GC study participants call for more empathetic retail staff and ‘clearer’ gambling information 

A qualitative study published on Wednesday by the Gambling Commission revealed that gambling consumers believe the availability of information does not equate to truly informed decisions. 

Many participants emphasised the need for clearer, timely and personalised information throughout every stage of their betting experience. This would include the presence of unobtrusive and empathetic staff at land-based venues. 

The study highlighted significant gaps between operator disclosures and genuine player comprehension.

Methodology

The Commission’s investigation into what constitutes “informed choice” in gambling involved a multi-method approach. 

Researchers conducted a rapid desk review of 53 relevant sources, three deliberative focus groups segmented by gambling product type (sports betting, online casino/slots and land-based gambling) and four in-depth interviews with people identified as being at higher risk of harm (Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) score of 8 or more). 

A total of 22 participants were purposely recruited to provide detailed insights.

Sense of understanding to be maintained

Participants broadly accepted the principle that gambling information should be transparent and accessible, but many reported difficulty interpreting or using it effectively in practice. 

Technical data such as odds and rules were often obscured by delivery timing that came too late to influence decisions. 

This sense of understanding was also described as something that needed to be maintained continuously, rather than achieved only once and then relied upon. 

Consumers reiterated that being informed is an ongoing process, and that fast-paced and immersive gambling formats can rapidly erode awareness.

A shared model of responsibility and product preference

On the question of who should be responsible for maintaining this understanding, participants favoured a shared model rather than placing the burden solely on one party. 

Before betting, they accepted personal responsibility provided that information was clear. 

During immersive play, however, they wanted operators to take a more active role, through mechanisms such as pop-ups and reality checks.

After play, some looked to banks or regulatory bodies for oversight on total spend across platforms.

Within this shared model, there was a clear preference for personalised interventions over generic ones. 

Tailored, behaviour-triggered messages were seen as more effective than generic warnings, but many participants simultaneously expressed mistrust towards operators collecting behavioural data.

Finally, the study found that these needs and preferences varied widely by product type. 

Notably, sports bettors prioritised fast and clear information that was delivered without the interventions being disruptive. Casino players wanted accessible explanations and real-time support during play.

Land-based customers often lacked even basic pre-play information, and instead desired subtle, proactive support from staff.

Unobtrusive staff and timely interruptions 

Participants outlined several improvements. Of note were clear and simple financial disclosures, including real-time loss displays and transparent explanations of promotional wagering conditions.

The participants suggested timely and relevant interruptions as well as enhanced onboarding processes and in-game assistance, which could include free-play modes, easy access to concise game rules and AI-driven help to clarify complex terms.

For land-based venues, unobtrusive and empathetic staff checks to identify signs of distress without creating a sense of surveillance was suggested.

The study drew parallels with evolving financial regulation, such as the Financial Conduct Authority’s Consumer Duty, which stressed the importance of providing information and ensuring customers understand and can act on it.