Case Study - Selling Hope
Case study: Selling Hope
Case Summary State lotteries consider as a marketing challenge. As a legal monopoly, they have no competitors which are a major aim of much advertising. The company only remain two objectives which are recruiting new players and encouraging existing player to increase their activity. To aid them in product development and advertising, marketers use variety research tools to learn people’s preferences and responses to proposed games. They also engage in target marketing by identifying specific demographic groups and learning which are more likely to participate in lotteries and what appeals to each one. State sponsorship of lotteries is widely criticized, first, for being a regressive form of taxation and second for being an improper role for government. Some of the criticism is directed at social impact of advertising. Lottery advertising also relies heavily on fantasy. The main criticism of lottery advertising focuses on the question of deception. Although many ads highlight the maximum award, they seldom disclose the odds of winning it. Defenders of the lotteries and lottery marketing argue that the poor are heavier users of games because they have more to gain, and that for this reason any restrictions would deprive them life-changing opportunities. A great deal of lottery advertising is merely instructional, explaining to people how to play the games. Finally, if lotteries are regressive form of taxation, they are restively painless and purely voluntary.
Question 1: Is the marketing of lotteries deceptive or merely aggressive? How might one account for the targeting of those potential players with lower educational experience?
The marketing of lotteries can be considered as deceptive. The deceptive meaning is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not true, or not the whole truth as in certain types of half-truths. The advertising of the lotteries emphasizes on the great award when someone had win
Case Summary State lotteries consider as a marketing challenge. As a legal monopoly, they have no competitors which are a major aim of much advertising. The company only remain two objectives which are recruiting new players and encouraging existing player to increase their activity. To aid them in product development and advertising, marketers use variety research tools to learn people’s preferences and responses to proposed games. They also engage in target marketing by identifying specific demographic groups and learning which are more likely to participate in lotteries and what appeals to each one. State sponsorship of lotteries is widely criticized, first, for being a regressive form of taxation and second for being an improper role for government. Some of the criticism is directed at social impact of advertising. Lottery advertising also relies heavily on fantasy. The main criticism of lottery advertising focuses on the question of deception. Although many ads highlight the maximum award, they seldom disclose the odds of winning it. Defenders of the lotteries and lottery marketing argue that the poor are heavier users of games because they have more to gain, and that for this reason any restrictions would deprive them life-changing opportunities. A great deal of lottery advertising is merely instructional, explaining to people how to play the games. Finally, if lotteries are regressive form of taxation, they are restively painless and purely voluntary.
Question 1: Is the marketing of lotteries deceptive or merely aggressive? How might one account for the targeting of those potential players with lower educational experience?
The marketing of lotteries can be considered as deceptive. The deceptive meaning is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not true, or not the whole truth as in certain types of half-truths. The advertising of the lotteries emphasizes on the great award when someone had win