| Characteristic | Share of respondents |
|---|---|
| Poorly written content (e.g. wrong spelling/grammar/poor spoken English) | 65% |
| Didn't recognise/know the number/sender/account who called/messaged/posted the content | 59% |
| Offered rewards which seemed 'too good to be true' (e.g. promise of free money/unrealistically high return on investment/extremely low price for a product/service) | 41% |
| No/poor-quality logo | 29% |
| Heard/saw warnings about it before | 23% |
| Suspicious imagery (e.g. photos of a luxurious lifestyle/money) | 21% |
| The call/message was from an international number/abroad | 19% |
| Inconsistent profile information (e.g. photos/bio of the supposedly same person didn't match) | 16% |
| Not endorsed by a credible organisation | 12% |
| Not endorsed by a credible person | 9% |
| The scammer expressed a strong personal/emotional attachment too soon | 9% |
| Other | 8% |
| No/few testimonials/reviews | 4% |
| Poor testimonials/reviews | 3% |
| Can't remember | 3% |
| Don't know | 2% |
Download
Source
Sources
In cooperation with
YouGov
Release date
January 2024
More information
Region
United Kingdom
Survey time period
9th to 11th January, 2024
Number of respondents
1,735 respondents
Age group
16 years and older
Supplementary notes
Original question: "Still thinking about the suspicious content or activity you've experienced via [type of channel]...Which of the following reasons made you think it was suspicious? (Please select all that apply)."
Citation formats
