1 / 12

Technological Advancements in State Lottery Operations June 6, 2014

NCLGS. Technological Advancements in State Lottery Operations June 6, 2014. Presented by: Chris Robertson Director of Business Development. AGENDA. Three New Product Trends No Cannibalization Study. PLAY AT THE PUMP & ATMs. eSCRATCH. ELECTRONIC PULL-TAB DISPENSERS. NO CANNIBALIZATION.

keilah
Download Presentation

Technological Advancements in State Lottery Operations June 6, 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NCLGS Technological Advancements in State Lottery OperationsJune 6, 2014 Presented by: Chris Robertson Director of Business Development

  2. AGENDA • Three New Product Trends • No Cannibalization Study

  3. PLAY AT THE PUMP & ATMs

  4. eSCRATCH

  5. ELECTRONIC PULL-TAB DISPENSERS

  6. NO CANNIBALIZATION Substitution Effect (Cannibalization) OR Supplementation Effect?

  7. NO CANNIBALIZATION • According to studies, no evidence to suggest that addition of new, lottery products, such as VLTs, in bars and clubs have a negative effect on Casino revenue. • Research by Christian Marfels, professor of Economics at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, concludes “Simply stated the notion of substitution effect and gaming do not mix.  There is simply no empirical evidence whatsoever to support such a claim.  Rather, the introduction of VLT gaming to a jurisdiction with other forms of commercial gaming, including casino gaming, leads to more variety within the gaming industry.”  • An effect that Marfels called the “Supplementation Effect.”

  8. NO CANNIBALIZATION SUPPLEMENTATION EFFECT = GROWING THE PIE

  9. NO CANNIBALIZATION • South Dakota • 1990 – 1996; VLT revenue$46M/year to $175M/year • Casino Revenue $14M/year to $45M/year • Manitoba • 1990 – 1996; VLT revenue $0M/year to $185M/year • Casino revenue $5M/year to $101M/year • Nova Scotia • 1992 – 1997; VLT revenue $17M/year to $106M/year Casino revenue $0M/year to $71M/year

  10. NO CANNIBALIZATION • WestVirginia • 2000 – 2007; VLT revenue $0M/year to $397M/year Casino revenue $283M/year to $955M/year • Iowa • 2000 – 2007; MVM revenue introduced, then removed growing from $0M/year to $121M/year • Casino revenue $899M/year to $1044M/year • Note: Casino revenue the year the MVMs were removed had smaller growth rate than during years MVMs were introduced • British Columbia • 2003 – 2011; VLT revenue $0M/year to $170M/year • Casino revenue $374M/year to $960M/year

  11. NO CANNIBALIZATION “….the extension of the substitution effect of casino gaming to other forms of commercial gaming in general, and to VLT gaming in particular, in the sense of cannibalization of gaming revenues, is misguided. If anything, the one dollar spent on VLT gaming is simply one dollar more spent on gaming. Why? Because VLT and casino activities are two vastly different forms of commercial gaming. As a consequence, the substitution effect can be laid to rest, and it can be safely replaced by the supplementation effect.” Christian Marfels, PH.D, Casino Gaming and VLT Gaming: Substitution Effect or Supplementation Effect?, GAMING LAW REVIEW, Volume 1, Number 3, 1997

  12. NO CANNIBALIZATION More lottery products grow the pie!

More Related