Why one-size-fits-all anti-black-market campaigns are failing
New Gambling Commission research reveals the different motivations driving players towards illegal gambling sites.
Key takeaways:
- The Gambling Commission identified four distinct groups of consumers who use illegal gambling websites.
- Researchers surveyed 4,000 people and found each group is driven by different motivations and behaviours.
- The Commission concluded that “the same message will not work for all” when addressing black-market gambling.
- Searches for “not on GamStop” are increasingly associated with convenience, anonymity and fewer checks, not only self-exclusion avoidance.
- Google searches for “not on GamStop” have risen 120 per cent year-on-year in the UK despite efforts to curb illegal gambling.
The Great Britain Gambling Commission has found that consumers who use illegal gambling sites cannot be treated as a single audience, with four distinct user groups identified in its latest Consumer Voice research. The findings highlight a challenge for regulators, operators and support organisations seeking to combat black-market gambling, as motivations range from frustration with regulated products to attempts to bypass self-exclusion measures and opposition to regulation itself.
UK.- The latest phase of the British Gambling Commission’s Consumer Voice research has highlighted a key challenge facing efforts to combat illegal gambling: different types of players engage with the black market for different reasons. The conclusion is that the same message will not work for all customers.
The study, conducted by Yonder Consulting on behalf of the regulator, examined the motivations behind consumers using unlicensed gambling websites. Drawing on responses from 4,000 participants, researchers identified four distinct groups of players, each with its own reasons for turning to illegal operators.
One of the groups, labelled ‘Accidental Tourists’, consists of gamblers who have sometimes ended up on unlicensed sites unintentionally. These consumers are often driven by dissatisfaction with aspects of the regulated market rather than a deliberate desire to seek out illegal gambling.
Another segment, referred to as ‘Social Explorers’, tends to view obstacles within the licensed gambling sector with what the Commission described as a “pragmatic acceptance”. These players are typically experienced at seeking out deals and are more likely to be influenced by recommendations from friends or online communities.
The research also identified a group known as ‘Self-Excluders’. These are individuals who recognise they may be vulnerable to gambling-related harm but nevertheless attempt to bypass their self-exclusion through GamStop in order to access gambling products unavailable through licensed UK operators.
The final category, ‘Skill Advocates’, is characterised by a distrust of both the regulated gambling market and the rules governing it. Members of this group are more likely to turn to illegal operators in pursuit of what they see as greater personal freedom and fewer restrictions.
The Gambling Commission stressed that the findings should not be viewed as representative of the entire adult gambling population, noting that engagement with illegal operators remains a “relatively niche behaviour” among UK gamblers.
However, the report suggests that the diversity of motivations identified among black-market users could complicate attempts to steer players back towards licensed operators. With each subgroup displaying different attitudes and behaviours, a single approach to consumer education may prove ineffective.
The findings also challenge some assumptions previously held by operators, charities and regulators. Searches for “not on GamStop”, for example, were often associated with efforts to evade self-exclusion measures. According to the latest research, the phrase may increasingly be linked to perceptions of a less restrictive gambling experience, offering fewer identity checks, greater anonymity and broader choice.
The report also highlights the growing influence of online platforms and social media environments, where users may encounter anonymous individuals, affiliates or advertisements promoting black-market gambling. Such interactions can have a significant impact on consumer behaviour and may compete directly with safer gambling campaigns.
The regulator said it is working directly with major social media and internet companies to address the issue and reduce exposure to illegal gambling content. Despite these efforts, concerns remain about the effectiveness of current measures. The report notes that Google searches for “not on GamStop” have risen by 120 per cent year-on-year in the UK, suggesting that attempts to reduce the normalisation of illegal gambling have yet to achieve their intended effect.
FAQs
What are the four types of illegal gambling users identified by the Gambling Commission?
The research identified four groups: Accidental Tourists, Social Explorers, Self-Excluders and Skill Advocates. Each group has different motivations for using unlicensed gambling websites.
Why do some gamblers search for sites not on GamStop?
The study found that many users associate “not on GamStop” with fewer identity checks, greater anonymity, less friction and wider choice, rather than solely as a way to bypass self-exclusion.
How many people took part in the Gambling Commission study?
The research was conducted by Yonder Consulting and drew on responses from 4,000 participants to explore why consumers use illegal gambling websites.
What did the Gambling Commission conclude about anti-black-market messaging?
The regulator concluded that “the same message will not work for all”, indicating that different consumer groups may require different interventions and communication strategies.
