Does Camelot, the long-standing incumbent, deserve to win the next contract to keep running the National Lottery?
Today it bragged of record sales figures on the back of a hugely increased marketing budget as it tried to revitalise a tired brand it admits had lost “relevance”.
But since running the lottery is basically a licence to print money there is no reason to be particularly impressed.
Today it declined to give a profit figure, so perhaps we can assume it is embarrassingly high.
It will release that figure later to Companies House and hopes we won’t check (we will now).
Rivals say the UK strategy is based on a smaller base spending more money. What is Camelot’s strategy to widen participation and decrease average spend per player?
Since problem gambling behaviour has increased during lockdown, why has Camelot continued to sell £5 digital scratch cards, without reducing spending limits?
Other questions remain about how the money raised is distributed – the feeling being that the South does well at the expense of the North.
Prior to COVID-19, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that National
Lottery grants will fall from £1.3bn today to £0.9bn by 2024/25, which means that they anticipate a tumble in National Lottery revenue over the next few years. Are Camelot expecting the government to bail them out by making up for a shortfall in returns to good causes?
.jpg?w=600)
