reports of whether self-excluders curtail their gambling behaviour. Some studies report that when gamblers have self-excluded from one venue, they simply go and gamble elsewhere.

The most positive evaluation was a 2007 Canadian study published in the Journal of Gambling Studies led by Dr. Ladouceur and colleagues who examined 161 self-excluders. A year later, researchers from the same university (including Dr. Ladouceur) also reported in the Journal of Gambling Studies some success with an ‘improved’ self-exclusion program but the number of self-excluders in the data set (n=39) was very small. After two-year follow-up, most had significant reductions in urge to gamble, the intensity of negative consequences, and pathological gambling scores using the criteria of the American psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Research examining offline self-exclusion has almost exclusively viewed self-exclusion schemes as being about protecting problem gamblers. However, this is not the necessarily the case with online gambling.

Compared to offline self-exclusion, there has been even less research on online self-exclusion schemes. Here, most of the research has examined what online gamblers actually think about self-exclusion schemes and/or their use of them. The Global Online Gambler Survey (led by Dr. Jonathan Parke and published by my International Gaming Research Unit, 2007) collected data from 10,865 online gamblers. The survey specifically asked about the use of online social responsibility tools. Although no single feature stood out as critically important, 58% stated that they considered self-exclusion as ‘quite useful’ (with 23% saying it was ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ useful).

In a 2009 survey of 2,348 online gamblers published in the journal CyberPsychology and Behavior that I and my colleagues carried out (all clientele of the Swedish gaming operator Svenska Spel) examining online social responsibility tools via the PlayScan behavioural tracking system, we reported that a quarter of our sample used PlayScan. Over one-third of respondents (42%) reported the self-exclusion features to be ‘quite useful’ or ‘very useful’. Just under one in five PlayScan users (17%) had actually used one of the self-exclusion features. In a 2010 study of online gamblers published in the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, Dr. Tobias Hayer and Gerhard Meyer carried out a follow-up survey one year after the initiation of self-exclusion with a small sub-sample (n=20). They reported that the restriction of access to a single online gambling site had favourable psychosocial effects.

Despite the limited empirical evidence showing whether self-exclusion schemes are effective, gamblers (particularly those online) appear to appreciate short-term self-exclusion facilities even if they do not have a problem with gambling. For instance, in the 2009 study we carried out, online gamblers reported that the most useful self-exclusion feature was the 7-day self-exclusion rated as ‘quite/very useful’ by just under half of respondents (46%). This was followed by 1-month self-exclusion (24%), 24-hour self-exclusion (24%), and permanent self-exclusion (16%). These types of self-exclusion are likely to be associated with non-problem gamblers who may want to restrict their gambling behaviour to a very specific instance.

Given the (presumed) unproblematic nature of internet gambling among respondents, it was unsurprising that only 16% thought permanent self-exclusion would be useful to them personally. If anything, this might appear to be a slightly higher figure than might have been predicted as it could be argued that non-problem gamblers would be unlikely to make use of a permanent self-exclusion.

As noted above, the seven-day exclusion period was the most useful with almost a half of participants endorsing this as their most favoured. This may have been especially useful for those who do not want to gamble for a particular period such as the week before a monthly ‘pay day’. One-month and one-day self-exclusion periods were most popular for around half the participants (approximately 25% each). These types of self-exclusion are more likely to be associated with non-problem gamblers who may want to restrict their gambling behaviour to a very specific instance such as preceding a night of heavy drinking (e.g., 24-hour self-exclusion) or a particular time of the year like the run up to Christmas (e.g., one-month self-exclusion).

Overall, these results suggest that self-exclusion is not a tool for problem gamblers but more generally a tool for responsible gambling This is particularly important point to bear in mind for those agencies that currently accredit online gaming companies in relation to socially responsible practices and procedures. For instance, GamCare will not accredit online gaming companies unless there is a minimum 6-month online exclusion facility. The empirical evidence outlined above clearly shows that short-term self-exclusion options of less than six months are beneficial to online gamblers. Therefore, accreditation agencies need to base their recommendations about self-exclusion on empirical evidence and what is most useful to online gamblers.

Any online gaming company should allow gamblers the opportunity to self-exclude themselves from their gambling site for any period whether it is one day, one week, one month or one year. Compared to offline schemes, online self-exclusion is relatively easy to introduce, and should run for the period requested by the gambler and not an arbitrary limit set by an accreditation agency.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Self-exclusion services for online gamblers: Are they about responsible gambling or problem gambling? World Online Gambling Law Report, 11(6), 9-10.

Griffiths, M.D., Wood, R.T.A. & Parke, J. (2009). Social responsibility tools in online gambling: A survey of attitudes and behaviour among Internet gamblers. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12, 413-421.

Hayer, T. & Meyer, G. (2010). Internet self-exclusion: Characteristics of self-excluded gamblers and preliminary evidence for its effectiveness. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9, 296-307

International Gaming Research Unit (2007). The global online gambling report: An exploratory investigation into the attitudes and behaviours of internet casino and poker players. Report for eCOGRA (e-Commerce and Online Gaming Regulation and Assurance).

Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., Girous, I., Ferland, F., & LeBlond, J. (2000). Analysis of a casino’s self-exclusion program. Journal of Gambling Studies, 16, 453-460.

Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Gosselin, P. (2007). Self-exclusion program: A longitudinal evaluation study. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23, 85-94.

O’Neil, M., Whetton, S., Doman, B., Herbert, M., Giannopolous, V., OíNeil, D., & Wordley, J. (2003). Part A – Evaluation of self-exclusion programs in Victoria and Part B – Summary of self-exclusion programs in Australian States and Territories. Melbourne: Gambling Research Panel.

Steinberg, M., & Velardo, W. (2002). Preliminary evaluation of a casino self-exclusion program. Paper presented at the Responsible Gambling Council of Ontarioís Discovery 2002 Conference, April 2002, Niagara Falls, Canada.

Tremblay, N., Boutin C. & Ladouceur, R. (2008). Improved self-exclusion program: Preliminary results. Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 505–518

Williams, R.J., Simpson, R.I. and West, B.L. (2007). Prevention of problem gambling. In G. Smith, D. Hodgins & R. Williams (Eds.), Research and Measurement Issues in Gambling Studies. pp.399-435. New York: Elsevier.

Stats entertainment (Part 2): A 2013 review of my personal blog

My last blog of 2013 was not written by me but was prepared by the WordPress.com stats helper. I thought a few of you might be interested in the kind of person that reads my blogs. I also wanted to wish all my readers a happy new year and thank you for taking the time to read my posts.

Here’s an excerpt:

The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about 860,000 times in 2013. If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum, it would take about 37 days for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Care in the (gaming) community: Social responsibility and the videogame industry

In recent years, the problematic use of online videogames has received increased attention not only from the media, but also from psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health organizations and gamers themselves. A number of studies from different cultures are providing evidence that somewhere around 7 to 11% of gamers seem to be having real problems to the point that they are considered pathological gamers. In extreme cases, some gamers are reported to have been playing for 40, 60, and even 90 hours in a single gaming session.

While it may be difficult to distinguish between a healthy and unhealthy usage of online videogames, there is sufficient evidence to describe some excessive gaming as problematic and/or addictive when it pervades and disrupts other aspects of life making it an issue worthy of extensive investigation. In some cases this leads to symptoms commonly experienced by substance addicts, namely salience, mood modification, craving and tolerance. Research suggests that some gamers are struggling to keep their playing habits under control and consequently compromise their academic achievement, real-life relationships, family relationships, physical health, and psychological wellbeing.

Despite a decade of research, there is significant disagreement on whether pathological gaming can be conceptualized as an impulse control disorder and/or a behavioural addiction such as pathological gambling. While acknowledging the potential for some gamers to engage in pathological use, most researchers argue in favour of creating an official diagnosis for pathological gaming. However, others disagree and advise caution about the potential for exaggeration of a real but uncommon problem. As well as the divergence of opinions in the scholarly community, there is insufficient evidence to reach any definitive conclusions or an operational definition of pathological gaming, its diagnosis criteria and prevalence. While the academic debate is likely to continue for a while, it is clear that for a small minority of gamers, pathological gaming leads to negative life consequences.

Against this backdrop, comparable with the cautionary health messages on tobacco and alcohol packaging, warning messages about risk of overuse have recently started to appear on the loading screens of popular online games. For example:

• World of Warcraft – ‘Take everything in moderation (even World of Warcraft)’ and ‘Bring your friends to Azeroth, but don’t forget to go outside of Azeroth with them as well’;
• Final Fantasy XI – ‘Exploring Vana’diel is a thrilling experience. During your time here, you will be able to talk, join, and adventure with many other individuals in an experience that is unique to online games. That being said, we have no desire to see your real life suffer as a consequence. Don’t forget your family, your friends, your school, or your work.’

These and similar warning messages raise the question of why the online videogame industry warns its players not to overuse their product. Does the videogame industry really believe that their products have addictive features that can lead to negative consequences and the functional impairment of gamers’ lives? This leads to the important issue of whether the giving of such messages by online videogame companies means they have done enough to fulfil their social responsibility or do they have they a wider role to play? Furthermore, these warning messages suggest that the online videogame industry knows how high the percentage of over-users is, how much time gamers’ spend playing, and what specific features makes a particular game more engrossing and addictive than others. While they do not directly admit this, by showing these warning messages, they do take some responsibility into their own hands.

Companies in the online video games sector have started to face criticism around the addictive and problematic nature of the use involved with certain online games and their violent content, suggesting that it is a controversial industry. Gaining broader societal acceptance has become a critical factor for companies in controversial industries where failure to meet stakeholders’ societal expectations result in their legitimacy being challenged. Unlike the gambling industry, which has a long history of forced governmental regulation and in which CSR has become a crucial issue, the online videogame industry has, by and large to date, escaped governmental action. However, there are some isolated examples of governmental interventions. For example, China introduced controls to deter people from playing online videogames for longer than three hours, while Thailand’s government banned Grand Theft Auto 4 when a student murdered a taxi driver while trying to recreate a scene from the game ‘to see if it was as easy as in the game’. In addition, the Australian classification board refused the original version of Fallout 3 due to the high level of realistic drug use thus forcing its developer Bethesda Softworks to release a censored version.

In the USA, the sales of ‘Mature’ (M) or ‘Adults Only’ (AO) rated games to minors has been an issue of much concern to public officials, and the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act introduced to the US House of Representatives requires an ID check for M- and AO-rated game purchases (US Congress, 2006). The majority of game publishers have decided to get controversial games rated by voluntary rating systems. For example, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) rates games in the USA and Canada, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) in the UK, and the Pan European Game Information (PEGI) in Europe. While the ESRB and PEGI ratings are not legally binding, the BBFC ratings are backed up by the British law, thus making it illegal to sell the game to anyone under the indicated age. Few publishers in the online videogame industry have attempted to develop and sell a game with the strictest ESRB rating of AO. While rating systems are helpful, a study commissioned by the UK games industry found that parents let their children play games with adult or 18+ ratings, because they perceived age ratings as a guide but not as a definite prohibition.

Online videogame developers and publishers need to look into the structural features of the game design, for example, character development, rapid absorption rate, and multi-player features, that make them addictive and/or problematic for some gamers. This undertaking falls mainly on the game developers as they hold the codes for making the games less addictive. For example, long quests can be shortened to minimize the time spent in the game to obtain a certain prized item. Blizzard Entertainment, the makers of World of Warcraft, introduced some down-tuning of hardcore game-play mechanisms that encouraged excessive gaming. Initially, a symbolic and unique in-game title was rewarded to players who progress their character to the maximum level of 80 fastest. However, after several pages of forum debate in which players expressed their concern, an official Blizzard representative announced the removal of the title from the game.

Many games make use of variable ratio reinforcement schedules, which provides a very intense experience, thus increasing the addictiveness of the virtual world. Although, the potentially addictive design features of MMORPGs might not be intentional there is an obligation on the developers to consider ways of limiting harm. One way of doing this can be for developers to make design changes on time limits as many gamers schedule and plan according to the in-game periods of time. For example, long quests could be shortened, the amount of experience points needed to reach the next level could be lowered, spawns could be timed to appear more frequently to give gamers increased chances of receiving specifically wanted items and by speeding the processes of difficult task, gamers will be able to leave the game much earlier after completing their tasks. Implementing these changes to MMORPGs would show that game developers are taking CSR seriously and that they are concerned with more than revenue.

In terms of effective care policies for the gamers, the most observable act until now by the online videogame publishers is the initiation of warning messages. Through these messages, the industry is seemingly addressing CSR in the area of excessive use of videogames, albeit to a rather limited extent. Furthermore, some games (such as WoW) have a parental mode that allows parents to restrict playing time for their children.

Online videogame publishers should make provision for suitable referral services. Presently, they provide neither referral services nor customer care with regard to videogame addiction. Although the time constraints policies applied in China might not be a viable option in Europe, companies can potentially identify from their databases extreme or problematic gamers who are spending an excessive amount of time in the game and offer them contact information for a referral service in their country. Empirical evidence from the gambling industry suggests that similar initiatives and other social-responsibility tools are appreciated by players. There is also recent empirical evidence from the gambling studies field that the setting of time limits helps the most gaming intense players the most. In the context of online gambling, I have suggested that it is not the gaming industry’s responsibility to treat gamblers but it is their responsibility to provide referrals for problem gamblers to specialist helping agencies. I have argued that it is better for the industry to refer their problem customers to online help that offers a high degree of anonymity (as this is preferred by online gamblers). This is an important finding for the online videogame industry to take on board, as it seems that it is not currently taken into consideration in their CSR practices. Online videogame companies need to take social responsibility for the extreme and problematic usage of their products. The proportion of gamers who develop problems and/or become addicts may stay roughly constant but as online videogames get better and better, and increasing numbers of people discover them, the number of addicts is most probably going to rise.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Additional input: Dr. Shumaila Yousafzai and Dr. Zaheer Hussain

Further reading

Auer, M., & Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Voluntary limit setting and player choice in most intense online gamblers: An empirical study of gambling behaviour. Journal of Gambling Studies, DOI 10.1007/s10899-012-9332-y.

Cai, Y., Jo, H., & Pan, C. (2012). Doing well while doing bad? CSR in controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 467–480.

Ferguson, C. J., Coulson, M., & Barnett, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of pathological gaming prevalence and comorbidity with mental health, academic and social problems. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45, 1573–1578.

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Age ratings on video games: Are the effective? Education and Health, 28, 65-67.

Griffiths, M.D., & Meredith, A. (2009). Videogame addiction and treatment. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 39, 47-53.

Griffiths. M.D., Wood, R.T.A. (2008). Responsible gaming and best practice: How can academics help? Casino and Gaming International, 4(1), 107–112.

Griffiths, M.D., Wood, R.T.A. & Parke, J. (2009). Social responsibility tools in online gambling: A survey of attitudes and behaviour among Internet gamblers. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12, 413-421.

Griffiths, M.D., Wood, R.T.A., Parke, J. & Parke, A. (2007). Gaming research and best practice: Gaming industry, social responsibility and academia. Casino and Gaming International, 3(3), 97-103.

Hussain, Z., Griffiths, M.D. & Baguley, T. (2012).Online gaming addiction: classification, prediction and associated risk factors. Addiction Research & Theory 20(5), 359-371.

King, D.L., Delfabbro, P.H. & Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Video game structural characteristics: A new psychological taxonomy. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8, 90-106.

King, D.L., Haagsma, M.C.^, Delfabbro, P.H.,Gradisar, M.S.& Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Toward a consensus definition of pathological video-gaming: A systematic review of psychometric assessment tools. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 331-342.

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Online gaming addiction: A systematic review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 10, 278-296.

Porter, G., Starcevic, V., Berle, D., & Fenech , P. (2010). Recognizing problem video game use. Australia Newzealad Journal of Psychiatry, 44(2),120 –128.

Van Rooij, A., Meerkerk, G., Schoenmakers, T., Griffiths, M., & van de Mheen, D. (2010). Video game addiction and social responsibility. Addiction Research & Theory, 18(5): 489-493.

Yousafzai, S.Y., Hussain, Z. & Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Social responsibility in online videogaming: What should the videogame industry do? Addiction Research and Theory, DOI: 10.3109/16066359.2013.812203

Risky businesses: Why should employers have a ‘gambling at work’ policy?

Most of us work in organizations that have policies on behaviours such as drinking alcohol and cigarette smoking. However, very few companies have a ‘gambling at work’ policy. One problem gambler in a position of financial trust can bring down a whole organization – Nick Leeson being a case in point when he single-handedly brought down Barings Bank). Leeson’s (albeit somewhat extreme) antics demonstrate that organisations need to acknowledge that gambling with company money can be disastrous for the company if things go horribly wrong. While no company expects an employee gambling to bring about their collapse, Leeson’s case does at least highlight gambling as an issue that companies ought to think about in terms of risk assessment.

Gambling is a popular leisure activity and recent national surveys into gambling participation show that around two-thirds of adults gamble annually and that problem gambling affects just under 1% of the British population. There are a number of socio-demographic factors associated with problem gambling. These included being male, having a parent who was or who has been a problem gambler, being single, and having a low income. Other research shows that those who experience unemployment, poor health, housing, and low educational qualifications have significantly higher rates of problem gambling than the general population.

It is clear that the social and health costs of problem gambling can be large on both an individual and societal level. Personal costs can include irritability, extreme moodiness, problems with personal relationships (including divorce), absenteeism from work, family neglect, and bankruptcy. There can also be adverse health consequences for both the problem gambler and their partner including depression, insomnia, intestinal disorders, migraines, and other stress-related disorders.

For most people, gambling is not a serious problem and in some cases may even be of benefit in team building and/or creating a collegiate atmosphere in the workplace (e.g., National Lottery syndicates, office sweepstakes). However, for those whose gambling starts to become more of a problem, it can affect both the organisation and other work colleagues. Typically problem gambling at work can lead to many negative “warning signs” such as misuse of time, mysterious disappearances, long lunches, late to work, leaving early from work, unusual vacation patterns, unexplained sick leave, internet and telephone misuse, etc. However, new forms of gambling, such as gambling via the internet or mobile phones at work, means that many of these warning signs are unlikely to be picked up. However, just because problem gambling is difficult to spot does not mean that managers should not include it in risk assessments and/or planning procedures. Listed below are some practical steps that can be taken to help minimise the potential problem.

• Take the issue of gambling seriously. Gambling (in all its many forms) has not been viewed as an occupational issue at any serious level. Managers, in conjunction with Human Resources Departments need to ensure they are aware of the issue and the potential risks it can bring to both their employees and the whole organisation. They also need to be aware that for employees who deal with finances, the consequences for the company should that person be a problem gambler can be very great.
• Raise awareness of gambling issues at work. This can be done through e-mail circulation, leaflets, and posters on general notice boards. Most countries (including the UK) have national and /or local gambling agencies that can supply useful educational literature (including posters). Telephone numbers for these organisations can usually be found in most telephone directories.
• Ask employees to be vigilant. Problem gambling at work can have serious repercussions not only for the individual but also for those employees who befriend a problem gambler, and the organisation itself. Fellow staff members need to know the signs and symptoms of problem gambling. Employee behaviours such as asking to borrow money all the time might be indicative of a gambling problem.
• Give employees access to diagnostic gambling checklists. Make sure that any literature or poster within the workplace includes a self-diagnostic checklist so that employees can check themselves to see if they might have (or be developing) a gambling problem.
• Check internet “bookmarks” of your staff. In some jurisdictions across the world, employers can legally access the e-mails and internet content of their employees. One of the easiest checks is to simply look at an employee’s list of “bookmarked” websites. If they are gambling on the internet regularly, internet gambling sites are almost certainly likely to be bookmarked.
• Develop a “Gambling at Work” policy. As mentioned at the start of this blog, many organisations have policies for behaviours such as smoking or drinking alcohol in the workplace. Employers should develop their own gambling policies by liaison between Human Resource Services and local gambling agencies. A risk assessment policy in relation to gambling would also be helpful.
• Give support to identified problem gamblers.  Most large organisations have counselling services and other forms of support for employees who find themselves in difficulties. Problem gambling needs to be treated sympathetically (like other more bona fide addictions such as alcoholism). Employee support services must also be educated about the potential problems of workplace gambling.

Problem gambling can clearly be a hidden activity and the growing availability of internet gambling and mobile phone gambling is making it easier to gamble from the workplace. Thankfully, it would appear that for most people, gambling is not a serious problem. For those whose gambling starts to become more of a problem, it can affect both the organisation and other work colleagues (and in extreme cases cause major problems for the company as a whole). Managers clearly need to have their awareness of this issue raised, and once this has happened, they need to raise awareness of the issue among the work force. Gambling is a social issue, a health issue and an occupational issue. Although not high on the list for most employers, the issues highlighted here suggest that it should at least be on the list somewhere.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (2002). Internet gambling in the workplace. In M. Anandarajan & C. Simmers (Eds.). Managing Web Usage in the Workplace: A Social, Ethical and Legal Perspective. pp. 148-167. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Idea Publishing.

Griffiths, M.D.  (2002).  Occupational health issues concerning Internet use in the workplace. Work and Stress, 16, 283-287.

Griffiths, M.D. (2004). Betting your life on it: Problem gambling has clear health related consequences. British Medical Journal, 329, 1055-1056.

Griffiths, M. D. (2006). Pathological gambling. In T. Plante (Ed.), Abnormal Psychology in the 21^st Century (pp. 73-98). New York: Greenwood.

Griffiths, M.D. (2009). Internet gambling in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21, 658-670.

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Internet abuse and internet addiction in the workplace. Journal of Worplace Learning, 7, 463-472.

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). The hidden addiction: Gambling in the workplace. Counselling at Work, 70, 20-23.

Wardle, H., Moody. A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R., Jotangia, D., Griffiths, M.D., Hussey, D. & Dobbie, F. (2011).  British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010. London: The Stationery Office.

Gaming desire: Online behavioural tracking in Facebook

In a previous blog I examined how researchers in the gambling studies field are using online behavioural tracking data to study excessive gambling. However, online tracking data is used all the time in lots of contexts by lots of companies to better understand human behaviour. Most people view the internet as a very anonymous medium but rest assured, someone, somewhere, is monitoring everything you do online. The internet is the most non-anonymous place I can possibly think of.

Data from online environments provide potential advantages to many sectors (particularly those in the fields of marketing and advertising). This is because every click and transaction of every customer is automatically stored in a database and provides very high data quality for those who know what to do with it. This is very much in contrast to market surveys where such data have to be gathered at high costs, with lots of manual work involved, and may be prone to error. Within my own gambling studies field, a number of different teams across the world (including my own) have now been given access to behavioural tracking data of gamblers. Such data include:

• Account data (i.e., general information about each player) including user ID, date of birth, gender, other demographic data (if available), and geographic data (e.g., postal codes).
• Game data (for each player) including game ID, game type (if available), amount of winnings, amount of money spent, number of bets/spins (or equivalent), chasing behaviour, bonus usage, and session time.
• Financial data (for each player, and game, if applicable) including the number and amount of deposits, the number of money withdrawals, and the number of accounts.
• Responsible gaming limit data (i.e., time, spending, etc) for each player, and game (if applicable) including current time and spend limits, changes of limits, and the number of limit strikes (i.e., when players reach their pre-determined limit for deposits or time.).
• Miscellaneous data for each player (and game if applicable) including the length of playing session, login information, number of ‘cool-off periods’ (when players lock themselves out of their accounts for pre-defined periods of time), and any other data that might be relevant or of interest.

Many of these types of data are also held by those who operate games via social networking sites and could potentially be used for research purposes. Online social networking sites (e.g., Facebook) typically collect two types of information. These are (i) personal details provided by a user (e.g., name, email address, telephone number, address, gender and schools attended, etc.) and (ii) usage data collected automatically as the user clicks from one webpage to another (e.g., how users access the site, type of web browser used, time spent logged onto the site, etc.). Other day-to-day types of data collected from social network users include:

• The IP address used every time a user logs on to the social networking site.
• Every friend request a user has ever received and how they responded.
• A list of all users’ family and friends (including relationship status)
• Every pressing of ‘Like’ that a user has used on a wide variety of topics and events.
• Credit card information, if the user ever purchased credits or advertising on the social networking site.
• Every poke a user has exchanged (including both pokes made by the user on someone else and a record of all the times a user has been poked).
• Every event a user has been invited to through via the networking site and how they responded.
• Dates of user name changes and historical privacy settings changes.
• Photographs of life events and camera metadata including time stamps and latitude/longitude of picture location, as well as tags from photos – even if users have untagged them.
• The last known physical location of the user, with latitude, longitude, time/date, altitude, and more.
• A history of every private and public message and chat on the social networking site.
• Lists of every song the user has listened to online and every article that they have read.

Almost any variable (beyond the usual demographic ones such as age, gender, education, relationship status, etc.) could be examined as a risk and/or protective factor in the context of social gaming (e.g., Is the number of credit cards registered related to time and/or money spent on social gaming? How often does a person access a social game following the recommendation of another person? Does the type of social gaming differ by geographical location of where the user logged on? Does poking facilitate social gaming?). Facebook currently stores up to 800 pages of data on each of its users.

It has also been revealed that some social networking sites (e.g., Facebook) collect data from users who have logged out (usually – say the company – “for security purposes”) through the use of ‘cookies’. Cookies relay information from any site a user visits that contains a link to the social networking site such as a ‘like’ button.  With these data, the company can map out any users more general web usage.

Access to such data sets may provide insights into a number of important areas such as transitions from social gaming to social gambling, and how social gaming might be integrated with other online behaviours (such as gambling). However, other types of research are also needed including longitudinal studies so that people can be tracked over time (either via behavioural tracking and/or surveys), and more detailed qualitative work (interviews and focus groups) with different player types (e.g., regular and/or problematic gamblers/social gamers).

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Delfabbro, P.H., King, D.L & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Behavioural profiling of problem gamblers: A critical review. International Gambling Studies, 12, 349-366.

Griffiths, M.D. (2003). Internet gambling: Issues, concerns and recommendations. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 6, 557-568.

Griffiths, M.D. (2009). Social responsibility in gambling: The implications of real-time behavioural tracking. Casino and Gaming International, 5(3), 99-104.

Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Social gambling via Facebook: Further observations and concerns. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 17, 104-106.

Griffiths, M.D. & Parke, J. (2002). The social impact of internet gambling. Social Science Computer Review, 20, 312-320.

Griffiths, M.D. & Whitty, M.W. (2010). Online behavioural tracking in Internet gambling research: Ethical and methodological issues. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3, 104-117.

Griffiths, M.D. & Wood, R.T.A. (2008). Gambling loyalty schemes: Treading a fine line? Casino and Gaming International, 4(2), 105-108.

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Online social networking and addiction: A literature review of empirical research. International Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 8, 3528-3552.

Track to the future: Online behavioural tracking and problem gambling

Almost everyone reading this will be aware that problem gambling lies towards one end of a continuum that ranges from non-gambling at one end through to pathological gambling at the other. However, it should also be noted that there will always be some behaviours that are typically engaged in by problem gamblers that some non-problem gamblers may also engage in at least occasionally (e.g., chasing behaviour when gamblers try to recoup their losses).

Worldwide, there are many different screening instruments that can be used by clinicians and researchers to help identify problem gambling. One of most regularly used is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition (of which the fifth edition has just been published) that includes criteria that can aid the diagnosis of problem and pathological gambling (but now called disordered gambling in its latest incarnation). The previous (DSM-IV) criteria were used in the most recent British Gambling Prevalence Survey published in 2011. If a person answered positively to at least five of the criteria, a diagnosis of pathological gambling would be made whereas endorsement of three or four of the criteria would indicate a diagnosis of problem gambling. Using the DSM-IV, the latest BGPS reported a problem gambling rate of 0.9% among British adults.

In contrast to offline gambling, the use of online behavioural tracking presents an opportunity for researchers to examine the actual and real-time behaviour engaged in by gamblers. Analysis of behavioural tracking data has been carried out by various groups of researchers. For instance, one group affiliated to Harvard University have published a series of papers examining a data set of online gamblers provided by the bwin gaming company. My own research unit has also been publishing data using behavioural tracking data provided by the win2day gaming company.

During my consultancy for various online gaming companies, I have been informed by industry insiders that problem gambling can be identified online by examining the patterns and behaviours of online gamblers. If this is true, it has implications for current problem gambling screens (including the new DSM-V). This is because most criteria found in these screens are associated with the consequences of problem gambling rather than the gambling behaviour itself. Take the DSM-IV. I have argued that only a few of the behaviours in the DSM criteria for pathological gambling can be reliably spotted online using online behavioural tracking (the most obvious being chasing losses, salience/preoccupation, and tolerance). The following list highlights each of the DSM-IV questions for pathological gambling and the component of pathological gambling that each criterion is assessing. This is followed by an assessment as to what extent each criterion can be identified online.

• Salience/Preoccupation (Do you find that you are becoming preoccupied with past gambling successes or find yourself spending increasingly more time planning future gambling?) – An online problem gambler is likely to spend a lot of time gambling online although this behaviour in itself does not necessarily indicate a problem. Anything above four hours daily play over a protracted period could be considered excessive although some forms of online gambling (e.g., online poker) may take up a lot of time and be played relatively inexpensively.
• Tolerance (Do you find that you need to increase the amount of money you gamble to achieve the same enjoyment and excitement?) – If experiencing tolerance to gambling, an online problem gambler is likely to have changed their gambling behaviour in one of two ways over time. The first example of tolerance is a gradual increase of daily play in terms of time. For instance, the gambler might start off playing 30-60 minutes a day but over the course of a few months starts to play increasing amounts of time. The second example of tolerance is the act of gambling using gradually bigger stakes over time. An online problem gambler is more likely to experience both of these combined (i.e., gambling for longer and longer periods of time with bigger and bigger amounts of money).
• Relapse (Have you recently tried to stop gambling but were unsuccessful?) – Although this is difficult to detect with absolute certainty online, a typical pattern would be a gambler who gambles heavily, day-in day-out, for a period of time and then “disappears” for a period of time (which could be days, weeks, and sometimes even months), only to suddenly re-appear and gamble heavily again.
• Withdrawal  (Do you become moody or impatient when you are cutting down how much you gamble?) – This is again difficult to detect with absolute certainty online but is most likely to surface with the use of verbally aggressive comments in those games that have chat room facilities (such as online poker).
• Escape from reality (Do you ever use gambling a way of ignoring stress in your in life or even pick you up when you feel down?) – This is almost impossible to detect online although those players who play for long hours every day are more likely to experience escape-like feeling.
• Chasing losses (Do you ever try to win back the money you lost by increasing the size or frequency of your wagers?) – This is one of the key indicators of problem gambling and can be spotted online more easily than many other problem gambling criteria. Typical chasing patterns will include repeated ‘double or quit’ strategies in an effort to recoup losses. Although many gamblers use this strategy on occasion, the online problem gambler will do it repeatedly. This behaviour, above and beyond any other criteria, is most likely to signal problem gambling.
• Conceal Involvement (Do you ever hide how much or how often you gamble from significant others?) – There is no way that an online gambling operator can spot this during online gambling unless such admissions are given to other players in online chat rooms.
• Unsociable Behaviour (Have you ever committed fraud or theft to get money to gamble with?) – Again, there is no way that an online gambling operator can spot this during online gambling unless such admissions are given to other players in online chat rooms.
• Ruin a Relationship/Opportunity (Has gambling ever ruined a personal relationship or an occupational or educational opportunity?) – As with the previous two criteria, there is no way that an online gambling operator can spot this during online gambling unless such admissions are given to other players in online chat rooms.
• Bail-out  (Have you ever needed others to relieve a financial problem created by gambling?) – When an online gambler has exhausted all their own funds, they will often ‘beg, borrow and (eventually) steal’ money to continue gambling. A player whose account is constantly ‘topped up’ by people other than themselves may be a problem gambler.

This brief analysis of the extent to which each DSM criterion of problem gambling can be identified online shows that only a few behaviours can be reliably spotted via online behavioural tracking. The following list contains a number of behaviours that are engaged in by online problem gamblers. This was devised and based on my conversations with members of online gaming industry. These are additional to those identified above (i.e., chasing losses, spending high amounts of time and money, and increasing the amount of gambling over time). As a general ‘rule of thumb’, it is assumed that the more of these online behaviours that are engaged in by an individual, the more likely that person is to be a problem gambler.

• Playing a variety of stakes – Playing a variety of different stakes (in games like online poker) indicates poor planning and may be a cue or precursor to chasing behaviour.
• Playing a variety of games – Evidence from national prevalence surveys (e.g. Wardle et, al, 2011) demonstrates that the more types of gambling engaged in, the more likely the person is to be a problem gambler. Although this factor on its own is unlikely to indicate problem gambling, when combined with other indicators on this list may be indicative of problem gambling.
• Player ‘reload’ within gambling session – Although any gambler can engage in such behaviour, players who deposit more money within session (‘reload’) are more likely to be problem gamblers. This indicates poor planning and is a cue to chasing behaviour.
• Frequent payment method changes – The constant changing of deposit payment methods indicates poor planning and is may be a cue to chasing behaviour. This online behaviour usually indicates shortage of funds and need to extract monies from a variety of sources. Such behaviour can also indicate bank refusal.
• Verbal aggression – Aggressive verbal interaction via relay chat is common among problem gamblers although any gambler losing money may cause such behaviour. Such behaviour may be evidence of gamblers going on ‘tilt’ (i.e., negative cognitive and emotional reaction to losing) or withdrawal effects if out of money to gamble.
• Constant complaints to customer services – Constant complaints to the customer service department is common among problem gamblers although any gambler losing money may cause such behaviour. As with verbal aggression, such behaviour may be evidence of gamblers going on ‘tilt’ (i.e., negative cognitive and emotional reaction to losing).

Clearly, each of these behaviours needs to be examined in relation to at least three or four other indicative behaviours. Perhaps most importantly, and according to online gambling companies who use socially responsible behavioural tracking tools, it is a significant change in usual online behaviour that is most indicative of a problem gambler. Most statistical modelling of player behaviour predicts future problematic behaviour on the basis of behavioural change over time. The behaviours highlighted suggest that screening instruments in the future may be able to be developed that concentrate on the gambling behaviour itself, rather than the associated negative consequences.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Auer, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2013). Limit setting and player choice in most intense online gamblers: An empirical study of online gambling behaviour. Journal of Gambling Studies, in press.

Auer, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2013). An empirical investigation of theoretical loss and gambling intensity. Journal of Gambling Studies, in press.

Delfabbro, P.H., King, D.L & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Behavioural profiling of problem gamblers: A critical review. International Gambling Studies, 12, 349-366.

Dragicevic, S., Tsogas, G., & Kudic, A. (2011). Analysis of casino online gambling data in relation to behavioural risk markers for high-risk gambling and player protection. International Gambling Studies, 11, 377–391.

Griffiths, M.D. (2009). Social responsibility in gambling: The implications of real-time behavioural tracking. Casino and Gaming International, 5(3), 99-104.

Griffiths, M.D. & Auer, M. (2011). Approaches to understanding online versus offline gaming impacts. Casino and Gaming International, 7(3), 45-48.

Griffiths, M.D. & Whitty, M.W. (2010). Online behavioural tracking in Internet gambling research: Ethical and methodological issues. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3, 104-117.

LaBrie, R.A., Kaplan, S., LaPlante, D.A., Nelson, S.E., & Shaffer, H.J. (2008). Inside the virtual casino: A prospective longitudinal study of Internet casino gambling. European Journal of Public Health, DOI:10.1093/eurpub/ckn021.

LaPlante, D.A., Kleschinsky, J.H., LaBrie, R.A., Nelson, S.E. & Shaffer, H.J. (2009). Sitting at the virtual poker table: A prospective epidemiological study of actual Internet poker gambling behavior. Computers in Human Behavior 25, 711-717.

Wardle, H., Moody, A., Spence, S., Orford, J., Volberg, R., Jotangia, D., Griffiths, M., Hussey, D. & Dobbie, F. (2011). British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010. London: The Stationery Office.

Mind the App: The psychosocial impact of gambling applications

Most regular gamblers will be well aware that technology is revolutionizing the way they can gamble and access gambling. One of the most notable innovations has been the proliferation of various gambling applications (‘apps’) for smartphones and computer tablets. A majority of the British bookmakers have launched sports betting apps including Betfred Mobile Sportsbook, William Hill iPhone, Ladbrokes Mobile, Betfair iPhone Client, and Paddy Power Mobile. Most of the apps allow sports bettors to gamble via their mobile phones and/or tablets (e.g., iPad) with all the same options that gamblers can get offline, and additionally keep track of the bets made. Combined with this, many operators have introduced iPhone compatible websites. Bookmakers have also launched similar apps and services for Android (i.e., non-Apple) products (e.g., Unibet’s mobile sports betting app). In short, mobile sports betting has gone mainstream.

There are also apps for games like Fantasy Football (such as the one offered by Betfred) but most gambling operators are moving into the mobile social betting market because it provides greater flexibility in predicting score lines and by making it easier to share the result outcomes with friends. Such services include Unibet Social Betting, SideBets Social BETworking, Bodugi Social Betting, King of Predictions, and Bet Tracker Pro. Gamblers also have access to a wide range of betting tips and betting odds apps via both iPhone and Android handsets. Gambling apps can also provide access to potentially useful information for the player (e.g., tips, strategy articles, the latest updates, etc.). In addition to he bookmaking industry, casino operators have followed suit and have also moved into the gambling app market on both iPhone and Android.

Once casino apps have been installed, players can instantly access their favourite casinos and casino games without searching for them via a web browser. A quick look at the commercially available gambling apps shows that almost all gaming operators offer attractive bonuses in an attempt to attract new clientele to download their gambling app software and spend some money (e.g., first deposit bonuses, reload bonuses, and various other seasonal promotions). The psychosocial impact of real money gambling apps is likely become a hot topic among those of us who carry out research in the gambling studies field.

As with online gambling more generally, the introduction of gambling apps and mobile gambling eliminates time and place constraints, allows 24/7 access all year round, provides convenience and flexibility, provides a wide range of games (e.g., slots, blackjack, video poker, roulette, etc.) and potentially increased gambling opportunities, and means that anyone can gamble anywhere at anytime providing there is network connection. Real money gambling apps arguably make gambling even easier for players. Whilst there are clearly many advantages for gamblers, these advantages may have a negative psychosocial impact on a small minority of gamblers.

The gambling app market is likely to be very lucrative for both game developers and gaming operators. In a recent report by Juniper Research, it was estimated that users of smartphones and tablets are expected to wager $100 billion annually on the devices by 2017, up from about $20 billion in 2011. However, Juniper Networks’ Mobile Threat Centre also reported that gambling apps pose the biggest security risk to smartphone users after over 1.7 million apps on the Google Play Store were analyzed between March 2011 and September 2012. Another study by German researchers at the Leibniz University (Hannover) and the Philipps University (Marburg) found that apps (including gambling apps) were leaking personal data, including bank account information. The study tested the 13,500 most popular free apps from the Google Play Store and found that 1074 of them (8%) used incorrect or inadequate coding. These studies also found that the gambling apps “blatantly overstepped permissions that were more than adequate for normal use” and that with malware they accessed a number of features of the users’ smartphones and tablets without justification. Racing apps were reported as causing the most concern with 99% of paid racing apps and 92% of free racing game apps being able to send SMS; half of free downloaded apps were able to use the camera; and 94 per cent of free games could make outgoing phone calls.

From a psychosocial impact perspective, one of the areas where gambling apps appear to be having most impact currently is in relation to in-play betting. For instance, Bet365 (the most successful gaming operator in the in-play market) have a free betting app that players can use for any of their ‘in-play’ markets (most notably football) from a smartphone. I argued in a previous blog that what the ‘in-play’ markets have done is take what was traditionally a discontinuous form of gambling like football betting – where gamblers made one bet every Saturday on the result of a football game – to one where consumers can gamble again and again and again. What’s more, gaming operators have quickly capitalized on the increasing amount of televised sport. In contemporary society, where there is a live sporting event, there will always be a betting consumer. ‘In-play’ betting companies using gambling apps have catered for both the natural betting demand and have initiated new clientele in the process.

If the reward for gambling only happens once or twice a week, it is almost completely impossible for a gambler to develop problems and/or become addicted. ‘In-play’ betting using gambling apps has changed that because we now have football matches on almost every day of the week making a daily 2-hour plus period of betting seven days a week. ‘In-play’ has fundamentally changed the way that people view and bet on sporting events. The speed of a game also influences the prevalence of problem gambling. Based on the relationship between event duration, event frequency, bet frequency, and payout interval, empirical research has consistently shown that games that offer a fast, arousing span of play, frequent wins, and the opportunity for rapid replay are those most frequently cited as being associated with problem gambling. These potentially problem-inducing structural characteristics have the capacity to be enhanced via gambling apps and in-play betting. The actual prevalence rate of problem gambling will of course depend on many factors other than speed of the game alone, but games with high and rapid event frequencies are most likely to impact on increased rates of problem gambling. ‘In-play’ betting via gambling apps appears to be an activity that is starting to blur the lines between continuous and discontinuous forms of gambling.

Frequency of opportunities to gamble (i.e., event frequency) appears to be a major contributory factor in the development of gambling problems. The general rule is that the higher the event frequency, the more likely it is that the activity will result in gambling problems for vulnerable and susceptible gamblers. Gambling addiction has been shown to be associated with the rewards, the speed of rewards, and payout rates. Therefore, the more potential rewards there are, and the higher the amount of the rewards, the more problematic the activity is likely to be. Given the time, money and resources, a vast majority of gambling activities are now ‘continuous’ in that people have the potential to gamble again and again. Therefore, in relation to problem gambling, ‘in-play’ betting via gambling apps is an activity that we really need to keep an eye on.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Gambling on Facebook? A cause for concern? World Online Gambling Law Report, 11(9), 10-11.

Griffiths, M.D. (2012b). Mind games (A brief psychosocial overview of in-play betting). i-Gaming Business Affiliate, June/July, 44.

Griffiths, M.D. & Auer, M. (2013). The irrelevancy of game-type in the acquisition, development and maintenance of problem gambling. Frontiers in Psychology, in press.

MacMillan, D. (2012). IPhones Become Mobile Casinos by Adding Real-Money Bets. Bloomberg Business Week, August 16. Located at: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-16/iphones-become-mobile-casinos-by-adding-real-money-bets

Manning, J. (2012). Android apps leaking personal, banking details. Stuff, October 23. Located at: http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/7852719/Android-apps-leaking-personal-banking-details

Parke, J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2007). The role of structural characteristics in gambling.  In G. Smith, D. Hodgins & R. Williams (Eds.), Research and Measurement Issues in Gambling Studies. pp.211-243. New York: Elsevier.

Sharma, M. (2012). Free gambling apps top security risk list. Stuff, November 4. Located at: http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/7904180/Free-gambling-apps-top-security-risk-list

Risky business: A brief look at simulated gambling in video gaming

Recent empirical research studies suggest that children and adolescents access online gambling activities using digital devices such as personal computers, laptops, smartphones, and other portable devices. Three national adolescent gambling surveys carried out for the National Lottery Commission in Great Britain have all shown a small minority of children and adolescents can and do gamble online. A 2011 study by Ipsos MORI reported that 2% of 11-16 year olds had played online lottery games and 2% had gambled on other online games (i.e., online casinos, online poker, online bingo and/or online sports betting). These data suggest that the first gambling experiences by some children and adolescents might occur via the Internet, mobile phones, and/or interactive television rather than in a traditional offline gaming venue such as a casino, amusement arcade or bookmakers.

As gambling on the internet has expanded, a wide range of ‘gambling-like’ activities has emerged on smartphones, social networking sites, and within video games. There are also opportunities to gamble without spending money on both commercial gambling websites and social networking sites. These ‘free play’ simulations of gambling activities provide opportunities for youth to practice or become more familiar with gambling activities without spending real money. Despite the proliferation of non-monetary gambling simulations, there has been little research or policy attention on them. Simulated gambling activities and gambling themes also feature in many modern video games. In a paper published in a 2012 issue of International Gambling Studies, I and my research colleagues (Dr. Paul Delfabbro and Dr. Daniel King of the University of Adelaide [Australia], and Dr. Jeff Derevensky of McGill University [Montreal, Canada]) noted that video games that feature gambling may be categorised according to the following three categories:

• Standard gambling simulation: A digitally simulated interactive gambling activity that is structurally identical to the standard format of an established gambling activity, such as blackjack or roulette. For instance, Texas Hold ’em (TikGames) is a standard gambling simulation of the poker variant of the same name. Poker is played using virtual credits against a computer opponent or in competition with other online players. Playing poker represents the entirety of the gaming experience in this video game. In contrast, the video game Red Dead Redemption (Rockstar) features a casino situated within the virtual game world that allows players to gamble using in-game credit with or against other players in social competitions. However, the gambling content within this type of video game represents only a small part of the overall gaming experience.
• Non-standard gambling simulation: An interactive gambling activity that involves the intentional wagering of in-game credits or other items on an uncertain outcome, in an activity that may be partially modelled on a standard gambling activity but which contains distinct player rules or other structural components that differ from established gambling games. For instance, the video game Fable II Pub Games contains three unique casino-style games, partly modelled on craps (dice), roulette, and slot machines. Players can wager ‘gold coins’ on chance-determined outcomes (i.e., patterns in cards, dice throws, spinning wheels, etc.) in order to win greater amounts of gold, as well as other items and prizes.
• Gambling references: The appearance of non-interactive gambling material or gambling-related paraphernalia/materials within the context of the video game.

Online video games may also feature opportunities to gamble. For example, online games such as EVE Online and World of Warcraft include player-operated gambling activities using the in-game currency. These activities are usually supported through websites adjunctive to the video game (i.e., wagers are placed outside the game), but the gambling activity (i.e., winning and losing) takes place in the game world. Gambling activities include sports betting (e.g., placing bets on the outcome of player duels and battles) and lotteries (e.g., selling raffle tickets for a chance at winning a prize). The relative scarcity of in-game assets, including currency and items, makes them valuable to the game’s community of players. Some players will exchange real money for in-game currency as way of advancing more quickly in the game. The option to exchange in-game currency and other content (virtual goods) to other players for real world money thus gives these activities a limited, albeit indirect, financial element.

Modern video games provide realistic and sophisticated simulated gambling opportunities to youth. According to a paper we published in a 2010 issue of the Journal of Gambling Studies, the potential risks of young people engaging in simulated gambling include:

• Greater familiarity with gambling and acceptance of gambling as a ‘normal’ entertainment activity;
• The development of gambling strategies and the ability to practice these strategies without need of money;
• The development of positive gambling beliefs and thoughts of ‘winning big’ associated with gambling;
• Exposure to the excitement of gambling wins, including bonuses and jackpots;
• False expectations about how gambling operates and an inflated sense of its long-term profitability.

Simulated gambling has the potential to offer positive experiences associated with gambling without the typical barriers to entry associated with gambling (e.g., money, age restriction). Although no actual money is involved in simulated gambling, it is recognised that people (including youth) are not only motivated to gamble for financial reasons. Gambling can provides excitement, relief from boredom, a way of coping with problems, and a means of social interaction (i.e., playing with friends). Very simply, gambling is engaged in not only for financial rewards, but for physiological, psychological, and/or social rewards. Simulated gambling activities may also enable youth to feel more comfortable with gambling per se, which may assist the transition from simulated gambling to gambling with real money.

A risk associated with video games that feature simulated gambling is that activities may often combine the skill and fast-paced action of a video game with the chance-based nature of gambling. This combination of skill and chance may set up false expectations about the governing rules and player control involved in gambling activities. For example, younger players may believe that, with sufficient practice, they can overcome and master the challenges of the game.

Youth gambling represents a serious social problem. Therefore, it is important for researchers, health professionals, and parents to be informed about emerging media risk factors for problem gambling. Commercial video gaming technologies provide young people with unrestricted access to realistic gambling and gambling-like experiences. This blog has highlighted that some commercial video games feature casino-style gambling activities that enable players to gamble using in-game credit with or against other players in social competition.

Simulated gambling in video games is often associated with incentives and rewards, such as virtual currency, rare in-game items, and other content of large contextual value in the game. While some video games with simulated gambling may be intended for use by adults only, many video games (e.g., Pokémon) feature content that appeals mainly to a younger audience. This material could therefore be considered a form of gambling advertising targeted at youth. Furthermore, simulated gambling in video games may enhance young players’ familiarity of casino and card games. Given the brief overview presented here, we would recommend that policymakers should critically consider the growing presence of gambling in online gaming and social media technologies, and associated issues of social responsibility as these activities become more monetised and/or promote or otherwise endorse involvement in monetary gambling activities.

Dr Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Additional input: Dr. Daniel King and Dr. Paul Delfabbro

Further reading

Griffiths, M.D. (2010). Gaming in social networking sites: A growing concern? World Online Gambling Law Report, 9(5), 12-13.

Griffiths, M.D. (2011). Technological trends and the psychosocial impact on gambling. Casino and Gaming International, 7(1), 77-80.

Griffiths, M. D., King, D. L., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2009). Adolescent gambling-like experiences: Are they a cause for concern? Education and Health, 27, 27-30.

Griffiths, M. D. & Parke, J. (2010). Adolescent gambling on the Internet: A review. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 22, 59-75.

Griffiths, M.D. & Wood, R.T.A. (2007). Adolescent Internet gambling: Preliminary results of a national survey. Education and Health, 25, 23-27.

Ipsos MORI. (2009). British Survey of Children, the National Lottery and Gambling 2008–09: Report of a quantitative survey. London: National Lottery Commission.

Ipsos MORI. (2011). Underage Gambling in England and Wales: A research study among 11-16 year olds on behalf of the National Lottery Commission. London: National Lottery Commission.

King, D. L., Delfabbro, P. H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2010). The convergence of gambling and digital media: Implications for gambling in young people. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 175-187.

Volberg, R., Gupta, R., Griffiths, M.D., Olason, D. & Delfabbro, P.H. (2010). An international perspective on youth gambling prevalence studies. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 22, 3-38.