Here is the new ad from Lottoland. It continues to sledge and mock newsagents. I suspect they are doing this because small business newsagents are easy targets for them. This ad and their earlier ad could help Tatts by migrating people from in-store purchase to online. Tatts could benefit from this migration whereas small business newsagents do not.
From what I can see, those who claim to support newsagents are quiet about what to me looks like an attack by Lottoland.
Where is Tatts in this battle? If they really cared about their retail network they should be out there, on TV, supporting the network. Instead, their main engagement at the moment is the demand their retailers spend between $25,000 and $35,000 on in-store infrastructure without a plan on how this will help in combating this new competitor.
As I noted here earlier this week, the Lottoland product offer is compelling. It is their attack ads I find offensive to small business newsagents.
Yes, the first advert was not quite as serious but this one really is mocking our business! Yes it may drive some to The Lott website as well. The poor old retail network is the victim here!
For what it’s worth, I don’t think it matters what the newsagency looks like, because this advertisement is pitched at gamblers and they’re being sold a pup.
US$100 Million Mega Millions. Added to America’s 320 million population, what are the odds of winning?
Aussies who think they have a chance, would do just as well by flushing $20 notes down the toilet. IMHO.
In SA Tatts is changing its stance. Had a meeting with rep last week on declining sales. Effect of OTR no longer defended.No denial that Tatts is targeting the outlets to get sales on line. Yes I can move counter to back of shop. Acceptance that Life game had failed to engage younger punters and only cannibalised existing sales.
Future not good and Tatts openly moving away from traditional outlets.
On behalf of newsXpress members in SA I have engaged with the ACCC on what looks like favoured treatment of On The Run c-stores compared to newsagents.
From the logo of promotion POS, it is a Lucky-7 Cstore in NSW dressing with an newsagency sign in the front door.
http://www.bethelshopfitting.com.au/index.php/photo_gallery/s/9/convenience.store
I don’t think it mocks our business, they are marketing their products. The big issue in my opinion is the lack of fight that Tatts has provided to protect its retail sector. That is the most telling aspect, it is as if they are just going to roll over and let Lottoland win.
Tatts is letting Lottoland do this without a fight because it may help drive buyers online and that is half of what what Tatts wants.
When that half the job is done at Lottolands expense, then Tatts will advertise heavily using a support local theme to transfer customers back to Tatts online.
I find that hard to believe Peter as you can purchase Tatts products on Lottolands website (no profit for Tatts). Once a customer is on Lottoland they will not switch to Tatts because of a “shop local” jingle!
Tatts are hating the fact that customers are registering with Lottoland, not on Tatts website. Why would you switch from an Australian gambling site that allows you to go in draws worth $100’s of millions to one that has potentially 10’s of millions and not the vast selection of games.
Tatts should be promoting their retail network as an asset and a point of difference from Lottoland as Lottoland does not support thousands of local communities like Tatts agents do.
Perhaps the RETAIL network will end up being the strength for TaTTS. Maybe they should be looking at the WA model. There are two groups of customers. Those who want to play at a store in person. And those who prefer a website.
I am surprised Tatts isn’t using its lobbying power to lobby governments to outlaw sites like Lottoland that allow you to bet on lotto draws…
Chris you are not buying Tatts product on the Lottoland website, its a Lottoland product paid out based on the results of a Tatts draw. Yes Tatts would hate this.
If you take the extreme for example and all customers migrated to online overnight, gamblers being gamblers then Tatts may pick up a healthy share. If they don’t then Lottoland will take over without regulation.
Tatts advertising pushes customers to online, not newsagencies. Tatts aren’t here for newsagencies they are here for themselves/shareholders so the commission once paid to newsagencies will go to Tatts. Tatts has lost nothing because they don’t own the fitouts and infrastructure. This no outlay cost for Tatts is what will keep them in retail outlets, but when the online sales get to a certain point weather it be due to Lottoland or Tatts the retail outlets will not be viable.
With Lottolands push this may be sooner than once thought.
I know that Tatts isn’t on Lottoland Peter. Thats not my point. The customer does not care which website they buy from as the outcome will still be the same whether it be from betting via the official site or via a bet on the result! Lottoland has a far wider range of products it can use to gain customers.
I have no issue with Tatts promoting their online component and wanting their customers to purchase online over in store. If I owned Tatts, I would push for the same result as it is more profitable. But right now in a competition with Lottoland I see their USP being their retail network.
Good point Chris.
Tatts must further develop and assist their only USP.
Starting soon too.
A rise in commission would be the right way to start. No business can commit to around 32,000 to refit their shop when the future income is uncertain.
Uncertainty equals more walkouts.
Credit Swisse, in their last four or five analysis reports about Tatts Group, has said Tatts need to better compensate its retailer network, citing the network as a key point of difference.
Mark,
Tatts are in the absolute opposite direction. Taking sales on line from retailers and saving on retailer compensation. Under their operating licence, I wonder who benefits from saved commissions .. Tatts or State Government
And Colin they are doing this while requiring their independent retailers to spend up on branding that supports the online presence. While I have no evidence, I do wonder if they are not requiring the same level of spending from big business outlets like supermarkets and On The Run.