Ohio Lottery case, answer the following questions: 1. Detail the overall research design in the Ohio Lottery case (See Exhibit OL1). What are the advantages and disadvantages of this

Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

1

>cases

>Abstract

Used with permission

of Pamela S. Schindler.

© 2006.

Ohio Lottery: Innovative Research Design Drives Winning

The Ohio Lottery was originally developed as an additional source of public

school funding. Today proceeds from lottery games annually provide approxi-

mately 7% of the public educational budget. This research was originally under-

taken because the lottery director wanted a deeper understanding of lottery

players and insight into nonplayers. The research design described in this case is

multistage and incorporates the use of both qualitative and quantitative research.

This case reveals the research that guides the current Ohio Lottery promotional

program that encourages play of its various games.

>The Research When the Ohio Lottery was first conceived, it was presented to the voters of

Ohio as a way to provide supplemental funding for Ohio schools.1 The Ohio

Lottery sold its first ticket in 1974. Currently, all profits go to the Ohio Lottery

Education fund, which supplies about 7 % of the current education budget.

Although Ohioans annually spend about $200 per capita on lottery tickets, in

recent years the Ohio Lottery has suffered stagnant sales. The Ohio Lottery is

interested in stimulating more play of lottery games.2

The process started in early January 2005 when the Ohio Lottery approached

Marcus Thomas, LLC3 an agency that had worked with them before on media

and research projects.

“Rod Ingram (lottery director) basically wanted a deeper understanding of lottery

players and insight into nonplayers,” explained Jennifer Hirt-Marchand, vice

president of research for Marcus Thomas.4 “Rod had extensive demographic data

on players, but it was obvious that what he needed was behavioral and psycho-

graphic information on both players and nonplayers.”

“I had read extensively about the metaphor elicitation technique (MET) developed

by Gerald Zaltman (professor, Harvard University),” said Hirt-Marchand. Be-

cause most human communication is nonverbal and metaphors are a key bridge

between direct verbal communication and more impressionistic thoughts and

feelings, the metaphor elicitation technique showed promise to unlock true motiva-

tions.5 “We didn’t have experience at that time with MET, but MRSI6 did. I asked

them to provide a video of a MET interview and, after seeing it, I was convinced

of its potential.” Thus, Marcus Thomas partnered with MRSI to determine “why

players purchase tickets and other emotional factors that motivate consumers to

purchase games.”7

Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

2

Phase I—Qualitative—MET Early in the research process, two additional agencies the Ohio Lottery had been

using for creative development were called in. Because their work was also meant

to stimulate demand for lottery tickets, input from these agencies was deemed

critical to the overall success of the research project.

“We wanted to get buy-in from them from the beginning,” explained Hirt-

Marchand. It also helped that Ingram considered engagement with the research

vitally important for each of its agencies. And each agency had numerous ques-

tions, among them: What is the understanding of the pay-out or odds and how

relevant is this understanding to making a purchase? Are purchases of lottery

tickets routine or impulsive? Are purchases perceived as recreation or gambling?

What motivates play? How is winning defined? What is the influence of in-store

promotion and signage? Is playing perceived as chance or skill? What is the

significance of the dollar value of the ticket?

“MET interviews are long, often 90 minutes or more,” said Hirt-Marchand.”

“Lottery staffers and agency personnel were behind the one-way mirror at every

session.” During April through June, a total of 25 interviews were conducted in

three Ohio cities (Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati) to understand motivations

for playing lottery games, to determine obstacles to playing or playing more often,

and to provide guidance for the quantitative segmentation study to follow.8 MRSI

provided the interviewer for most of the sessions, but Hirt-Marchand wanted

Marcus Thomas to develop the expertise. She was trained by the moderator, and,

after observing the process unfold for 20 interviews, Hirt-Marchand conducted

the final five interviews personally. “The interviewing technique is similar to a depth

interview. But the moderator spends most of his or her time listening, encouraging

a deeper dialog, with head nods, answer rephrasing, and constant requests for the

participant to elaborate.”

Participants represented all four groups of interest: heavy player (at least twice a

week), occasional player (at least once in three months), rare player (less than

twice a year); and nonplayers. When using MET, participants are assigned a task

to complete before the interview: They bring photos or other images (e.g., images

cut from magazines or packages) that represent their feelings and emotions about

the topic. In this case, participants were asked to choose images that reflected

how they feel about playing the lottery, or in the case of nonplayers, images that

help express how they feel about the lottery. The interview focuses on the images

and what each image represents to the participant. At the end of the interview,

participants are asked to create a collage of their images, writing phases or notes

near each image to capture what each image meant to them as it related to the

lottery.

“In some ways,” said Hirt-Marchand, “the collage is for the participant—a means

of debriefing them. Those of us that are observing the interview are taking detailed

Ohio Lottery: Innovative Research Design Drives Winning

Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

3

notes, so we have already summarized the learning from the exercise by this time.”

(See Exhibit OL 1-1 on the MET discussion process used for these interviews.)

“Because three to five Lottery staffers were present at each session, as well as

representatives from each agency, we had very constructive discussions following

the interviews, often well into the evening,” described Hirt-Marchand. These

debriefing sessions were part knowledge capture and part brainstorm. “It was

inevitable that we would discuss strategy—how we could use this piece or that

piece of information.”

Findings. From the direction provided by the MET interviews, Marcus Thomas

formed a preliminary recommendation that the Ohio Lottery focus on getting more

play from all player categories as well as encouraging nonplayers to play. A

preliminary strategy was formulated based on the fact that in buying a ticket,

players buy the opportunity to dream. While “winning money was a reason to

believe [in the dream] and a critical rationalization for playing, it was not the

primary motivation for playing.”9 In dreaming, lottery players could see themselves

as successful and thereby feel special and in control of their lives.

The interviews also revealed that to encourage more frequent play, or any play by

a nonplayer, the concept of winning needed to be redefined. A win was currently

defined as “hitting the jackpot,” when in reality players perceived this as unrealis-

tic. In fact, a win meant winning anything, from $1 on up. Also, significant

negative misconceptions surfaced among rare players or nonplayers about heavy

players. They were described as addicted, out-ofcontrol, irresponsible, and

unintelligent. These misperceptions needed to be addressed by advertising.

Marcus Thomas developed a preliminary strategy for rare and nonplayers that

positioned lottery play as a small indulgence, via games with simple rules, and that

offered social reasons for buying lottery game tickets.

Phase II—Quantitative Survey “The qualitative study provided us with significant insights, and was always

intended to be the foundation for a quantitative segmentation study,” said Hirt-

Marchand. Marcus Thomas wanted to validate purchase motivations and ob-

stacles revealed by the MET interviews and determine if player segmentation

could be refined beyond the use of frequency of play. An online study was

chosen to validate possible messages, explore media usage, and understand

actual purchase behavior.

Sampling MRSI e-mailed invitations to a subset of Ohioans from their exten-

sive online panel. Invitees who responded were further screened for qualification.

The sample chosen was demographically proportional to the state’s population

based on residence, age, gender, and race. Participants needed to be Ohio

residents between 18 and 65 years of age with an annual household income of at

least $20,000, with no moral or religious objection to playing the lottery. All

Ohio Lottery: Innovative Research Design Drives Winning

Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

4

1,505 (1,305 players and 200 nonplayers) participants completed the survey by

accessing a secure website between July 22 and July 31, 2005.

Survey and Instrument The 39-minute study covered game and advertising

awareness, game involvement, frequency of play, lottery importance, lottery

perceptions and attitudes, as well as numerous other demographic or behavioral

variables that might be used in segmentation.

The survey went through four extensive revisions, two within Marcus Thomas and

one each with the involvement of the client and MRSI. “The most challenging

questions to develop were those on Lottery Importance Ratings (question 25),

and Lottery Attitudinal Ratings (question 29),” shared Hirt-Marchand. “The MET

findings were critical to developing these questions.” And because the study was

so long, Marcus Thomas wanted to be sure that participants were focused,

paying attention, and not just going through the motions. To address this, it

included alternatives to three or four questions that the serious, attentive, lottery-

playing participant would know were wrong or inappropriate to choose (question

6A is an example; the highlighted alternative is not available in a scratch-off

ticket). In all, the data from six participants were suspect, and Marcus Thomas

removed them before analysis.

Data Analysis To verify the validity of the survey, data from a 2004 phone

study were used for comparison. This previous study measured demographics of

who was playing the lottery, how frequently they played, and how much they

were spending, but did not address motivations for playing or obstacles that kept

subjects from playing. A post hoc cluster analysis was used to place participants

in four natural divisions or segments, where individuals within a segment held

similar attitudes about playing and similar playing behavior, but when compared

across segments, their motivations for playing and their actual behavior differed.

Reporting Marcus Thomas, along with MRSI, presented results in detail to the

lottery staff (November 2005) and later to the Ohio Lottery commissioners. The

detailed PowerPoint slide deck used graphic data depictions to cover the exten-

sive data. (see Sample Slides from Ohio Lottery Presentation Deck). Creative

agencies were directed initially to emphasize the social reasons for playing (gift

giving for birthdays, graduation, etc.) that were appropriate across all segments.

Ads were developed using lottery study insights in early 2006 and started appear-

ing 1st and 2nd quarters of 2007.

What were some of the most enlightening findings? The quantitative study verified

the lessons from the MET analysis—that messaging should emphasize fun, the

rush experienced while learning whether the dream of the win will come true, and

the low-risk nature of the entertainment. One participant clarified the risk by

comparing a $1 purchase of bottled water to a $1 lottery ticket—“Only the

lottery ticket has the power to change your life; not bad for a dollar.” Additionally,

Ohio Lottery: Innovative Research Design Drives Winning

Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

5

the study findings emphasized how important it was to be up-front about the odds

of winning and the pay-out percentages. Lottery players are savvy and honesty

also has the opportunity to chip away at the resistance among nonplayers.10

Effectiveness Tracking During three weeks in February and March 2007,

Marcus Thomas and MRSI again sampled the MRSI online panel to determine

the effectiveness of the advertising. Although increasing sales is one possible

measure, deeper understanding of lottery play motivations makes it impossible to

link sales increases solely to advertising. Recent advances in brain studies have

revealed that subjects are not always able to remember that they have seen ads or

that they have been influenced by ads—either those they remember seeing or

those they don’t recall at all.11 So Marcus Thomas wanted to be sure that

uppressed ad recognition was a metric that was evaluated during the tracking

study. Among other metrics this second online study will include ad recognition of

selected outdoor, radio, and TV ads (see ads available from the text Online

Learning Center) developed and used since the first quantitative study was

completed.

>Discussion Questions

1. Detail the overall research design in the Ohio Lottery case (See Exhibit

OL-1). What are the advantages and disadvantages of this design?

2. Evaluate the MET process (Exhibit OL-2). What are some of the strengths and weaknesses of the MET technique?

3. What measurement scales are used in the sample questions provided (Exhibit OL-3)? Why might the lottery attitude and lottery importance questions have presented the most challenge to the professional researchers?

4. Using text Exhibit 12-2, map out the likely quantitative instrument content.

5. The survey contained several questions that would alert the researchers that the participant was not taking the research process seriously (see case exhibit OL-3). Is this a good or a poor idea? Why?

6. Evaluate the MET discussion guide for the Ohio Lottery Research.

www.marcusthomasllc.com www.mrsi.com; www.ohiolottery.com

>>>>>URLs

MET Interview…four segments

Segment 1: Establishing Rapport with Participant

Segment 2: Explaining the MET Task

Segment 3: Extracting Meaning from an Image

Segment 4: Building a Collage

Ohio Lottery Ads developed from the research in this case.

>Video Resources (Resources Library)

Ohio Lottery: Innovative Research Design Drives Winning

Business Research Methods, 14e, Schindler

6

Ohio Lottery: Innovative Research Design Drives Winning

1 Currently 41 states offer online or scratch-off games and lotteries. Roughly 94%

of the population resides in such a state. “Comprehensive Annual Financial

Report for the Fiscal years ended June 30, 2006, and June 30, 2005,” The

Ohio Lottery Commission: An Enterprise Fund of the State of Ohio. Accessed

February 19, 2007 (http://www.ohiolottery.com/pdf/2006_CAFR.pdf).

2 “Ohio Lottery, Lottery Insider. Accessed February 17, 2007 (http://

thelotteryinsider.com.au/lottery/ohio.htm).

3 Marcus Thomas LLC is an integrated marketing communications agency that

offers full service advertising, public relations, interactive and research for

business-to-business, business-to-consumer and nonprofit organizations (http://

www.marcusthomasllc.com/).

4 Jennifer Hirt-Marchand, vice president and director of research, Marcus

Thomas LLC; interviewed February 23, 2007.

5 MET was developed by Harvard professor Gerald Zaltman. “What we are

doing is using metaphors, idiomatic expressions of consumers, as vehicles for

them to transport what may exist below their level of awareness into a domain

of awareness.” Doug Gavel, “Mighty Metaphors—Zaltman’s method opens

the ‘Windows of Consciousness,’” Harvard University Gazette, May 4,

2000. Accessed February 9, 2007 (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/

2000/05.04/zalt.html).

6 Cincinnati-based Marketing Research Services Inc. (MRSI), established in

1973, is a full service research firm offering quantitative and qualitative

business-to-business and business-to-consumer research that supports

strategic planning, product development, advertising and promotion, and

more. “History,” MRSI, accessed February 19, 2007 (http://www.mrsi.com/

history.html).

7 “Ohio Lottery Segmentation Study, Final Report,” Marcus Thomas LLC and

MRSI, October 2005.

8 “Strategic Motivational Qualitative Research Highlights: Preliminary Conclu-

sions and Recommendations,” Marcus Thomas LLC, October 2005.

9 “Strategic Motivational Qualitative Research Highlights: Preliminary Conclu-

sions and Recommendations,” Marcus Thomas LLC, October 2005.

10 “The Ohio Lottery: Quantitative Segmentation Key Learnings and Implica-

tions,” Marcus Thomas LLC, October 2005.

11 Rex Briggs and Greg Stuart, What Sticks: Why Most Advertising Fails and

How to Guarantee Yours Succeeds, Kaplan Business, 2006, p. 125.

>>>>>Footnotes

Exhibit OL-1 Ohio Lottery Research by Marcus Thomas, LLC.

2005 2006 2007

Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Jan. Feb. Mar.

2005 Review of prior OLC research.

Present proposal for research.

Review information needs with

agencies.

Choose qualitative supplier.

Create MET screener & discussion

guide.

Conduct MET IDIs.

Present preliminary qualitative

findings.

Design quantitative study

Field online study.

Data quality & validity checks.

Segmentation analysis completed.

Full analysis and report writing.

Present & review all findings with

client.

Present key findings to OLC

agencies.

2006 Present findings to lottery

commissioners.

Discuss how findings can be applied

to creative. Develop new ads.

2007 Discuss tracking study with client

Tracking study approved.

Questionnaire designed.

Conduct tracking study.

Business Research Methods, 13e/Schindler

7

Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

Exhibit OL-2 The MET Process, An Overview

In the MET exercise, the participant is pretasked to find pictures that represent their

feelings and emotions about “playing the lottery.” The participant comes to the interview

with a stack of pictures, magazines, etc. The interview is divided into phases.

Phase I: The interviewer talks with the participant in detail about each picture brought,

using the following questions. The interviewer uses several probes following each

question to extract as much understanding about each picture as is possible. In the DVD

example, the participant is asked to select the six most important pictures brought.

§ Please describe the picture you brought.

§ How does the picture express your thoughts and feelings about playing the lottery?

§ Think about what this picture means in terms of your thoughts and feelings about

playing the lottery. What is the title or theme of this picture (in a word or two)?

Phase II: The interviewer determines if any images were desired but not found.

Phase III: Using three pictures at a time, the interviewer attempts to identify the different

constructs or themes across pictures. This process is continued until all pictures have

been discussed in multiple triads.

§ How are two pictures similar and yet different from the third as they relate to how

you think and feel about playing the lottery?

Phase IV: The interviewer asks the participant to identify the most important or

representative picture, then uses it to discuss how the participant relates to the picture,

using a series of questions and multiple probes.

§ If you could widen the frame of the picture, what might enter the picture that might

help me understand your thoughts and feelings about playing the lottery?

§ Thinking still of playing the lottery, if you were to put yourself in the picture, where

would you be, what would you be doing, thinking or saying?

§ If you could invite someone or something to join you in this picture that would help

me understand your thoughts and feelings about” playing the lottery,” who or what

would it be?

Phase V: The interviewer, using the emotions and feelings revealed in the interview thus

far, asks the participant to rank order these feelings in order of importance.

§ What would you say are the five most important things to you about playing the

lottery?

Phase VI: The interviewer leaves the participant to create a collage of the images on

paper, labeling these as desired, arranging them as desired. The participant is provided

with paper, glue, scissors, and multiple markers. Once the participant is finished, the

interviewer returns and asks the participant to relate the story of the collage.

Ohio Lottery: Innovative Research Drives Winning

8

Exhibit OL-3 Ohio Lottery Study Sample Questions.

The Ohio Lottery quantitative study was conducted online and took approximately 39 minutes to complete. Below are three questions from this extensive study. The header indicates the section of the study from which the question was extracted. The question layout has been modified to fit on paper.

PAST 12 MONTH GAMING USAGE

6A. You mentioned playing Instant Games (Scratch Offs) in the past 12 months. Which of the following dollar amounts of Ohio Lottery Instant Games (Scratch Offs) have you played in the past 12 months? (Please select all that apply.)

$1 – 1 $2 – 2 $3 – 3 $5 – 4 $10 – 5

$15 – 6

$20 – 7 Other (Please specify) – 8

LOTTERY IMPORTANCE RATINGS

25. Now please rate the following attributes according to how important they are in deciding if you participate in lottery games.

Using a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means the attribute is “Not At All Important” and 7 means the attribute is “Extremely Important” in deciding if you participate in lottery games, how important are the following attributes to you? (Please select only one response per row.)

(RANDOMIZE) Extremely Important

Not At All Important

‘Win’ Importance There is a chance to win big money 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The jackpot is big 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 There is a good chance to win 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Playing allows me to dream of changing my life/my

family’s life 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Winning big would change my life 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

General Game Importance 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Provides the rush of the chance to win The number of different ways to win per ticket is

high I have the ability to participate without having

complicated rules to follow There are convenient places to play The odds of winning are good Price of the ticket Is a new game/ticket Physical size of the ticket General appearance of the ticket

Business Research Methods, 14e/Schindler

9

Exhibit OL 1-3 Sample Questions (cont.)

(Question 25—continued)

(RANDOMIZE) Extremely Important

Not At All Important

<p

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.