Skip to main content

The "Win a Million" free scratch card newspaper inserts

One of those three-panel "Win a Million" scratchcards fell out of my newspaper this morning.

Not a major or in anyway newsworthy event in itself, but I must admit my surprise. I didn't think anyone bothered with them anymore, or, to be a little more technical, I didn't think anyone was taken in by them anymore.

Firstly, it actually is printed on the bottom of each panel that "Every card has a set of 3 matching symbols, 2 matching symbols and no matching symbols".

Right, so you are going to 'win', half-win and not win respectively.

Then, while the prize list is somewhat impressive with 1x£1m, 1x£100k, 2x£20k, 3x£10k and other things like holidays, tablet PC's city breaks all the way down to 1000 "faux" fashion watches, 1000 salon  makeovers and 1000xVIP Thames cruises.

Now should I be stupid enough to spend the £1.53 a minute for the 6 minute phone call to claim my prize (that's almost a tenner, for those of you without calculators), I know that I would be in for either a salon makeover (I presume this means I have to go to a beauty salon and decorate it for the owner), a VIP trip on the Thames (eminently practical for someone living, say, in Inverness). Even more likely, I would win the 'fashion' watch, the type that comes in a wonderful presentation case (worth at least twice the value of the watch), complete with its £69.95 price tag printed on, you know, the type of watch you can buy on any city market stall for £3.99.

So how do these competitions survive? The gaming laws mean that should you actually read the prominently displayed terms and conditions, you are in essence on a hiding to nothing. They tell you that! Yes, someone, somewhere has to win the big prizes, but it's all done rather surreptitiously by phone or text, so you never really know.

Now the National Lottery claim that 5 people win every second on their scratchcards. Personally, I don't know how these 5 people can keep up with such a pace! Seriously though, 5 people per second, and also, I believe they say 2 billion winners to date.

Now does this include the people who buy a scratchcard for, say £2, and then just have their £2 returned as a 'win', because they are not winners in the sense of the word that the Lottery Chief Executive is a winner with her £1m-plus salary, plus bonus, plus pension, all at the expense of the hapless souls who think their next £5 spent on Lotto tickets will see them being able to put a deposit on Clarke Gable's old house in Hollywood at the weekend!

What I'm wondering is if a healthy proportion of all these winners have just simply received their money back, because then they are not really winners per se.

Comments

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chancellor's letter of apology to Bob Diamond of Barclays

Thanks to my contacts at the new News International business "Phonetaps'R'Us", I was exclusively sent a copy of a letter sent to the Chief Executive of Barclays Bank, Bob Diamond, from the Chancellor yesterday. "Dear Bob Trusting you and yours are well. Listen mate. Sorry the F inancially S tupid A sses wrote to your bank yesterday to demand £290million as a fine. It's nothing personal, and just because your bank head office people are a bunch of dishonest, thieving bastards, I thought there was no reason to carry on that way and fine you. I made this clear to the FSA yesterday as soon as I heard the news. I told them that the taxpayer would have been more than happy to bail you out. And also. Look mate. Sorry you've had to give up your bonus this year. It must have come as quite a shock, and was a wonderful thing for you to volunteer to do. I only hope you've put something by from the £17million you received last year. No doubt the bank pay

"Q". My name is Bond. Oh. not THAT Q.

I was sent a story today by a friend who knows my feelings on the subject - that is, about one of the consummately greatest of all British activities, namely, queuing. It seems some Danish Professor or other has come up with the theory that those who queue the longest should actually be served the last. He claims it makes purchasing something altogether more efficient and smooth through the idea of 'contra-queuing' (whatever the devil that may mean). 'Serve the people at the back of the queue first', he says, with profound wisdom. Altogether very professorial, albeit demonstrating a somewhat keen lack of understanding of the purchasing psyche. The Nobel Prize-chasing Prof suggests that if, for example, a popular entertainment act was to announce a tour, with tickets going on sale at 11am one morning, using the theory of 'contra-queuing', no one will want to be first to buy said tickets. So no one will turn up 14 months in advance and venues will