Lottery sales fall 11 percent as Lotto, scratch-off demand wanes

Scott Olson
August 14, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Hoosier Lottery limped through its latest fiscal year, turning in its poorest sales performance in a half-decade due mostly to declining demand for Hoosier Lotto tickets and scratch-off games, the Lottery said today.

For the year ended June 30, Hoosier Lottery revenue fell 11 percent, to $732 million, from $822 million in fiscal 2008. The amount represented the agency’s weakest sales since fiscal 2003.

“The economy has played a part in it,” Hoosier Lottery spokesman Andrew Reed acknowledged. “Also, what we think played a part was the Hoosier Lotto, where the jackpot rolled over for almost a year in 2008. We had phenomenal sales that year.”

Indeed, revenue for the Hoosier Lotto dropped 40 percent in the latest year, to $54 million, compared with $91 million the year before. It marked just the second time in the Lottery’s history that Lotto sales failed to reach $60 million, according to the Indiana Gaming Insight newsletter.

The Lotto racked up big sales in 2008, as its jackpot climbed over several months to a record $54.5 million. But during fiscal 2009, the jackpot was hit a record 13 times, preventing it from building to the high levels that drive sales.

Sales of other Hoosier Lottery games also slipped. Scratch-off game sales decreased by $52 million, or 10 percent, ending the year at $474 million.

Powerball sales of $114 million were down $2 million compared with the year before.

Pull-tab sales continued to sag as well, off 25 percent to $10 million, as new competition from bars and taverns this year steepened the decline.

Lotteries across the country are experiencing similar disappointing results. In a sampling of 20 state lotteries, including California and Illinois, 14 reported annual declines in revenue for the fiscal year ended in June, according to the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government at the State University of New York.



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.