Discovery
The UX team played a vital role in understanding the needs of at risk users likely to arrive at BetStop
Discovery was conducted through in depth interviews and stakeholder workshops across
39 at risk gamblers who rated high to very high on the Problem Gambling Severity Index
10 Gambling support services
9 Government and advocacy groups
12 Gambling companies
3 Members of the ACMA responsible for the compliance and enforcement of BetStop
I joined the project at the latter end of Discovery and was responsible for
4 X Indigenous gamblers in-depth interviews
3 X CALD (Culturally and linguistically diverse) gamblers in-depth interviews
Supported workshops with Gambling Companies
Understanding our users
Why people gamble
A significant number of interview participants mentioned that gambling has reached a point where it is starting to become normalised in Australia.
Reasons why people gambled varied:
Boredom, this was especially prevalent during period of lockdown.
It has become a regular part of watching sport.
Adding an extra layer of excitement to sport.
Peer pressure from social circles using group gambling features.
It created a way to relieve stress.
Attempting to get on top of finances.
It had been passed down generationally, families who spent time in the pokies or at weekend races.
The prominence of triggering advertising:
In the build up before a big event.
Metrics of demographics allowing targeted advertising in social media through to billboards in areas known for high gambling rates.
Associated behavior with alcohol and drugs.
Alcohol and other drugs were often found to play a role in gambling losses. This had serious implications on our design as we had to consider that some users may attempt self-exclusion in the early hours of the morning, tired, inebriated and in a heightened emotional state.
Existing coping strategies
We initially assumed self-banning can appear as a drastic way to help a person control their gambling urges. One imagines the stereotypical story of a gambling addict who has lost control of their gambling, finances and life.
However, as discovery progressed with in-depth interviews, it became apparent self-exclusion isn’t just for people in crisis. Some interviewees were motivated to use in-app self-exclusion (provided by gambling companies) as a protective strategy. For example:
To ensure they made rent.
Prompted by a life event such as children or an upcoming wedding.
Knowing a particular sport is triggering and self-excluding for just the seasonal period.
Other coping strategies included:
Deleting apps from their devices.
Using separate email addresses for gambling accounts that they checked once a week.
Self-imposed spending limits (however, these would often creep up over time).
Overall, interviewees were often found to have tried multiple techniques to curtail their gambling habits, demonstrating a key unmet need of having a strategy that “sticks”.
Personas
We developed 5 personas to help drive our designs and educate stakeholders. Each persona identified their needs, influences, motivations, and blockers to self-exclusion.
A user’s gambling journey isn’t linear, they were often found to drift back and forth between the different personas as their life circumstances and gambling habits evolved.
Calvin - A win is just around the corner
“Happy with my current behaviour, I’m winning. But I could see that if I had a long losing streak that it might be good to take a break and reset.”
Belinda - Fighting the urge
“I know I need to change but I am not sure how. My husband and I are not savers, whatever we earn we spend - on furniture, goods, going out. The thing is betting is something I really enjoy.”
Mark - It’s great but I don’t need it
“Don’t feel that I need this, but would consider it if I felt I was getting in too deep or wasn’t in control of what I was doing. The register is more useful for someone who is ready to reach out for help.”
Tony - Compelled
“If I signed up, I would bring it up on a Friday afternoon because I’m betting too much. Might laugh at first but it’s a good idea. Some people get carried away at home. Don’t see it as money. It’s units.”
Bill - It would have been great when I was younger
“It’s for the younger generation, 20-28 year olds. Period where you got everything running through you, invincible, smartest person the planet. Might have an inkling that you’re out of control, so you will look for things like this, but they need to be discreet, people don’t need to know about it.”
Current self-exclusion landscape
Self-exclusion included in gambling apps
While most gambling companies offer tools for self-exclusion from their platforms, my heuristic assessment found them to be implemented as a box checking exercise rather than any real attempt to help people self-ban from the platform.
Key Findings
In most cases the in house self-exclusion tools were either buried in the website or visually overwhelmed by shiny “same game-multi” and “bet with friends” features.
It was not uncommon for self-exclusion pages to be broken with users redirected back to the home page
Some users in discovery spoke of gambling companies depositing funds into their accounts after self-exclusion in a effort to kick start their gambling habits again.
The help gambling companies provide users is ultimately to the benefit to the company in that:
Their users can’t gamble if they reach a point where they become financially desitute
Their efforts to help appear to be enough to stop negative headlines in news cycles
State-based programs
Some States and Territories have their own legislations around gambling in premises. These cover anything from pokie rooms through to TAB or race course venues.
Northern Territory
Uses who signed up to the Northern Territories program were able to self-exclude from all licensed book makers in the NT.
Key Findings
The NT government found the initiative to be effective
The sign-up process consisted of
Users filling out a form
Having the form witnessed by another person
Emailing the form to the Northern Territory government with an accompanying photo ID
The sign up flow had multiple points of friction
Manual entry of a form created friction and presented accessibility concerns for people who were ESL or had a disability
Requirement to find and organise a witness
The requirement for the form to be emailed may be a blocker for some demographics with out the means or knowledge
Registration was not instant and reliant on manual processing
South Australia
South Australia offered a similar service which self-excluded users from venues and lotteries.
Key Findings
The requirement to enter a venue to self-exclude could be a triggering event.
The self-exclusion only covered the single venue, allowing a person to go to the next venue available.
Initial reactions to BetStop
Appeal
The realisation that a person needed to take control of their gambling habits often came with a sense of shame. Users wanted to be able to hide their issues around gambling.
BetStop appealed in that:
It’s private
It’s free
It offers a tool that is in the users control
It offers a quick and instant solution
It offers a one-stop-shop to exclude from all online and telephone betting
The fact that it existed was comforting to some that felt may be useful when needed
Views of the three month minimum exclusion period
The three month minimum implemented by the legislation was polarising.
Some interviewees felt it was a good amount of time, allowing them to break and develop new habits.
Some interviewees were unsure they could make the full three months, fearing it could act as a blocker.
This was something that could be tracked after going live. If needed the minimum period could be amended in the legislation at the 1 year review.
BetStop as a government sponsored initiative
The implementation of the platform by the Australian Government was received with mixed reactions.
Most users viewed it positively, it added an element of legitimacy and trust to the platform over a private organisation.
Some viewed it as the Government’s responsibility to protect people.
The Government recognising there is an issue was viewed positively, but overdue.
Some users voiced concerns of “big brother” and confidentiality issues.
Nominated support person program
Part of the legislated solution was a nominated support person program. Users could receive additional help by nominating someone they know to support them through their self-exclusion.
One round of testing found 4 users that would use the function, nominating either a close friend, partner or spouse.
However 17 users said they would not use the function. Reasons given included:
Privacy, through a sense of shame or embarrassment
Nobody they knew would be able to help
Not wanting to burden others
Wanting to deal with the issue by themselves
Removing the stigma of support
Most interviewees were against the idea seeking out help through counselling & support services.
Seeking out help has been stigmatised in Australia, especially in males.
Many users spoke about not being able to reach out for help.
An alternative, we decided to flip the concept of a user having to reach out for help by including the option to opt into a support service, calling the user in their first week of self-exclusion.
This concept tested positively as it:
Largely removed the stigma of reaching out for help.
Offered a service that the user wouldn’t have to instigate.
Offered support during a period that was known to be the hardest.
Another concept that tested well were tips and tricks and other support information that was e-mailed or texted to users. This gave the control back to the user as it allowed them to view the help in a private space in their own time.
