A blog on issues affecting Australia's newsagents, media and small business generally. More ...

Lotteries

ALNA responds on Lottoland pitch to newsagents

Adam Joy, CEO of ALNA, shared the following with me yesterday and I share it here with his permission.

The Australian Lottery and Newsagents Association (ALNA) has taken a considered approach to the public advertisements by Lottoland Australia Pty Limited, which have appeared in newspapers last week, and on radio this week, regarding their commissions proposal aimed at members referring bets and customers from their retail venues to the online betting company.

ALNA remains resolute that Lottoland’s offer to newsagents is nothing more than a desperate PR manoeuvre that uses newsagents as advertising tools for an unethical business that is facing the closure of the loophole that it operates out of. This is backed up by overwhelmingly positive feedback we’ve received from members across the country who support the government’s positive move to ban betting on lottery outcomes to protect Australian consumers.

Nonetheless, in order to protect and inform our members, and our industry more broadly, we have made inquiries with regulators in each jurisdiction you sell lottery tickets in, seeking clarification as to the legality of the offers being made.

In an opinion piece published in The Daily Telegraph on 17 April 2018, the CEO of Lottoland Luke Brill, peddled some desperate claims as it faces closure of the loophole that it operates out of. And since some of these comments are misguided, we thought it important to clarify the facts.

Luke Brill has called newsagents ‘the little guys’. This is wrong. While newsagents are small businesses, our industry is made up of over 4000+ newsagents, employs over 20,000 people, and generates an estimated annual turnover of $6 Billion. We are one of the largest independent retail channels in our community, and approximately 2.5 million Australians shop at their local agency every day.

As the peak body for newsagents in Australia, we wanted to clarify a few comments that were made about our industry. After all, we know newsagents better than this bookmaker, who is desperately trying to leverage our industry.

The ban that Mr Brill referred to is a soon-to-be-passed amendment to the Interactive Gambling Act, meaning the banning of betting on lottery outcomes. The Federal Interactive Gambling Act already makes it illegal to sell a scratchy online and play a poker machine online, and Lottoland’s business offering is another questionable model that is deemed inappropriate online. In other words, the main reason for the impending ban is consumer protection.

Lottoland are an online wagering company and if they want to enter the lottery market, then they should consider a lottery license and completely change their product to one that operates within those much tighter regulations to offer consumer protections. Their business is operating out of a legislative loophole and their approach is tricky and dodgy, and ultimately one that consumers should be concerned about.

In a last ditch attempt at survival, Lottoland has made an offer to newsagents where the newsagent would act as an advertising platform for Lottoland.

The majority of members have told us loud and clear that they do not want to associate with Lottoland. Their reasons are that Lottoland has spent years denigrating newsagents, they do not want to offer products that are not highly regulated and trusted, and it is not a good long-term strategy for their businesses to refer their customers and goodwill to an unregulated space.

Early indications about the Lottoland offer to newsagents also bring into question its legality and regulators are in the process of looking in to this.

Highly regulated products like lotteries tend to not have a huge number of suppliers, and this does not only apply to lotteries. Appropriate industry regulations that protect consumers in each jurisdiction they are licensed in, mean that new entrants can only exist if they fit within strict criteria. It’s actually a good thing for consumers.

The bottom line is, Lottoland needs to understand that the Aussie way is one of fairness. Fairness is paying out an advertised prize amount. Fairness is not taking advantage of newsagents customers. Fairness is not operating a bait-and-switch model. Fairness is not misusing trademarks of other businesses. Fairness is not looking for loopholes. And fairness is not being misleading.

MYTH

ALNA has been funded by Tatts and or TABCORP for the media and PR work.

FACT

ALNA has received no funding either financial or otherwise by either entity individually or combined in their government relations, Public relations, Media or any other campaign to eradicate synthetic lotteries from our industry. ALNA did receive in 2017 a Bronze Sponsorship package to subsidise the Awards for excellence attendance tickets for retailers and provide Prize Money to the winners at the Awards for excellence Lottery retailer of the year in each participating state, there was no profit achieved from this money.

MYTH

ALNA are supporting a monopoly environment at the detriment of their members and they are stopping members make more money!

FACT

ALNA are in fact working to protect their members and here is why

  1. There are clauses in the current contracts that may cause our members to be in breach if they attempt the Lottoland offer.
  2. Early indications about the Lottoland offer to newsagents also bring into question its legality and regulators are in the process of looking in to this, including its lack of license to provide betting services in retail venues.

iii.               Highly regulated products like lotteries tend to not have a huge number of suppliers, and this does not only apply to lotteries. Appropriate industry regulations that protect consumers in each jurisdiction they are licensed in, mean that new entrants can only exist if they fit within strict criteria. It’s actually a good thing for consumers.

MYTH

ALNA is a mouth piece for Tatts or now TABCORP and is now allowing them to build a monopoly at the expense of our Members.

FACT

ALNA has been in deep negotiation with Tatts or now TABCORP on commissions, Omni channel share and Shop fits for the last 12 Months, these negotiations are continuing and have not been finalised. There is more to be achieved in these negotiations but they are completely separate from our support to eradicate synthetic lotteries. We are certainly very clear to Tatts or now TABCORP that there is a large gap between current earnings/conditions and deserved earnings / conditions for our members. Our public submissions and research will support this and any copies you require of these documents can be achieved by merely asking me.

MYTH

ALNA is technically Insolvent

FACT

ALNA is audited every year, and all of our records are lodged with ASIC every year without fail, We hold our Annual general meetings as per the Corporations Act.

Our Audited reports contain an Auditors independence declaration and our reports can be obtained via ASIC. Any copies you require of these documents can be achieved by merely asking me.

MYTH

Another association is in a position to represent Newsagents.

FACT

ALNA is the only Association that has ACCC authorisation to collectively represent newsagents both locally and nationally.

ALNA is the only association representing over 2000 members in our industry.

As always feel free to contact me to discuss anything that may be of concern.

 

Warm regards

Adam

In this correspondence Adam responds to rumours being put about by others. A few weeks ago I mentioned anonymous correspondence I had received and suggested people sending it should publish it themselves. In two cases recently, the correspondence has attacked ALNA. I have not published it here and will not publish it here.

On the issue of Lottoland, I support the work of ALNA on this. They have done an extraordinary amount of good work for newsagents on this.

7 likes
Lotteries

The NANA position on Lottoland’s offer to newsagents

Plenty of newsagents have sent me this email published today by NANA. Many sent it saying WTF NANA?

Their line about not being in anyone’s pocket reads as a passive-aggressive statement to me.

Their line about monopolies, too, is odd as they have dealt with monopolies in our channel for years.

NANA’s Position on Lottoland’s Offer to Newsagents
From tomorrow (19 April), you are likely to receive a letter from Lottoland.  NANA understands the letter will refer to an offer Lottoland has made to NANA on behalf of its Members and other interested Newsagents across Australia.

NANA is considering that offer.  It is substantially higher than previous offers made to ALNA and to Newsagents in the media.  The offer is based on a percentage of sales value, not profit.  The percentage rate is higher than the percentages Newsagents and other lotteries outlets receive in commissions from Tatts Group Lotteries for their lotteries products.

Firstly, NANA is not in anyone’s pocket.

Secondly, Newsagents have asked NANA to negotiate with Lottoland and other alternate lotteries/wagering products providers to deliver a benefit to them.  Lottoland is not the only player in this space.

NANA says that Lottoland’s approach to the industry in the past been ham-fisted.  At the end of the day, it is about income and income that Newsagents and other lotteries outlets are already losing to online lotteries and wagering product sales, irrespective of who the product owner is.

NANA has not finalised an agreement.  NANA is duty bound to consider any alternative that gives Newsagents a fair share.

NANA has written to the Deputy Prime Minister and Senator Fifield about the proposed amendments to the Interactive Gambling legislation.  If the identified issues concerning taxation, State government revenue, consumer education and income for Newsagents and other lotteries outlets are resolved, why shouldn’t Newsagents get an additional income stream, which balances what they are losing to alternate wagering products and to Tatts Group Lotteries’ own online sales activities.

From day one of the campaign funded and conducted by Tatts Group Lotteries against alternate lotteries/wagering products, NANA has stressed that there will be enormous consequences for Newsagents if Tatts Group Lotteries has no effective competition.  Already, Tatts Group Lotteries has an almost monopoly position in every State and Territory except Western Australia.  If this position is reinforced by a legislated ban on alternate/wagering products, there will be nothing to prevent Tatts Group Lotteries building on their thrust into online sales.  Already their online sales represent a significant proportion of the overall sales of lotteries products.

Monopolies are not good for small businesses.

Monopolies are not good for consumers.

Tatts Group Lotteries do not object to online sales of lotteries products.  They do it all the time.  They do it through their app and online.  They also have a substantial beneficial stake in the online lotteries sales company Jumbo Interactive.  This company is licensed by Tatts Group Lotteries and competes online against Newsagents and other lotteries outlets.

Throughout the campaign orchestrated and funded by Tatts Group Lotteries, a campaign on which they have spent more than $5 MILLION, they portrayed the resistance they have created as being initiated and managed on a grass roots level by Newsagents and other lotteries outlets.  Make no mistake, the campaign was and is funded and orchestrated by Tatts Group Lotteries.  Some Newsagent and Lotteries associations have tied themselves to the campaign and appear to act as mouthpieces for Tatts Group Lotteries.  One must ask the questions “How do they afford their extensive media and public relations campaign when they could be technically insolvent.  Who is picking up the tab for their media and PR agency and keeping them afloat?”

NANA has been approached to represent the interests of significant blocks of Newsagents outside of NSW and ACT.  Why?  Because Newsagents are sick and tired of being used as cannon fodder by the likes of Tatts Group Lotteries and associations that act as their mouthpiece.  NANA is working with those Newsagents to work out what will be best for them.

There is a long way to go in this saga.  NANA has existed for more than 125 years and is here for the long haul.  NANA is committed to continuing to work in the best interests of its Members.  Dismissing any genuine offer from any organisation to work with Newsagents closes the gate and will potentially cost Newsagents income.

NANA will continue to negotiate with Lottoland and other organisations for the benefit of its Members.

If an agreement cannot be reached that is good for Newsagents, then nothing will change.

We will keep you updated as things develop.
Contact NANA on 1300 113 044 or by email to nana@nana.com.au

In my opinion, NANA is a joke, redundant and of no value to newsagents. It has been thus for years.

4 likes
Lotteries

News Corp. gives space to Lottoland to make their case

Oh please, seriously? News Corp. gave space to Lottoland CEO Luke Brill to spin more in an effort to keep their business in Australia viable. This appeared in The Daily Telegraph on the back of support from News Corp. on Sky News. Why is the company supporting Lottoland?

Here is Brill’s opinion piece from The Daily Telegraph:

OPINION

Lottoland boss says Aussies will lose out with proposed government betting legislation

IF YOU believe the politicians and bureaucrats in Canberra, Australians should not be allowed to bet on what the federal government describes as “synthetic” lotteries, such as those offered by Lottoland, where you can bet on the outcome of overseas lotteries.

And yet, if you are 18 or over, you can go into your local TAB and bet big dollars on an animated racing game offered by Tabcorp.

The recent announcement by the government of plans to ban “synthetic” lotteries means that Australians won’t be able to wager on overseas lotteries like the US Powerball or EuroMillions through Lottoland — but having a punt on cartoon horses running imaginary races on fictionalised tracks is somehow perfectly fine.

Nothing “synthetic” about that!

As our American friends would say, what baloney.

Let’s face it.

Lottoland CEO Luke Brill says his betting agency doesn’t offer products sold by newsagencies.

The government’s proposal looks like a ham-fisted and totally unnecessary move designed to protect and entrench the monopoly currently enjoyed by Tabcorp-Tatts, which by their own admission spent some $5 million of shareholders’ money last year trying to run us out of town.

If the legislation is passed by Parliament, Tabcorp-Tatts will end up controlling the entire lottery market — online and offline.

This will mean reduced choice for hundreds of thousands of Australian customers who enjoy a flutter on the results of overseas lotteries via Lottoland.

And it means the little guys — the newsagents — will be at the mercy of this huge monopoly.

Ironically, the government claimed it was acting in the interests of newsagents when justifying the legislation, even though there is not a shred of evidence to suggest Lottoland harms newsagents.

Lottoland does not offer products sold by newsagents.

In fact, we want to partner with newsagents and pay them for promoting our products and referring customers to our services.

To that end, we are offering newsagents an 11 per cent revenue share on all bets that are referred to us.

This is significantly higher than what Tabcorp-Tatts offers newsagents for in-store purchases only, and is a whole lot more than what newsagents get from Tabcorp-Tatts’ burgeoning online revenue, which is, well, nothing.

We believe in giving our customers more rather than fewer choices. We believe in a level-playing field that encourages rather than restricts competition and innovation. This is an important fight for our customers, for competition, and for newsagents, that we have to win.

Lottoland ought be judged buy their actions. Think back to their TV campaign when they launched into Australia, attacking newsagents mercilessly, hurtfully and deliberately. Shame on them.

In my opinion, News Corp. owes newsagents an explanation for their apparent support of Lottoland. The airtime and space go beyond free speech and giving a fair go. Newsagents have not been given this by the company on this issue.

Click here to see why I think newsagents have nothing to gain from a relationship with Lottoland.

15 likes
Ethics

How important is consistent branding to Tatts?

One argument Tatts makes in support of regular image refresh at the retailer level is the need for brand consistency. I am told their reps say the company wants customers in-store to see a corporate image consistent with their marketing collateral used on TV, online and elsewhere.

This argument would carry weight if Tatts was consistent in its application of this desire.

Check out how how the shop at the Qantas terminal in Melbourne airport looks as of last night.

This corporate image is quite old – at least two, maybe more corporate image generations ago. Yet here it is, in a high profile location seen by many visitors to Victoria.

I am surprised Tatts permits it. Oh, and I do see it as 100% on Tatts and not the retailer.

If I was a Tatts retailer and under pressure re my corporate image I would be using photos like this one to make the case that how current a business looks is not that important, as Tatts appears to be inconsistent in its roll out of a consistent image … or at least that is what the evidence in the marketplace suggests.

This particular store is interesting in that the image is not the most recent prior to the current. That, to me, makes it useful in terms of the case I make here.

In addition to the corporate image is the matter of the digital screens, the additional in-store marketing infrastructure spend that Tatts says is vital to sales growth.l While I doubt there is any evidence from stores supporting that argument by Tatts, a high profile stores such as this one at Melbourne airport should have the screens, almost as part of the Tatts campaign. Yet, it is the other way, a step 10 or 15 years back, maybe more, suggesting the Tatts claims have no foundation.

While there could be regulations such as airport requirements, I suspect not given that the folks at Melbourne airport are focussed on their retail offer. Surely they see this offer as out of date, old-school.

Tatts needs to explain why the image of this business is okay while others with more a more recent image need to upgrade. They need to make a business case that stands up.

In my personal opinion, I think Tatts continues to place too high a financial burden on its small business retail network to upgrade image and install digital marketing, a burden that is not rewarded with the sales revenue boost that Tatts says will flow.

19 likes
Ethics

Here is why I think newsagents have nothing to gain from a relationship with Lottoland

In my opinion, there is no value for small business newsagents in supporting or working with Lottoland. here is why:

  1. 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.
  2. Lottoland now wants to partner with newsagents because federal parliament appears set to ban betting on lotteries. Boo hoo to them.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

17 likes
Competition

Tatts online lottery revenue growth

This graph shows the percentage of Tatts’ own lotteries revenue reach year from online sales, over three years, as reported in annual reports published by Tatts Group.

The big battle for lottery retailers is the online push by Tatts and OzLotteries.

While the Lottoland battle win is good and sure to be appreciated by many lottery retailers, I think the bigger challenge remains the migration from over the counter to online purchase.

I am told Tatts reps say to retailers to not worry about this. Of course they would say that.

I think lottery retailers need to run their businesses as if the migration continues, and picks up pace. There is no downside to any lottery retailer running their business believing this. The only result can be a healthier business.

7 likes
Lotteries

Tatts pitches ease of purchase

On my phone today. I could complete a purchase in under 10 seconds.

While the Lottoland victory is important, the migration of over the counter purchases to mobile and online is the main challenge newsagents with lotteries face. I fear too many are not managing heir businesses with this migration on their mind. It is easy to ignore something you do not easily see.

11 likes
Lotteries

Lottoland responds to federal legislation move

news.com.au reports:

In a statement, Lottoland Australia CEO Luke Brill said, “While we understand the concerns expressed by some newsagents, the proposed legislation is both misguided and unnecessary.

“The fact is that Lottoland does not offer betting opportunities on any Australian lottery, so our offering does not have a direct impact on newsagents.

“On the contrary, we want to work with newsagents to provide customers with greater choice and even better services, which have the potential to be highly beneficial for individual newsagents.

“As a responsible and responsive corporate citizen that contributes extensively to local and community groups, we will continue to work closely with regulators and all political parties to reach a satisfactory outcome in the best interest of our more than 650,000 registered customers.”

1 likes
Lotteries

Lotto betting to be prohibited in Australia

Big news in this press release from ALNA today:

Australia, 27 March 2018: The lotto and keno betting industry will cease to exist under a new proposed amendment to the Interactive Gambling Bill, meaning the closure of dangerous sites like Lottoland and Planet Lottery – a move welcomed by the Australian Lottery and Newsagents Association.

The news comes as a relief to the Australian Lottery and Newsagents Association (ALNA), which has long held serious concerns about the ethical conduct, high consumer risks, damage to Australian businesses, and dodgy structures of these schemes.

Adam Joy, CEO of the Australian Lottery and Newsagents Association said, “We are pleased to see this loophole being addressed on a national level. The best kind of consumer protection from synthetic lotteries is to not allow it in our country. The model encourages problem gambling, promotes high risk spending, and is misleading regarding the winnings available. And it also comes at a significant cost to state taxes, and to local family-run small businesses – that employ locally, pay Australian taxes and support the local community.”

Betting on the outcome of lotteries is already not an approved betting contingency in South Australia, so lotto betting schemes cannot accept bets there. The UK government has recently moved to close further loopholes in their Gambling Act, to ensure betting on lottery outcomes is prohibited. And now this proposed amendment will see decisive national action to prohibit these types of businesses in Australia.

Joy added, “We are talking about websites, like Lottoland, that send bets overseas and have a history of being misleading, preferring token gestures over responsible behaviour, of targeting Australian businesses, of illegally misusing trademarks of other businesses and facing legal action. They operate on the methodology that it is easier to beg for forgiveness than to do the right thing from the start.

“And they do all this while operating outside of the much tighter regulations, consumer protections, and higher taxes that official regulated lotteries adhere to. This is why amending the Interactive Gambling Act is the only sensible way forward.

“This will be welcomed news for the consumers who have been misled by these online schemes, the community that have been concerned about the impact on state tax revenues, and the more than 4,000 small businesses and their 15,000+ employees that are regulated lottery retailers.”

One of the most concerning aspects of the synthetic lottery model is its introduction of instant and repetitive behaviours that have been proven to be high risk for addiction and encouraging of irresponsible gambling behaviours: “The same features of pokies that make it high risk and dangerous, are being applied to online betting. All the while, using the low harm product of lotteries as the bait to then switch Australian consumers over to high harm gambling.

“The Federal Interactive Gambling Act already makes it illegal to sell a scratchy online and play a poker machine online, and the federal government moved last year to further strengthen the act with an amendment to ban online in-play betting on sports and banning credit betting, as well as making it illegal for unlicensed operators to offer online poker. We are pleased that they are now closing a further loophole in the Act by banning online betting on all lottery and keno outcomes,” explained Joy.

The ALNA has objected to the financial implications of these online betting sites, like Lottoland and Planet Lottery. Based offshore and licensed in the Northern Territory as sports bookmakers, the schemes avoid paying any gambling tax and have no obligation to support the consumers they may hurt with their encouragement of high harm behaviour. And in the case of Lottoland, a Point of Consumption Tax for all synthetic lottery sales would be contributing less than 1% compared to official lotteries.

The ALNA questions if the current licence for these sites can manage the risks that come with the type of complex layered financial hedging that they operate on.

The other concerning financial implication of lotto betting has been that consumers can walk away with significantly less than what was initially promoted or than they had understandably expected if they won.

Joy added, “State Governments have been voicing concerns that lotto and keno betting sites are hurting state tax revenue collections that impact community services that pay for schools, hospitals, roads and other important infrastructure.

“These schemes are also hurting newsagents and other lottery retailers across Australia who are mostly mum and dad operators and have their houses on the line as collateral for their businesses. And because they are bound by tight regulations that provide consumer protections, they are open to having their customers hijacked.”

On behalf Australia’s lottery and news agents, the ALNA greatly appreciates the Coalition Government’s strong support and decisive action on this issue, and would also like to recognise the important role of Senator Pauline Hanson and the One Nation Party in leading this initiative with the government.

–       ENDS –

What is the difference between lotto betting and official regulated lotteries:

Lotto betting sites are wagering websites that sends bets overseas, with customers betting on the outcome of lotteries. More colloquially known as lotto bets (synthetic/fake lotteries), these online-only bookmakers are different to official regulated lottery draws.

They do not offer tickets in a draw, rather they draw from regulated lottery businesses and offer bets on lottery outcomes, relying on complex insurance linked securities to pay any winners (there has only been one million-dollar prize recipient, compared to official lottery’s 253 millionaires in 2016).

Real lotteries generate billions in state lottery taxes to pay for schools, hospitals, roads and other important infrastructure.

About the Australian Lottery and Newsagents’ Association (ALNA)

The Australian Lottery and Newsagents’ Association (ALNA) is the only national and non-profit, industry body specifically for Australian newsagents and lottery agents. Representing a significant part of the Australian economy, ALNA works tirelessly to better its members businesses, and to ensure a secure future for newsagents and lottery agents.

About Adam Joy, Chief Executive Officer, ALNA

Adam Joy is the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Lottery and Newsagents’ Association (ALNA). He has held senior roles at ALNA for almost a decade.

Adam is an experienced senior executive and board director in commercial, advocacy and non-profit organisations. Previously, he worked in business process outsourcing, petrol and convenience, FMCG, QSR and marketing organisations.

Adam holds a Masters in Leadership and is a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors.

12 likes
Lotteries

More on the Powerball changes

I have seen the recent communication from Lotterywest to newsagents in preparation for the Powerball changes. The is much for retailers to communicate to customers, plenty of changes that will cause friction at the counter.

I know from feedback already that customers will have many questions, as will staff and newsagency business owners.

The changes are a challenge, but needed to lift sales if the research touted by Tatts and Lotterywest is accurate. People want bigger jackpots. The only way to get them is with changes like these. The changes come at a labour and customer relationship cost. This is why training and management are key, to mitigate situations that will arise.

While Lottoland has been busy with their marketing, I am yet to see anything that confronts the Powerball changes.

Newsagency suppliers hold ensure their team members are aware that the time around the launch of the new Powerball game will be challenging for newsagents.

3 likes
Lotteries

What do you think of the Powerball changes?

I have been asked by several people to start a topic on the Powerball changes, so they can comment. Here it is. For those unfamiliar, here is a summary of the changes, from an email to retailers from Lotterywest:

More overall winners
We’re improving the odds of winning any prize from 1 in 78 to 1 in 44.

Big Jackpots
Bigger jackpots that customers love.

More Winning Numbers
The new Powerball game will draw 7 Winning Numbers from a barrel of 35 balls (numbered 1–35). The Powerball will still be drawn from a barrel of 20 balls (numbered 1–20).

New Prize Divisions
We’ll be adding a new Division 9 to the game, helping to increase the number of overall winners in every draw.

Pricing update
To help deliver more winners and big prizes, the cost of entry will increase by 25 cents per game (plus retailer commission). 

19 likes
Lotteries

Good jackpot start to the lottery year

While the OzLotto $40M jackpot went off a couple of days ago, last night Powerball jackbooted with next’s weeks top prize worth $55M. This is a nice start to the year for lottery retailers for we know the best sales growth comes from natural jackpots.

While I don’t have lottery products in the newsagencies I have today, I did for many years at Forest Hill. Our most successful marketing for jackpots was by papering the newspaper stand. This was back ten and more years ago, when newspapers were a valued destination category.

If I had lotteries today, I’d look at by top destination lines outside of lotteries and pitch the jackpot there.

9 likes
Lotteries

Tatts ads running when retailers are closed

A newsagent contacted me this morning about Tatts running ads promoting the OzLotto jackpot after 6pm, when stores are closed. They say this happens often. I agreed to post about it here for others to comment.

From a Tatts prospective this is the right move. For shareholder value, growing online is important.

8 likes
Lotteries
Trending Articles

Fairfax changes approach to TV Guide, disrespects newsagents

Published on April 20, 2011

What do you think of the Powerball changes?

Published on February 16, 2018

IPS releases new magazine contracts

Published on June 21, 2011