Learning from the lottery
A lottery follower passes along minutes of a South Carolina lottery commission meeting earlier this year. It should give you a lot of hints about the shape of things to come here in months and years ahead. These include recent S.C. efforts to take sales into non-traditional places to keep sales up (the move of retail traffic from convenience to big box stores is a concern). I note, too, how a push of higher-cost scratchoff tickets ($10) had offset decline in other traditional lottery ticket sales.
Finally, there's a reference, though incomplete, to a telephone survey of lottery player demographics. Most interesting. The majority of players are white, not surprising in a majority white state. But check this:
The "frequent player" is more likely to be -- male, African-American, aged 55-64, household income under $40,000, no high school degree, unemployed, no Internet access.
I hope we do some good studies of demographics and playing patterns.



Comments
Is the list of retailers in Arkansas who've applied to be lottery outlets public information ? Is Wal-Mart on the list?
Posted by: MysteryShopper
|
July 10, 2009 07:03 AM
The lottery is about the only way a poor person can get rich.
Posted by: Cato
|
July 10, 2009 07:50 AM
Or poorer, but that is the individual's decision. What is implied by pointing out that the average heavy player is, "male, African-American, aged 55-64, household income under $40,000, no high school degree, unemployed, no Internet access," is that there are some segments of our society that shouldn't be given the same choices as the rest of us. Or, that none of us should have those choices to prevent this vulnerable segment from having the same. Rather elitist, don't you think?
Posted by: Doc
|
July 10, 2009 07:55 AM
What? You mean poor people who can scarcely afford to play the lottery STILL PLAY THE LOTTERY? Oh my God! Who could have forseen such a thing? This lottery deal may have negative effects?!? If only somebody had warned us!
Posted by: Archaeopteryx
|
July 10, 2009 07:56 AM
Doc - That you inferred something does not mean the writer implied anything. A connection was made in your mind that I didn't find in the text of the piece.
Posted by: 70%er
|
July 10, 2009 08:33 AM
70%er -- If you have followed this site's coverage of the lottery, the connection might be more obvious.
Posted by: Doc
|
July 10, 2009 08:41 AM
"aged 55-64, household income under $40,000, no high school degree, unemployed..."
Also no health insurance, no pension plan or 401(k) and little chance of living above poverty level for the rest of their lives. In that age range, the lottery may offer their only hope, remote as it is.
If we are hell-bent in "protecting" people from playing the lottery, we should also prevent people from investing in the stock market. Both are forms of gambling. Look at the millions of people whose lives have been ruined in the past year with the stock market crash. Many who were not even involved in gambling (investing) lost their jobs, health coverage and retirement income.
We have a history of promoting gambling - what do you think being an entrepreneur means? Archie, does that mean that you are against the free enterprise system, against capitalism?
It's easy for comfortable conservatives and liberals to try to discourage poor people from gambling. You do not understand what it is like to have a future of poverty to look forward to.
Posted by: YossarianMinderbinder
|
July 10, 2009 08:43 AM
Yossarian, you might be onto something with preventing people from investing in the stock market........ Too bad we couldn't have enacted that back before all these big stupid companies set to collapsing and losing all their money!
i completely agree with your last sentence. when people see no hope for the future, because their daddy still doesn't see any hope for his own future, much less his kids', why not play the lottery or whatever they call it? at least it's a chance, and probably the only one they see headed their way.
i have a friend whose theory is that the country was headed for hell in a handbasket the day people started becoming grandparents at the ripe old age of 30-35, and there's a lot of truth to that, really. having a baby at 15-18 does tend to decrease a person's options.
Posted by: tina
|
July 10, 2009 09:40 AM
Max: for whose benefit to you wish the sutdies? Dpedning on for whose interest they are framed will provide you with a different end result, that might lead the decision-makers in the wrong direction.
Posted by: Bill
|
July 10, 2009 09:41 AM
I noted that administrative salaries were higher than advertising costs. This only happens with dumbass bidness. Advertising is what drives an operation like this.
Given that administrative was 1.7% while advertising was less than half that tells me Ernie likes those politically top-heavy operations. Just what Thornton had in mind, eh? As the ADG pointed out
Ray Thornton has lived well from the gov teat for most of his life. He sees no reason why Ernie shouldn't continue the tradition.
.
.
Posted by: eLwood
|
July 10, 2009 12:27 PM