Skip to main content

Where’s the Bonus in Bonus Bets? Assessing Sports Bettors’ Comprehension of their True Cost

Journal of Gambling Studies volume 35, pages 587–599 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Wagering inducements with bonus bets are prominently marketed and often have play-through conditions requiring further expenditure. However, these conditions are not usually presented in the inducement advertisement and may be difficult to locate. The play-through conditions themselves are complex and may lead bettors to miscalculate the inducement’s true cost. Therefore, in relation to inducements with bonus bets, this study aimed to assess: (1) whether their perceived attractiveness varies with the amount and type of information provided about their play-through conditions; (2) bettors’ comprehension of their true cost; and (3) whether bettors’ comprehension of their true cost varies with problem gambling severity. A sample of 299 Australian sports bettors completed an online survey and rated the attractiveness of three variations of an inducement. Promo1 simply noted that “terms and conditions apply”; promo2 included the terms and conditions immediately below the offer; and promo3 revealed the true cost of the offer. Respondents were asked to calculate the true cost before this was revealed. The study found that detailing key terms and conditions for an offer directly below the advertisement impacts negatively on its perceived attractiveness. Moreover, nearly three in five bettors underestimated the additional amount they would need to bet to access any winnings from the bonus bet. No significant differences were found amongst gambler risk groups. The results imply that current approaches to marketing these inducements are likely to lead consumers to overestimate their attractiveness and underestimate their cost. To enhance responsible gambling practice, these promotional offers should be presented in ways that enable informed decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  • Blaszczynski, A., Collins, P., Fong, D., Ladouceur, R., Nower, L., Shaffer, H. J., et al. (2011). Responsible gambling: General principles and minimal requirements. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27(4), 565–573.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., Nower, L., & Shaffer, H. (2008). Informed choice and gambling: Principles for consumer protection. Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, 2, 103–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. J. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(3), 301–317.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cate, F. H. (2006). The failure of fair information practice principles. In J. K. Winn (Ed.), Consumer protection in the age of the ‘information economy’ (pp. 343–379). Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danson, A. (2010). Sponsorship by gambling companies in the UK and Europe: The opportunities and challenges. Journal of Sponsorship, 3(2), 194–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, J., & Wynne, H. (2001). The Canadian problem gambling index: Final report. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gainsbury, S., Russell, A., Wood, R., Hing, N., & Blaszczynski, A. (2015). How risky is Internet gambling? A comparison of subgroups of Internet gamblers based on problem gambling status. New Media & Society, 17(6), 861–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hing, N., Cherney, L., Blaszczynski, A., Gainsbury, S., & Lubman, D. (2014a). Do advertising and promotions for online gambling increase gambling consumption? An exploratory study. International Gambling Studies, 14(3), 394–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hing, N., Gainsbury, S., Blaszczynski, A., Wood, R., Lubman, D., & Russell, A. (2014). Interactive gambling. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia. Retrieved from: http://www.gamblingresearch.org.au/resources/6482d5fa-f068-41e5-921f-facd4f10365e/interactive+gambling.pdf.

  • Hing, N., & Haw, J. (2009). The development of a multi-dimensional gambling accessibility scale. Journal of Gambling Studies, 25(4), 569–581.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hing, N., Russell, A. M. T., & Hronis, A. (2016). Behavioural indicators of responsible gambling consumption. Melbourne: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hing, N., Russell, A. M. T., & Hronis, A. (2017a). What behaviours and cognitions support responsible consumption of gambling? Results from an expert survey. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-017-9793-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hing, N., Sproston, K., Brading, R., & Brook, K. (2015). Review and analysis of sports and race betting inducements. Melbourne: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hing, N., Sproston, K., Brook, K., & Brading, R. (2017b). The structural features of sports and race betting inducements: Issues for harm minimisation and consumer protection. Journal of Gambling Studies, 33(2), 685–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hing, N., Vitartas, P., & Lamont, M. (2014c). Promotion of gambling and live betting odds during televised sport: Influences on gambling participation and problem gambling. Lismore: Centre for Gambling Education and Research, Southern Cross University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, B. R., & Pérez, L. (2012). Who bets on sports? Characteristics of sports bettors and the consequences of expanding sports betting opportunities. Estudios de economía aplicada, 30(2), 579–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaBrie, R. A., LaPlante, D. A., Nelson, S. E., Schumann, A., & Shaffer, H. J. (2007). Assessing the playing field: A prospective longitudinal study of internet sports gambling behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies, 23(3), 347–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, M., Hing, N., & Gainsbury, S. (2011). Gambling on sport sponsorship: A conceptual framework for research and regulatory review. Sport Management Review, 14(3), 246–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Gonzalez, H., Estévez, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017). Marketing and advertising online sports betting: A problem gambling perspective. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 41(3), 256–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Gonzalez, H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017). Betting, forex trading, and fantasy gaming sponsorships: A responsible marketing inquiry into the ‘gamblification’ of English football. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 16, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormack, A., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). A scoping study of the structural and situational characteristics of internet gambling. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 3(1), 29–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillen, J., & Wenzel, M. (2006). Measuring problem gambling: Assessment of three prevalence screens. International Gambling Studies, 6(2), 147–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, G. R., & Culnan, M. J. (2004). Strategies for reducing online privacy risks: Why consumers read (or don’t read) online privacy notices. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obar, J. A., & Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2016). The biggest lie on the Internet: Ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Retrieved from: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10708177996833/Obar%20FCC%20Privacy%20Subsmission%202016.pdf.

  • Parke, A., Harris, A., Parke, J., Rigbye, J., & Blaszczynski, A. (2014). Facilitating awareness and informed choice in gambling. The Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, 8(3), 6–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Problem Gambling Research and Treatment Centre. (2011). Guidelines for screening, assessment and treatment in problem gambling. Clayton: Monash University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reidenberg, J. R., Breaux, T., Cranor, L. F., French, B., Grannis, A., Graves, J. T., et al. (2015). Disagreeable privacy policies: Mismatches between meaning and users’ understanding. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 30(1), 39–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solove, D. J. (2012). Privacy self-management and the consent dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 126, 1880–1903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sproston, K., Hanley, C., Brook, K., Hing, N., & Gainsbury, S. (2015). Marketing of sports betting and racing. Melbourne: Gambling Research Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sproston, K., Hing, N., & Palankay, C. (2012). Prevalence of gambling and problem gambling in New South Wales. Sydney: NSW Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, N. E., Preston, D. L., McAvoy, S., & Gillam, L. (2013). Problem gambling inside and out: The assessment of community and institutional problem gambling in the Canadian correctional system. Journal of Gambling Studies, 29(3), 435–451.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wardle, H., & Seabury, C. (2012). Gambling behaviour. In Health survey for England—2012 (Chapter 7). Retrieved from: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB13218/HSE2012-Ch7-Gambling-behaviour.pdf.

  • Weibe, J. (2008). Internet gambling: Strategies to recruit and retain customers. Guelph: Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. T., & Williams, R. J. (2011). A comparative profile of the Internet gambler: Demographic characteristics, game-play patterns, and problem gambling status. New Media & Society, 13(7), 1123–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial support to conduct this study was received from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Experimental Gambling Research Laboratory, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity, University Drive, Bundaberg, QLD, 4670, Australia

    Nerilee Hing, Matthew Browne, Alex M. T. Russell, Nancy Greer & Matthew Rockloff

  2. Australian Gambling Research Centre, Australian Institute for Family Studies, Melbourne, Australia

    Anna Thomas & Rebecca Jenkinson

Authors
  1. Nerilee Hing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew Browne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alex M. T. Russell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nancy Greer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anna Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rebecca Jenkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Matthew Rockloff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nerilee Hing.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Nerilee Hing has received research grants from the Australian Research Council, Gambling Research Australia, the Queensland Government, NSW Government, South Australian Government, Victorian Government, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the Alberta Gambling Research Institute, and the Australian National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety. She has conducted unpublished consultancy work for Echo Entertainment, Singapore Pools and Sportsbet aimed at improving their responsible gambling practices. She declares no conflict of interest in relation to this manuscript. Matthew Browne has received funding from Gambling Research Australia, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the Queensland Government Department of Health, the Alberta Gambling Research Institute, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Japanese Federal Government. He has performed statistical consulting work for various government departments and agencies. Alex M. T. Russell has received research grants from Gambling Research Australia, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the Queensland Government, the Alberta Gambling Research Institute, and the National Association of Gambling Studies, as well as various internal grants. He has conducted unpublished consultancy work for Echo/Star Entertainment, aimed at improving their responsible gambling practices in relation to gambling by their employees. He declares no conflict of interest in relation to this manuscript. Nancy Greer declares no conflict of interest in relation to this manuscript. Anna Thomas has received research grants from Gambling Research Australia, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation and the Victorian Government. She has been paid to conduct peer reviews for Gambling Research Australia and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. She previously worked at the Australian Gambling Research Centre which is funded by the Australian Government. She declares no conflict of interest in relation to this manuscript. Rebecca Jenkinson has received research grants from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the Victorian Government, the Australian Government Department of Health, the Australian Government Department of Social Services, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the National Drug Law Enforcement Fund, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, and the Invergowrie Foundation. Rebecca works at the Australian Gambling Research Centre which is funded by the Australian Government. She declares no conflict of interest in relation to this manuscript. Matthew Rockloff has received research grants from Gambling Research Australia, the Queensland Treasury Department, the Federal Department of Social Services, the Victorian Treasury Department, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the Tasmanian Department of Treasury and Finance, the First Nations Foundation, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the Alberta Gambling Research Institute. He declares no conflicts of interest in relation to this manuscript.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hing, N., Browne, M., Russell, A.M.T. et al. Where’s the Bonus in Bonus Bets? Assessing Sports Bettors’ Comprehension of their True Cost. J Gambl Stud 35, 587–599 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-018-9800-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-018-9800-0

Keywords

  • Wagering
  • Gambling
  • Sports betting
  • Inducements
  • Promotions
  • Advertising
  • Marketing
  • Informed choice
  • Responsible gambling
  • Consumer protection