Public Gaming International • September/October 2014
18
any discussion about other national buys.
But there will be an effort to build con-
sistency into the messaging and branding of
Monopoly. There is one logo, for instance,
that everyone will use. The messaging,
branding, and advertising will be created for
the national market but with the ability for
states to add some local color.
On that topic of consistency, Scott Bowen
commended you (in a previous interview)
for giving an effective and eloquent voice
to Mega Millions: “Paula Otto did an ex-
tremely good job of representing not just
Virginia but the entire Mega consortium.”
From your Public Relations perspective,
how important will it be to have consistency
on the national media stage of Monopoly,
or Powerball and Mega Millions too?
P. Otto:
Lotteries are both a state busi-
ness and a nationwide industry. I think it is
always to our benefit as a state business to
leverage any and all opportunities to build
our image and brand as a national industry,
to carve out a role for brand Lottery on the
national stage. The obvious opportunity
for that is when there is a big jackpot. That
becomes national news and we try to take
full advantage of those opportunities to re-
inforce the image of a national brand. But
we shouldn’t wait for opportunity to be pre-
sented on a silver platter. We should create
our own opportunity. The Monopoly TV
Game Show is one example of a proactive
initiative to build national presence.
I do think it is vital that the U.S. lottery
industry has a means of getting the message
out there and become a part of the national
conversation, to be a staple in the national
media and not be so restricted to local me-
dia. I don’t know that we need a single
spokesperson to be the face of lottery. I just
think we need to be more systematic in the
way we go about the business of garnering
national press and leveraging that to build
nation-wide awareness for our brands.
To what degree are the three national
games being managed as a single category,
to work together synergistically for optimal
overall results?
P. Otto:
There is always the possibility of
cannibalization between lottery games. As
an industry, we are always keenly aware of
the need to harmonize the products for opti-
mal overall results. We have done extensive
research for the introduction of this new Na-
tional Premium Game and are confident that
it will appeal to a demographic profile and
play-style that will bring in new consumer
groups. We’re confident that it will generate
net overall increases in sales.
As regards to category management, my
perspective is that it does not matter how
the pie slices up as long as the aggregate to-
tal net revenues generated from Powerball,
Mega Millions, and Monopoly continue to
grow. That fulfills our mission to the good
causes that lottery supports.
Right now, the business of launching Mo-
nopoly Millionaires’ Club is getting our fo-
cus. As time goes on, we will certainly be
assessing the market-response to Monopoly
and look at ways to enhance the overall re-
sults of all three national games. I expect
that will likely involve deep analyses into
how they work together in the marketplace
and how we might differentiate and drive
synergies between the brands, and how we
might otherwise evolve the brands to drive
further growth in the category of national
draw-games.
What makes the Monopoly Millionaires’
Club so different from Powerball and
Mega Millions?
P. Otto:
It’s not a “jackpot” game. Mo-
nopoly is a numbers/draw-based game
which has a top prize and then lots of mil-
lion-dollar prizes. The whole dynamic is
different than the jackpot-driven games of
Powerball and Mega Millions. Consum-
ers often ask why the $400 million jackpot
couldn’t be used to create 400 millionaires
instead of one “mega” millionaire. We know
there will continue to be many players whose
behavior will be driven by the high jackpots.
And that’s fine. But this game will appeal to
the consumers who want better odds to win
a million-dollar prize instead of the mega-
jackpot prize. Monopoly does have top
prizes that are still very attractive: The prizes
will begin with a $15 million Top Prize and
ten $1 million Club Prizes. If the Top Prize is
not won, it will continue to increase in value
for each subsequent draw up to $25 million.
Then, if no one wins the Top Prize, all addi-
tional prize monies will create additional $1
million Club Prizes until someone wins the
Top Prize. But as the game continues to roll
past the top prize, the ongoing game revenue
goes towards the creation of more and more
one-million dollar prizes instead of driving
the top prize higher and higher. The tagline
that we are excited about, and feel that the
consumer will be excited about, is the notion
of a “Shower of Millionaires.” It is a differ-
ent kind of game, appeals to a different play-
style and motivation than the jackpot games,
and that’s why we are confident that it will
bring in new consumer groups and have
minimal cannibalization impact on Power-
ball and Mega Millions.
And as we have already talked about, Mo-
nopoly Millionaires Club has an incredible
array of innovative promotional campaigns
to engage consumers in whole new ways.
The breadth and scale of this project is un-
like anything that has ever been done in the
U.S. lottery industry.
Monopoly represents a new high-water
mark for innovation in the U.S. lottery in-
dustry. How can the momentum be main-
tained, even accelerated, going forward?
P. Otto:
We have come a long way over
the past four years. Cross-sell, then $2 Pow-
erball, now Monopoly Millionaires’ Club.
Seeing all these things come to fruition
causes me to feel very positive about the
ability of state lotteries to work together.
Can we do better, can we try to move faster?
Absolutely we can and we are constantly
working to do so.
The challenge of getting forty-five ju-
risdictions and multiple vendors to work
together, make decisions together, vet pro-
posals and decisions with countless stake-
holders, and coordinate the action-plans
that actually result in new products and
strategies, is that it requires time. Combine
that with the fact that the complexity of the
games and promotional strategies, and the
business in general, has become more and
more complex. The nature of our business
is that we can’t market-test beta versions of
a product. We have to research and test to
whatever extent necessary to ensure that it
is perfect right out of the box. That is a tall
order, and it is not accomplished in weeks or
even months.
Innovation and change creates uncertain-
ty, and we need to mitigate that uncertainty
as much as possible. It’s been observed that
this is a risk-averse industry. Well of course
it is. We simply can’t afford to do anything
to jeopardize the value of this brand. Even
a minor oversight that results in a mistake
could cost us literally billions of dollars
in brand equity. We are very serious about
increasing the speed from concept to mar-
ket, but we won’t compromise the rigor of
our planning and testing, or jeopardize the
