Many critics have long been uncomfortable in general with state governments promoting what they see as a vice. Because the lotteries are run as a business with a focus on maximizing revenues, advertising necessarily focuses on persuading target groups to spend their money on the lottery. The questions are 1 does this promotion of gambling lead to negative consequences for the poor, problem gamblers, etc.?
Is running a lottery at cross-purposes with the larger public interest? Critics charge that lottery advertising seeks "to stimulate rather than merely accommodate demand," a role for the state that "may be inconsistent with other functions of government Lottery advertisements must either encourage existing players to buy more tickets or entice non-players into becoming players.
In the words of one, lottery play depends on encouraging people's "magical thinking," which advertising must target. To this end, lotteries use traditional marketing methods, such as identifying likely players, compiling extensive socio-economic profiles, conducting focus group research, test marketing new products, etc.
The media plan for the Iowa lottery stated its strategy as "to target our message demographically against those that we know to be heavy users, while encouraging purchases among light or non-users. Critics charge that much lottery advertising is deceptive, commonly presenting misleading information about the odds of winning the jackpot, inflating the value of the money won lotto jackpot prizes are usually paid in equal annual installments over 20 years, with inflation and taxes dramatically eroding the current value ; and so forth.
Growing criticism has helped to persuade some legislatures to mandate restrictions on lottery advertising. Lottery advocates claim that the Massachusetts lottery spent no money on advertising in outside of point-of-purchase sites i.
As a direct result, there was an absolute decline in lottery revenue for the first time. Despite the increasing salience of the issue, only three states -- Minnesota, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- have imposed significant restrictions on lottery advertising Massachusetts' legislature did the same by means of its virtual elimination of the advertising budget; other states have similarly reduced the advertising budget, but for a variety of reasons.
But many state lottery organizations claim to have significantly reduced their overall advertising on their own initiative, or to have changed it in ways to make it more "socially responsible. Criticism of the advertising practices of lotteries is not confined to critics outside of the industry.
Speaking to a meeting of his fellow lottery directors, Jeff Perlee, Director of the New York State Lottery, warned that although most lottery advertising was responsible in its claims, lottery officials:. Add to that the fact that our advertising is often relentless in its frequency, and lottery critics and even supporters are left wondering what public purpose is served when a state's primary message to its constituents is a frequent and enticing appeal to the gambling instinct.
The answer is none. No legitimate public purpose justifies the excesses to which some lottery advertising has resorted. A Maryland state budget examiner's report on that state's lottery advertising stated that it contained "misleading gimmickry" that exaggerated the benefits to the public from lottery revenues.
The focus on convincing non-players or infrequent players to utilize the lottery, as well as persuading frequent players to play even more, is the source of an additional array of criticisms. Giving force to this concern is the widespread conception that the lottery is a regressive tax because it draws a disproportionate amount of its revenues from lower-income groups.
The image of the state promoting a highly regressive scheme among its poorest citizens by playing on their unrealistic hopes is a highly evocative one. The most frequently cited, and most egregious, example of this was a billboard in one of Chicago's poorest neighborhoods that touted the lottery as: "How to go from Washington Boulevard to Easy Street - Play the Illinois State Lottery.
This assumption, however, may not be accurate. Much depends on the definition of "regressive. In that sense, given the fact that a lottery ticket is the same price to all, regardless of income, it is by definition regressive and is considered an "implicit" tax because the revenues go to the state.
But this simple approach does not capture such variables as frequency of play and the amounts of money generated by the lottery by income group. Here the evidence divides by the type of game played. The data suggests although is far from conclusive that the bulk of lotto players and revenues come from middle-income neighborhoods, and that far fewer proportionally come from either high-income or low-income areas.
Clotfelter and Cook cite one study in the s which concluded that "'the poor' participate in the state lottery games at levels disproportionately less than their percentage of the population. The popular belief is that the poor are much heavier users of the lottery than the rich and the middle classes. In fact, however, although "lottery play is systematically related to social class, [it is] perhaps not always as strongly as the conventional wisdom would suggest.
Absolute expenditures appear to be remarkably uniform over a broad range of incomes. Assuming this is true, the lottery may still be termed regressive because the state takes greater percentage of income from those with lower incomes. Although total expenditures on the lottery may be broadly similar by income group, the type of game they play differs considerably. An analysis by the Chicago Sun-Times revealed that lower-income individuals concentrate much more heavily on the numbers games, "trading lower payoffs with a higher chance of winning.
They also are likely to be frequent players, often daily players. Lotto - with its big-money jackpots and slim odds -- appears to appeal more to upper-income groups, most of whom are only occasional players, usually when the prize money reaches large proportions.
This tendency toward regressivity in certain types of lottery games is also borne out in the figures for the Massachusetts lottery.
Less compelling, although significant, evidence exists in the media plans of the lotteries. Clotfelter and Cook report that lottery marketing strategies do seem to explicitly target lower-income groups.
For example, the advertising plan for Ohio's SuperLotto game stated that lottery promotions should be timed to coincide with the receipt of "Government benefits, payroll and Social Security payments. Income aside, there are clear differences in lottery play by socio-economic group and other factors.
Men tend to play more than women; blacks and Hispanics more than whites; the old and the young play less than those in the middle age ranges; and Catholics tend to play more than Protestants. Interestingly, "lottery play falls with formal education" even though non-lottery gambling in general tends to increase.
There is growing evidence that the new games the lotteries have introduced to increase sales are more addictive, and are compounding the problem of compulsive gamblers. The study also concluded that keno in particular fosters addiction. This link is widely recognized, even by those in the industry. In the words of one lottery director: "[G]ambling, including playing the lottery, is However, lotteries are a great way to get easy and rather painless revenue for the local government.
This money is then pumped back into the public, in the form of parks, schools, and construction benefits. Even though many people who play lose money, lottery sales go over much better with the public than added property or income taxes.
This is the core of why lotteries exist - that and to please the gambling-loving people of the state, of course.
State-sponsored lotteries are legal, and an easy way to gain revenue through citizens willing to give money for a chance to win big. However, some still have qualms against gambling, and religious organizations often classify gambling as immoral or sinful.
Well, for one, it would mean that lotteries would be illegal since any lottery, not state-sponsored or state-approved, is against the law. As an example, from to , the constitution held the 18th amendment, which rendered alcohol and its consumption illegal. This period was called Prohibition , and during that time, countless underground bars and alcohol manufacturers remained selling alcohol, which was still consumed by the public.
Similarly to this, when lotteries are illegal, people simply run illegal lotteries. The bottom line is that making an activity illegal will not stop people from engaging in it.
For something like a lottery as opposed to illegal drugs, for example , most states see no issue in running a legal operation, especially if they benefit from the profit. Additionally, during Prohibition, the United States lost the opportunity to tax alcohol, meaning they lost revenue during those times.
Similarly, if lotteries were to stop legally selling tickets, they would lose an incredible source of public money each year, and would possibly have to raise other taxes. It makes the most sense for the state to legalize the lottery and rake in cash while doing so. As mentioned before, four states still do not have state-sponsored lotteries, all with different reasoning. However, with states facing deficits, this may be subject to change in the coming years. Nevada will most likely not be considering a change to the rules any time soon.
In , Alabamians voted against a state lottery. The opposition was mostly organized by church groups and conservative groups, whose populations overlapped with each other. However, in recent years, legislation has been reconsidering the possibility of a state lottery in order to bring in more funding for the state.
This tropical state relies heavily on tourism, often by families and honeymooners. The local government has rejected any form of gambling due to a fear of changing the tourism economy. Of course, this makes no rational sense: People without lots of money should be the least willing to squander their hard-earned cash on games of chance. Lotteries have such terrible odds that they make slot machines look good. However, a paper by a team of Carnegie-Mellon behavioral economists - Emily Haisley, Romel Mostafa and George Loewenstein - helps explain why poor people are so much more likely to buy tickets.
The problem, it turns out, is feeling poor:. In two experiments conducted with low-income participants, we examine how implicit comparisons with other income classes increase low-income individuals' desire to play the lottery. In Experiment 1, participants were more likely to purchase lottery tickets when they were primed to perceive that their own income was low relative to an implicit standard. Instant lottery tickets, also known as scratch cards, were introduced in the s and have become a major source of lottery revenue.
How do you win the lottery? No Schemes! Who funds the lottery? The current operator of the National Lottery is Camelot. Which states have no lottery? How does the lottery system work? A lottery is a form of gambling that involves the drawing of numbers at random for a prize. Lotteries are outlawed by some governments, while others endorse it to the extent of organizing a national or state lottery. Lotteries come in many formats. For example, the prize can be a fixed amount of cash or goods.
What are the chances of winning the lottery?
0コメント