from Steve Lucas, director of sales, Camelot Group
Sir; I write in response to your Comment ‘The price of success’ (The Grocer, May 28, p24). You correctly state the National Lottery generates “good footfall”. According to the Convenience Tracking Programme, 16% of shoppers visiting a c-store on a Wednesday, Friday and Saturday, said that buying lottery tickets is their primary reason for visiting.
With the help of its retail partners, Camelot has also succeeded in bucking the international trend of falling lottery sales, growing sales for the past two years. UK National Lottery sales in the last year rose by more than £150m, to £4,766.1m, more than three times the £40m increase seen in the previous year.
However, you suggest that “retailers could soon find their share of the Lottery business being squeezed as operator Camelot looks to boost sales via new channels”.
The new channels are designed to grow incremental sales, attracting new and lapsed players, and to enhance customer convenience. As our recent results testify, we have succeeded in growing sales across both retail and new channels. Retail sales remain by far the largest channel and rose by £69.7m year-on-year.
You go on to suggest lobbying for an improved margin on ticket sales. UK retailers earn comparable lottery margins to their counterparts in Europe, and - earning just half a per cent profit - Camelot itself operates on some of the lowest margins around. For every £1 that Camelot makes in profit, £10 goes to retailers in commission.
At more than 40% of revenues, Camelot returns more money to society than any other major lottery operator in the world (through duty and good causes). Are you suggesting we should further enhance retailer commission at the expense of the good causes which we were established to serve?
n Editor’s note: With the process of bidding for a new Lottery licence now under way, I don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest we have a sensible debate about the margins retailers earn. After all, it is partly because of their hard work that the Lottery has been successful.
I am not suggesting retailers should earn more at the expense of good causes. Rather, I think it would be fair to look at the profit made by Camelot shareholders.
Nobody is denying Camelot is a highly cost-effective Lottery operator. Yet in its last annual report, it reveals shareholders grew dividends by 7.5% between 2003 and 2004 to £31.4m. And, after another successful year, it will be interesting to see if the dividend has grown again.
I don’t need to remind readers that their ‘dividend’ has remained the same since the Lottery was launched, even though their operating costs have been going through the roof.
I don’t understand why it’s right that retailers be forced to accept the status quo. I would welcome readers’ views.
Sir; I write in response to your Comment ‘The price of success’ (The Grocer, May 28, p24). You correctly state the National Lottery generates “good footfall”. According to the Convenience Tracking Programme, 16% of shoppers visiting a c-store on a Wednesday, Friday and Saturday, said that buying lottery tickets is their primary reason for visiting.
With the help of its retail partners, Camelot has also succeeded in bucking the international trend of falling lottery sales, growing sales for the past two years. UK National Lottery sales in the last year rose by more than £150m, to £4,766.1m, more than three times the £40m increase seen in the previous year.
However, you suggest that “retailers could soon find their share of the Lottery business being squeezed as operator Camelot looks to boost sales via new channels”.
The new channels are designed to grow incremental sales, attracting new and lapsed players, and to enhance customer convenience. As our recent results testify, we have succeeded in growing sales across both retail and new channels. Retail sales remain by far the largest channel and rose by £69.7m year-on-year.
You go on to suggest lobbying for an improved margin on ticket sales. UK retailers earn comparable lottery margins to their counterparts in Europe, and - earning just half a per cent profit - Camelot itself operates on some of the lowest margins around. For every £1 that Camelot makes in profit, £10 goes to retailers in commission.
At more than 40% of revenues, Camelot returns more money to society than any other major lottery operator in the world (through duty and good causes). Are you suggesting we should further enhance retailer commission at the expense of the good causes which we were established to serve?
I am not suggesting retailers should earn more at the expense of good causes. Rather, I think it would be fair to look at the profit made by Camelot shareholders.
Nobody is denying Camelot is a highly cost-effective Lottery operator. Yet in its last annual report, it reveals shareholders grew dividends by 7.5% between 2003 and 2004 to £31.4m. And, after another successful year, it will be interesting to see if the dividend has grown again.
I don’t need to remind readers that their ‘dividend’ has remained the same since the Lottery was launched, even though their operating costs have been going through the roof.
I don’t understand why it’s right that retailers be forced to accept the status quo. I would welcome readers’ views.
No comments yet