The UK Gambling Commission claims that remote gambling was the primary cause of the rise. Compared to a year ago, the quarterly gross gambling yield increased by 6.6%, suggesting that higher spending rather than a general rise in engagement drove market growth.
To give a more comprehensive picture, the regulator released the most recent Gambling Survey for Great Britain (which measures actual gambling habits) along with operator returns.
Greater Revenue, Equivalent Reach
The consumer data is what sets this release apart. According to Wave 3 of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain, 48% of adults said they had gambled in the previous four weeks. That is still the same as it was at the same time last year. When players who only took part in lottery draws are excluded, the percentage of participants who participated online falls to 16% from 39%.
These numbers help add the revenue story in context. Despite the fact that gambling is still widespread, the most recent statistics do not unambiguously show that the number of adults who gamble has increased. This suggests that spending patterns and product mix are having a greater impact on the market’s recent growth than new sign-ups.
Machine Play Shows the Limits of One Dataset
The machine sector particularly illustrates why the Commission issued both data sets together. The value of the gross gaming revenue received from gambling machines was at the level of £680 million during the quarter. However, the results of the survey provide a much broader perspective. Of the estimated 1.9 million adult players of fruit and slot machines in the four weeks before the survey was conducted, approximately 44% played in bars, clubs, and pubs.
There is no disconnect between the two data sets. Rather, they measured different segments of the same overall market. The survey reflects the entire consumer base participating in a particular activity (in this case, playing a gambling machine). The regulatory data, in turn, represents only those activities that have been logged by a licensed operator. The difference in coverage provided by each of the two data sets is why consumer engagement and market expansion are not readily comparable.
