43 PUBLIC GAMING INTERNATIONAL • JULY/AUGUST 2025 Coming from a sales background, I recall being told that every dollar saved has a 100% margin because it drops straight to the bottom line. That makes it hard to justify expenditures. M. Garrison: Exactly. It’s really a shift in mindset. We talked about the CFO being viewed as the person who says “no” to spending. And yes, I take my fiduciary responsibilities very seriously. But I also take our growth objectives seriously — and growth requires smart, strategic investment. If we’re confident in the ROI, sometimes it even makes sense to go over budget. Mary has championed a truly collaborative, cross-functional approach. We work as a unified team, focused on long-term revenue growth that benefits the public and the good causes we serve. As CFO, I have to be just as committed to fueling that growth as my colleagues are to ensuring their proposals stand up to financial scrutiny. M. Harville: That balance has come into sharp focus during this year’s budget cycle. Maggie has really led the way in helping us take a 360-degree view and making sure each department aligns their plans not only with the financial framework, but with the needs and expectations of operations, logistics, Responsible Gaming, branding, and all enterprise-wide considerations. Take our investment in digital signage. It’s a significant expense, but one that Maggie and I support because we’re convinced it’s essential. Lottery has to be visible — especially at that “moment of truth” when a shopper is heading toward the checkout. Maggie helped the team cut through the noise — everything from macroeconomic headwinds to growing competition from sports betting and charitable gaming — and zero in on what matters: ROI. And yes, Maggie had us jump through plenty of CFO hoops to justify the spend. But there’s two things about that: first, that’s exactly what responsible stewardship demands. And second, the due diligence process gave us additional insights that enhanced the execution of the project and the results it is producing. Maggie doesn’t just challenge her colleagues with tough questions, she partners with them to find the answers. To what extent are we competing with other gaming categories like sports betting — and how much do players consider prize-payout percentages when deciding where to spend their money? M. Harville: We are at least competing indirectly with other gaming options, including sports wagering, and prize-payout is certainly important to the players.. That’s such a rich area for discussion. There’s no simple formula for determining whether the boost in sales will generate enough net revenue to outweigh the reduced margin that comes with higher payouts. When I stepped into this role, there was one major lever left to pull on the internet side: raise the prize payout. So that’s what we did—we increased the prize-payout percentage across the board to 85%. Maggie, can you walk us through the thinking behind that move? M. Garrison: Sure. As Mary said, it’s a bit of a strategic puzzle. You can run tests and try to gauge how much the consumer responds to higher payouts — but there’s a limit to how much of that you can truly model. And here’s the catch: once you raise the payout, you’re essentially making a permanent move. Players may not obsess over exact percentages, but they do notice when the prize experience feels less generous. And once they’ve tasted that higher payout, there’s really no going back. So the decision to raise payouts isn’t just financial — it’s also behavioral and brand-defining. Beyond fine-tuning prize-payouts, we’re also grappling with the rising costs of selling the online games. For example, bringing in a third-party content provider for iLottery adds another layer of expense. Licensing branded games? More cost. So the overall cost of doing business — just to offer the same category of products — is climbing fast. And, to Mary’s point, yes, prize payout is a lever. But it’s also by far our largest expense. And once we pull that lever, margins shrink — leaving even less room to absorb the added costs of things like licensed properties, new content, platform fees, and more. And it’s not just about covering the cost — it has to generate net new income. Otherwise, it’s simply not worth it. For example, we tested a payout increase on some $10 scratch tickets. Ours were slightly below other states at that price point, so we nudged it up and it didn’t really move the needle. So we hit pause. We will test, analyze, and then be willing to not move forward when the data doesn’t justify it. That’s why we approach prize-payout changes with caution. Before touching payout percentages, we want to pull every other lever to make the games more attractive — design, branding, promotions — everything that might draw in new players without resorting to eroding our margin. M. Harville: And Maggie’s exactly right— the cost structure is stacking up. Between platform maintenance, third-party content, and licensed property fees, we’re piling on expenses. Sales would need to grow significantly just to cover those new layers of cost, let alone drive profit. And as Maggie points out, we’re not looking to break even—we’re trying to generate real, sustainable increases in net revenues. That’s why Maggie is in every meeting. We lean on her so much because financial discipline is what keeps all this from turning into a cost spiral. Every big idea has to clear the hurdle of fiscal viability—and Maggie’s the one making sure we don’t lose sight of that. M. Garrison: And just to bring it back to where we started — because I think it’s really important — Mary talked about getting the team together for our weekly meetings. That’s not just a meeting; it’s a mindset. Her approach is, "I want to hear from everyone involved." She clears the runway so that I’m not seen as stepping out of my lane when I ask for more due diligence. It’s already understood because Mary set the tone for rigorous discussion and open feedback to be the norm. Everyone has the green light to surface issues, assess ideas, challenge assumptions, and work together to build stronger proposals and action-plans. That culture has made all the difference. There’s no defensiveness anymore. People aren’t resistant to being challenged— they expect it. And that makes it easier for all of us to operate this way: collaboratively, transparently, and with a shared commitment to getting it right. n
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTg4MTM=