Who's on First....I Mean, OnLine??

16 May 1997

In a wide ranging study, the Australian/Asian based www.consult.co has been running an ongoing study of attitudes to various on-line activities. You can see the study questionnaire at http://survey.hotlink.com.au/survey-frame.html. Now, the sample size is quite healthy and some reasonable conclusions may be drawn from their findings.

Of particular interest to the cybergaming industry (and no doubt the NAAGs who are a bit short of real facts) was the section of the questionnaire that relates to on-line gambling. It may have a little skew to 'Netizens who are online a lot because of the nature the study format; but, nevertheless it does have some interesting results to ponder.

The key questions were in section 81. Here they are with the responses (Multiple answers were permitted so don't look for it to add up to 100%).

81. What are your views and attitudes towards online gambling? (tick any that apply)

12%

I don't approve of gambling

17%

I am not against gambling but am against online gambling

19%

I would have a look at online gambling but would not bet any money

I would gamble money to win non-cash prizes but not to win more money

12%

I would try online gambling for fun only (betting $1-5 maximum per month)

I am a moderate gambler and would probably bet $10-50 per month

>1%

I am a regular gambler and would bet $100-500 per month

>1%

I am addicted to gambling and would probably bet my house

I would only gamble online if the response times were very fast

I would only gamble online if I was sure about security

I would only gamble online if there were other interesting elements like adult entertainment involved.

39%

I am not against gambling but I just don't gamble

Now, a little interpretation.

The most promising finding is that it looks like 17% expressed some interest in on-line gambling. Sure 83% didn't but you would probably find a result like that if you asked the same question in the real world.

The survey did not make clear "what" gambling so it would have to show a result on the low side. Perhaps if the type of gambling were expounded upon we may have seen greater interest. The results do seem to agree with the concept that the "early adopters" of the Internet are in the socioeconomic group who are not big gamblers. What is interesting is that even among this group less than 20% are against gambling or against gambling on line. Not that far from the real world "against gambling" response one would expect.

In the real world, keen gamblers are some 10% to 15% of the total population, (problem gamblers >1%), moderate gamblers another 25% to 30% and casual to light 15% to 20%. Around 80% have gambled at some stage, the rest can't be bothered or are against it on personal moral or religious grounds.

These numbers seem to indicate that it is the light to non- gamblers who are on the Internet so far. Well, to me, this fits with everything else we have seen from other studies and practical experience. It makes a absolute joke of the statements made by the National Association of Attorneys General and I would go so far as to say that their report should be withdrawn and its authors removed from any further debate on this issue. Perhaps, they should be charged with bringing the NAAG into contempt and ridicule.

Any outlandish statements by politicians on the issue of Internet gambling should be treated with the contempt they deserve. It is quite clear from this and other "real research" that the on-line community is no different to the real world community and have on-line gambling clearly in perspective.

On-line gambling may have a place in the Gambling market and common sense would suggest that this needs to be addressed. But, the need for draconian laws, on the real evidence and facts, is overkill, unwarranted and unnecessary. When it comes to consumer protection, RGT Online has probably done more to help consumers by warning of any scams than all of the Attorneys General in America put together.