![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Big Scratch
Jul. 7th, 2012 06:58 pmIn May, Camelot, the operators of the UK National Lottery, inaugurated an instant-win scratchcard at higher stakes than they had ever offered before. Previously, the highest-stakes scratchcard in the UK cost five pounds sterling; most five-pound games have top prizes of one million pounds, though the first five-pound game in 2003 had a small number of two million pound jackpot prizes. ( For completeness... ) This new card costs ten pounds and has a top prize of four million pounds.
( I am moderately opposed to developments in this direction. IMHO: poker good, casino table games good, one big lottery good, lots of small lotteries bad, scratchcards bad, slot machines bad, $5,000-a-spin slot machines bad but funny. )
The interesting thing about Camelot's scratchcards in the UK is that, well, I'm not sure quite how their economics work. ( They both rip you off and pay back too much in prizes at the same time. )
Possibly the most troubling part of the whole enterprise to me - and, remember, I'm starting from a fairly anti-scratchcard stance - comes in Schedule 4, which (not unreasonably) says that "The Licensee shall use reasonable endeavours not to market a Licensed Lottery that might encourage excessive play habits." Now my view - and I stress that I'm getting really subjective here - is that I'm getting uncomfortable here. The existence of a £10 ticket cannot do anything but encourage people to play it, even if only once for the novelty. I might consider a single £10 play to be excessive (and when the payback is so low - even for a 74% payback ticket which is crazily high for the genre! - then, in practice, I do) but others may not.
I've also seen the ticket discussed within an advertising feature within the Stockton Herald and Post as being "ideal for a gift or a treat", which is a form of wording that I consider uncomfortably close to upselling. I am deliberately not making any accusations here, not least because I suspect that Camelot would use considerably more cautious language, but I am opposed to the notion that a higher-stake card is any more of a treat than a lower-stake card. It bears too many similarities to the implication that gambling for high stakes is more fun than gambling for low stakes. Any operator who permits such a notion to continue is not, in my view, operating in good faith.
( And finally, to undermine everything I've been saying... )
( I am moderately opposed to developments in this direction. IMHO: poker good, casino table games good, one big lottery good, lots of small lotteries bad, scratchcards bad, slot machines bad, $5,000-a-spin slot machines bad but funny. )
The interesting thing about Camelot's scratchcards in the UK is that, well, I'm not sure quite how their economics work. ( They both rip you off and pay back too much in prizes at the same time. )
Possibly the most troubling part of the whole enterprise to me - and, remember, I'm starting from a fairly anti-scratchcard stance - comes in Schedule 4, which (not unreasonably) says that "The Licensee shall use reasonable endeavours not to market a Licensed Lottery that might encourage excessive play habits." Now my view - and I stress that I'm getting really subjective here - is that I'm getting uncomfortable here. The existence of a £10 ticket cannot do anything but encourage people to play it, even if only once for the novelty. I might consider a single £10 play to be excessive (and when the payback is so low - even for a 74% payback ticket which is crazily high for the genre! - then, in practice, I do) but others may not.
I've also seen the ticket discussed within an advertising feature within the Stockton Herald and Post as being "ideal for a gift or a treat", which is a form of wording that I consider uncomfortably close to upselling. I am deliberately not making any accusations here, not least because I suspect that Camelot would use considerably more cautious language, but I am opposed to the notion that a higher-stake card is any more of a treat than a lower-stake card. It bears too many similarities to the implication that gambling for high stakes is more fun than gambling for low stakes. Any operator who permits such a notion to continue is not, in my view, operating in good faith.
( And finally, to undermine everything I've been saying... )
