The headline of the day at the Tribune: “Could sluggish Illinois lottery aim higher? Private firm falling short in sales; poorer neighborhoods bring in most revenue” (* this may be behind a paywall, but should be accessible by googling the title)
Apparently, Illinois hired a private firm to run the lottery based on optimistic projections of revenue growth, and, in particular, revenue growth among the affluent. Lottery Control Board member Geoffrey Richards is quoted as saying, “Has there been an effort … to try to increase lottery activity in affluent neighborhoods and to reach
those people who may have greater disposable income to participate in the lottery?”
And the plan is, according to the article, to market in more affluent areas and to create games that appeal to the wealthy. It cites a specific game, “The Good Life,” which pays $1,000 to $30,000 a week for 20 – 30 years, as being intended to appeal to more affluent customers.
Really?
It’s well-known that the lottery is a (voluntary) tax on the poor; even the article acknowledges that “the poor also spend a greater percentage of their total income on lottery tickets than those with greater financial means.” Do officials truly imagine that, if only marketing and game design were better, large numbers of educated people would begin to buy lottery tickets? The very reason why they’re affluent is because they understand that playing the lottery is a money-losing proposition.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In