According to this story by the AP, two NFL teams (Redskins and Patriots) have partnered with their local lotteries to serve up branded scratch-off tix.
This blog post by Zac Bissonnette claims that using childhood heroes to peddle the lotto is similar to using Joe Camel to sell cigarettes.
I’m not the logic follows for that example. I guess, if we’re going to go after the NFL and the lottery, then we should probably go after the NFL and alcohol, too. Beer logos and team logos have long appeared together, and we don’t seem to have a problem with that.
I’m not saying that the lottery or beer sponsorship is right, or even okay.
I think the bigger issue for the lottery marketing effort is that it unwittingly targets people who can least afford to purchase tickets. Bissonnette links to this post with results from U of GA study, which found (among other things):
“An individual without a high school degree or GED is more than four times as likely to be an active lottery player as an individual who has an education above the high school level.”
“A high school graduate is two and a half times more likely than someone who has an education above the high school level to be an active lottery player.”
Knowing that level of education is directly correlated with level of income, reason dictates that the most active lotto players are people in the lowest income bracket.
Enter the question of social responsibility and ethics. Is it okay to knowingly target those who can least afford to gamble?
One one hand, it’s not like the Redskins are forcing people to buy their scratch tix. But on the other hand, do organizations like the Redskins have a responsibility to abstain from such selfish marketing practices?
If I were Steven Colbert, I’d give the NFL a wag of the finger.
Related Posts
No related posts were found, so here's a consolation prize: I hate “quality” “products” (and so should you).
