Opinion
New gambling harm taglines – considering behavioural identity
Mat Crompton, strategy director at Icon Agency and his friend and colleague, behavioural science specialist Kris White, commend the new gambling harm taglines – but suggest that embracing a gambler’s behavioural identity may provide a pathway to sustained long-term change.
Development and approval of gambling harm taglines is a difficult endeavour. The final result must satisfy a complex range of stakeholders—not least the gambling companies themselves.
For too long, using the term ‘gamble responsibly’ has been an abdication of well, responsibility – from those with power to the individual gambler.
Alternatives have been tried around the world. In the UK, the line ‘When the fun stops, stop’ has been proven to be ineffectual (Newell et al. 2022) and, if anything, simply reminds gamblers that gambling is, indeed, fun.
The new anti-gambling taglines that will be implemented here in Australia should be commended—any replacement of the old ‘gamble responsibly’ line should be commended. However, they are still ostensibly health warnings:
- Chances are you’re about to lose
- You win some. You lose more
- Is this a bet you really want to place?
- What’s gambling really costing you?
- What are you really gambling with?
- What are you prepared to lose today? Set a deposit limit
- Imagine what you could be buying instead
These lines rightfully consider a range of different biases and motivations, however, we feel further analysis is required.
To get one thing out of the way lines such as ‘What are you really gambling with?’ are troublesome. They may inadvertently increase stigma, individualise blame and further aggravate a source of pain for the individual that may well be the reason for their gambling issue in the first place. Others, however, are more progressive.
According to the research of the seven new lines, “Chances are you’re about to lose” showed the ‘broadest promise’. This aligns with other research which demonstrates that cognitive interventions can reduce the quantity – if not necessarily the severity – of gambling.
But whilst the behavioural insights are no doubt valid, one thing to consider is the assumption that a gambler’s response will be rational.
Almost all of the new taglines assume that people are rational in their decision-making – if we can just counter gamblers’ irrational beliefs and decision making then we can change behaviour. But as we know from behavioural science, our decision making is rarely rational. The new lines appear to be based on a strong understanding of the biases involved, but not necessarily a gambler’s behavioural identity.
Even in games of chance, gamblers falsely attribute the outcome to their smart decision-making. This illusion of control and superiority compounds – gamblers forget about their bad decisions and remember their good ones so that in time, every gambler, by default, believes they are a ‘smart gambler’. As such, challenging a gambler’s cognition (their smarts) will only get you so far.
As an alternative suggestion, what if all these new gambling taglines focused on positive behaviours and worked with a gambler’s identity, rather than directly challenging it?
One of the new lines does exactly this, suggesting individuals ‘set a deposit limit’. Other behavioural prompts such as taking a break, halving your bet, and gambling with a clear head could be considered and be framed as the gambler making a wise decision. The NSW Government’s ‘Betiquette’ campaign did something similar to this and whilst not perfectly analogous, the alcohol social change organisation DrinkWise does this well.
Providing behavioural prompts is exactly what the new gambling guidelines that are being implemented in NSW and Victoria will do so well. Whilst they need the right framing, they do provide clear behavioural parameters for how much and how often you should gamble to avoid harm – and should be applauded for doing so.
These guidelines and these new taglines are a welcome step in the right direction, but moving forward, gambling harm communications will benefit from actively considering a gambler’s behavioural identity and focusing more on behavioural prompts.
We would never say that gambling is a smart decision but we can say that if people are going to bet, there is a better way to do it.
Whilst this is a step in the right direction, we can’t help but feel like there’s perhaps been a missed opportunity – one that is based on some observations from behavioural science.
Gambling harm is complex and there are myriad socio-cultural, psychosocial and environmental reasons why individuals gamble. However, the one thing any gambling harm line should not do is risk compounding an individuals’ issue.
Taglines like ‘think of what you’re really gambling with’ may inadvertently increase stigma, individualise blame and with it, increase the acuteness of a person’s gambling.
Behavioural Science specialist Kris White
Mat is also an ex-gambling addict, and is a trained gambling addiction coach.
Mat Crompton, strategy director at Icon Agency and his friend and colleague, behavioural science specialist Kris White
