Snapshot Summary
This insight examines real-world examples of poor KPI usage in the gambling industry’s operations and regulation, highlighting how misaligned metrics can distort behaviour and hinder progress. The analysis draws on recent enforcement findings, operational audits, and regulator commentary from 2023 and 2024.
Key Findings
- Over-Reliance on Volume-Based Safer Gambling Triggers (UK, 2023)
The UK Gambling Commission’s compliance reports in 2023 flagged multiple operators for using arbitrary stake and deposit thresholds to monitor harm, without contextualising risk. These triggers, such as “£2,000 in 30 days”, were found to flag high-value customers while ignoring lower-spending but vulnerable players. - Customer Service Metrics Driving Risky Behaviours (Malta, 2023)
The MGA’s 2023 thematic review of AML compliance noted that several licensees tied customer support KPIs to deposit retention. In one case, this led agents to delay the escalation of suspicious behaviour to avoid interrupting play. Metrics designed to reward engagement had the opposite effect on compliance performance. - Incomplete View of LTV Driving Short-Termism (Sweden, 2024)
Data from Spelinspektionen’s enforcement actions in early 2024 revealed that some firms measured lifetime value (LTV) without excluding players who self-excluded or were removed for risk. This inflated acquisition ROI figures and justified excessive marketing spend in channels with higher RG conflicts. - ESG Reporting Gaps Masking Real Impact (Europe-wide, 2023)
A 2023 review by the European Gaming and Betting Association found that while 70% of members published sustainability KPIs, fewer than half included player impact data or real responsible gaming (RG) outcomes. Most focused on inputs (e.g., number of messages sent) rather than behavioural outcomes (e.g., reduced loss chasing).
Leadership Insight
Metrics are supposed to clarify progress and drive performance. However, when KPIs are poorly selected, they have the opposite effect: they conceal emerging risks, reinforce misaligned incentives, and provide false assurance to boards. Across multiple jurisdictions, we now see evidence that some of the most commonly reported metrics, deposit size, LTV, and volume of RG interactions, are being applied without the necessary context to assess true impact.
These missteps are not only technical but cultural. When front-line teams are rewarded for maintaining revenue or minimising player churn, they will naturally resist interventions that appear to conflict with those goals. Likewise, when boards accept KPI dashboards that lack depth or auditability, they miss critical signals that something is off track.
Good metrics do three things: they measure the right thing, they reflect reality over time, and they inform better action. Misused KPIs don’t just distort reporting, they quietly derail execution.
Questions to Ask Your Team
Do any of our frontline KPIs create pressure to delay or avoid responsible gambling interventions?
Are we tracking inputs or outcomes in our ESG and RG reporting?
How do we validate whether our LTV figures exclude high-risk or excluded players?
Have we tested whether our automated harm triggers are missing low-spend, high-risk customers?
Do our board reports focus more on what’s easy to count than what matters?
Sources
Based on 2023–2024 compliance reports from the UK Gambling Commission, Malta Gaming Authority, Spelinspektionen, and EGBA ESG self-assessment findings.