In my opinion, there is no value for small business newsagents in supporting or working with Lottoland. here is why:
- Lottoland launched in Australia mocking newsagents. Their attack on newsagency businesses and those who run them was relentless and hurtful. It cost newsagents respect and revenue.
- Lottoland now wants to partner with newsagents because federal parliament appears set to ban betting on lotteries. Boo hoo to them.
- Lottoland is an online-first business. Everywhere it operates it is about online sales. Any partnership with high street retail would be contrary to their core operation. I suspect if they did partner with retailers, online would always be their core focus.
- Lottoland is coming at this the wrong way around. If a high street pitch was important to them they should have put it in place when they launched into Australia.
- Lottoland says it wants to pay taxes and be a contributor to the Australian economy. If this was the case they would have established this from the outset and not pitched it now, moments away from their core offer being outlawed.
- Lottoland has been dishonest in its representations. Last year, they claimed to be talking to newsagents. No genuine approach had been made. From where I sit it looked like smoke and mirrors.
- Lottery products are highly regulated around the world. There are many reasons for this, most are good reasons. While I do not like the monopoly approach in Australia, the regulation is important and necessary.
The issue here is not about newsagents and their businesses. Nor is it about regulation or protection. Newsagency businesses need to live or die as a result of the actions of the owners in running a compelling and appreciated local businesses for the communities in which they serve. This and local community desire will determine if newsagency businesses survive.
The issue here is about Lottoland, their operation and their ethics.
They launched into Australia running a campaign over which they had 100% control. That told us about the company and what it stands for.
Their TV commercials were, in my opinion, dishonest and disrespectful. They are reaping what they sowed.
Footnote: the newsagency today cannot be the newsagency Australians remember from the past. Today’s newsagency is a shop leaning into change, offering different products thoughtfully selected and carefully curated for local community needs. Whereas in the past people walked in the door of a newsagency for papers, magazines and lotteries first. Today, many newsagencies have people walking in for more high-end sought after lines with papers, magazines and lotteries becoming the impulse add-on.
100% agree Mark.
Agree, could not have said it better.
Whatever Lottoland offers to the newsagent will only be a short term gain, to give Lottoland a long term footprint. Agree they only started to engage with newsagents as a lifeline not as a partnership – not good enough!
Why talk with anyone if it going to be illegal soon?
After their denigration of newsagents at the commencement of their gambling product push, who would want to have any dealings with them. Newagents and/or Tatts agents are not TAB’s.
I think the issue though is Mark that Tatts/TABCorp have been just as equally misleading in many of their comments over the past years (“no we are not trying to drive people online” ” Our online business isn’t growing at your cost” ” we don’t want to pay you for online commissions anymore because they aren’t significant”, Commission that doesn’t keep up with CPI or cost increases and isn’t reviewed regularly, etc ) and their actions ( Lets increase the fitout cost to Newsagents and claim the new fitout will result in an income increase. ). There are many other examples of Tatts bullying , preferential treatment of different retailers and more so I think both as equally as bad as one another and if you think even mid term that Tatts really cares about Newsagents you’re crazy.
TBH if Lottoland offered something that was substantially better than the current Tatts offering you would be mad to not consider what they were putting on the table. I’m running a business for me not Tatts or Lottoland so whoever offered me the better deal would get the place in my offering as simple as that.
This is the very reason the Western Australian Government ( no matter how broke we are ) must never sell Lotterywest .
I think that the governments move to ban Lottoland and other online betting companies is just further cementing Tatts business and not helping anyone else.
In my opinion Tatts have little interest in their retail network anyway as they are pushing more and more for online sales and they pay very small commissions to newsagents on ticket sales, nothing towards payment / processing of tickets or contributions to the cost of a fit out that they say will increase sales, maybe it will but they have not been able to provide sufficient evidence to prove the investment is worthwhile.
Lottoland were /are prepared to offer me a contribution towards signage and point of sale plus a massive 20% commission on referrals and I actually don’t have to sell the ticket, process it, handle cash or take payment for it or deal with complaints or queries about them.
The biggest thing that should be taken from all of this is that by banning companies like Lottoland we are ensuring that nearly all lotteries in Australia will be dominated by Tatts, is that really good outcome for newsagents or customers?
These last few comments are exactly how i feel about the situation also.
We have done the dirty work to allow Tatts to gain and maintain a monopoly in which to abuse agents with their own personal push into the online market place at their retailers expenses.
I would be willing to give Lottoland the time of day if they address a few core things. 1 The tax situation in Australia. If they follow the exact laws and even if they in good faith paid some profits to Australian charities it would put them in good standing with me personally.
2. If they were to represent themselves honestly and provide explainations of how they operate openly and honestly. If i were to be an agent of theirs i would not lie for them to cover for the way they operate.
3. They would need to stop selling already established Australian lottery products. No more bets on OZ Lotto for example as this market is already covered. I feel if they opened up my customer to global lotteries in my store in a non impactful way (Unlike the demands of Tatts on my floorspace) then they would be embraced on a much higher level.
Lets not pretend there isn’t a demand for this. It got a lot of peoples attentions and i am sure there is a place for it in the market. We would be fools to turn down income streams that could be integrated into our existing network if it was possible.
Well said Mark.
good one Mark bury Lottoland first
Let’s remember that in nsw the government owns lotteries they have just leased it out for 40 years