Substitution between games in the UK national lottery
AbstractVirtually all lottery agencies offer a variety of games to suit the tastes of players in an attempt to maximize revenue to the government. Using the UK National Lottery, which offers a variety of on-line and scratchcard games, the extent to which there is substitution or complementarity between games is evaluated Employing weekly data from the three UKNL lottery games offered over the sample period, it is found that own-game characteristics have, by far, the largest influence on sales. Some evidence is found suggesting that the lotto and scratchcard games are partial substitutes for one another. Thunderball sales appear independent of the other two games. Some evidence is also found that the Wednesday and Saturday drawings of the lotto game are substitutes. The overall conclusion is that Camelot has successfully designed and marketed three games that each appeal to bettors in different ways. Thus, sales from one game do not seem to seriously cannibalize the sales of the other games, with the exceptions noted above. Further, the introduction of another, temporary game (Big Draw 2000) contributed to net sales. These results also suggest that the games do not appear to be complements to each other, indicating that the various arguments as to why the games may be so (transactions costs, brand awareness, and the portfolio effect) do not appear to be very strong.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Applied Economics.
Volume (Year): 36 (2004)
Issue (Month): 7 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Farrell, Lisa, et al, 2000. "The Demand for Lotto: The Role of Conscious Selection," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 18(2), pages 228-41, April.
- Forrest, David & Gulley, O. David & Simmons, Robert, 2000. "Elasticity of Demand for UK National Lottery Tickets," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 53(n. 4), pages 853-64, December .
- Victor Matheson & Kent Grote, 2004.
"Dueling Jackpots: Are Competing Lotto Games Complements or Substitutes?,"
0406, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
- Kent Grote & Victor Matheson, 2006. "Dueling Jackpots: Are Competing Lotto Games Complements or Substitutes?," Atlantic Economic Journal, International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 34(1), pages 85-100, March.
- Kent Grote & Victor Matheson, 2011. "The Economics of Lotteries: A Survey of the Literature," Working Papers 1109, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
- Jen-Hung Wang & Larry Tzeng & Junji Tien, 2006. "Willingness to pay and the demand for lotto," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(10), pages 1207-1216.
- Humphreys, Brad & Perez, Levi, 2011. "Lottery Participants and Revenues: An International Survey of Economic Research on Lotteries," Working Papers 2011-17, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.