Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:00):
If you are listening
to our short clips on TikTok or
Instagram, please visit the linkin our bio or visit greatday
radio dot com.
Welcome to Great Day Radio CityLines, the podcast where we
unpack the policies, culture,and systems that shape our
neighborhoods.
I'm DJ Mikey D.
For this podcast we're tacklinga topic many of you have
noticed, but maybe never pauseto examine, why lottery
(00:23):
billboards and promotions aredisproportionately placed in
poorer black and Latinoneighborhoods rather than
wealthier suburbs.
We'll look at the economics, themarketing logic, and the deeper
patterns of systemic racism andbias that underlie these
choices.
To start, let's describe thephenomenon.
Walk down many urban corridorsin majority black or low income
(00:45):
areas, and you'll see frequentads for state lotteries,
billboards, corner storeposters, posters and buses, and
in-store signage.
In wealthier, often whitersuburbs, you see far fewer of
these ads and more messagingabout investments, financial
advisors, higher end retail orlifestyle brands.
That contrast isn't random.
On the surface, advertisers,including lottery marketing
(01:08):
teams, will often point tosimple market logic.
They place ads where they expectthe highest return on
investment.
Lotteries are gambling productsthat rely on frequent repeat
purchases.
Research and sales data showthat sales per capita can be
higher in lower incomeneighborhoods.
So from a narrow businessperspective, concentrating
marketing where people alreadybuy more makes sense.
(01:30):
But makes sense in a businesssense doesn't absolve the
strategy from ethical scrutiny.
When you examine how thosemarketing choices intersect with
historical and structuralinequalities, a pattern emerges.
Decades of disinvestment,targeted predatory lending and
fewer paths to wealth have leftmany communities with limited
access to capital buildingopportunities, aggressive
(01:50):
promotion of a low odds chanceat a big payoff, like a lottery,
can exploit economicvulnerability.
This is where systemic racismcomes in.
Advertising decisions don'texist in a vacuum.
Targeting neighborhoods withlarge black or brown populations
for gambling products echoes along history of extracting
wealth and reinforcing cycles ofpoverty.
(02:11):
Redlining raciallydiscriminatory housing policies
and unequal school fundingconcentrated poverty in certain
neighborhoods.
Corporations and public agenciesthat market lotteries often
follow those maps ofdisadvantage rather than
ignoring them.
There's also the role of dataand algorithmic targeting.
Modern ad placement increasinglyuses geodemographic segmentation
(02:34):
and retail sales data.
Those tools flag neighborhoodswith heavy lottery purchases and
push more advertising there.
The algorithms are blind to racein a legalistic sense, but they
use proxies, neighborhoodincome, past purchase behavior,
store foot traffic thatcorrelate strongly with race
because of segregation, soautomated systems can perpetuate
the same patterns as humandecision makers.
(02:55):
Another point public lotteriesare run by state governments.
When a state promotes its ownlottery in disadvantaged
neighborhoods, it raises a moralquestion, are public
institutions effectivelyprofiting from the economic
hardship of their mostvulnerable residents?
Some see it as a voluntaryactivity that funds public
programs like education.
Others see it as a regressiverevenue mechanism, one that
(03:17):
takes a larger share from lowerincome people than from the
wealthy.
Studies show that lotteryrevenue is often regressive.
Lower income households spend ahigher percentage of their
income on tickets.
So when lottery advertising isconcentrated in those
communities, the result can be adisproportionate contribution to
state coffers coming from peoplewho are least able to afford it.
(03:39):
There's also the visual andcultural effect.
Constant billboard messagingthat frames winning the lottery
as a route out of poverty canshape aspirations and normalize
a certain kind of hope, a hopedependent on chance rather than
on systemic opportunity.
(05:03):
That messaging can crowd outinformation about resources that
build long-term wealth,financial literacy programs,
homeownership assistance, smallbusiness support, job training.
Let's talk about explicit biasin advertising practices.
Historically, some advertisershave deliberately targeted
marginalized communities forproducts like high interest,
loans, predatory paydayservices, and alcohol.
(05:27):
With lotteries, it's sometimesless explicit.
Marketing teams justifyplacements by sales figures, but
the outcome is similar.
Commercial pressures and biasesconcentrate certain kinds of
messaging where people can leastafford the cost.
And remember the agency of localbusinesses.
Corner stores, bodegas, andconvenience stores in poorer
neighborhoods often rely onlottery sales as a reliable
(05:49):
income stream.
Store owners may request orwelcome promotional materials
because they make money fromticket sales.
That creates a feedback loop.
Stores sell tickets, ad buysfocus on those neighborhoods,
people there see more ads, andso on.
So we have economic logic,corporate targeting, algorithmic
reinforcement, historicalsegregation, and the role of
(06:10):
local retail all combining toproduce the pattern we see.
What are the consequences?
Beyond the financial burden onlow income households,
concentrated gamblingadvertising can reinforce
negative stereotypes aboutneighborhoods and reduce
political pressure to addressroot causes like underfunded
schools and limited jobopportunities.
It also concentrates harm,problem gambling, debt stress,
(06:34):
and the psychological impact ofconstant messages promising
miraculous escape via luck alldisproportionately affect
communities already dealing withstructural stressors.
Housing instability,unemployment, health
disparities, that makes thesocial costs of targeted lottery
advertising greater than therevenue it brings.
What could be done differently?
(06:55):
First, greater transparency fromstate lotteries about where and
how they market could allowpublic scrutiny.
Policymakers could place limitson advertising in areas with
high poverty rates or restrictcertain marketing practices near
schools and social servicecenters.
Some advocates suggest directinglottery revenue more explicitly
toward programs that benefit thecommunities paying the most, for
(07:17):
instance, local education,affordable housing, or community
development initiatives withstrict accountability.
Others call for alternativerevenue models that don't rely
on regressive gambling income.
There's also the option ofregulations similar to tobacco
and alcohol advertising,restricting ad placement,
banning billboard ads in certainzones, or curbing targeted
digital ads in vulnerablecommunities.
(07:39):
And on the technological side,auditing the data and algorithms
used for ad placement could helpidentify and prevent proxy
discrimination.
Finally, community empowermentmatters, supporting local
economic development, creatingmore equitable access to jobs
and financial services andpromoting financial education
would reduce the economicprecarity that makes lottery
marketing effective and harmful.
(08:00):
Shifts in advertising followshifts in demand and demand
follows opportunity.
Before we wrap up this episode,let's address a common pushback.
Some people argue that lotteryads in poor neighborhoods are
giving people hope and offeringa fun, voluntary form of
entertainment.
How do we reconcile that?
It's true that some people enjoyplaying the lottery and that a
(08:22):
small number do win lifechanging prizes.
The issue is scale and context,when whole communities are
flooded with messagesencouraging frequent play as a
viable economic strategy, andwhen those communities are the
ones most harmed by poverty, theethics of targeting become
questionable.
Policy and marketing choicesshould at least account for
those broader impacts.
To sum up, lottery billboardsare more common in poor and
(08:44):
black neighborhoods because of amix of sales driven marketing,
algorithmic targeting,historical segregation, and
economic dynamics that makethose areas higher yield
markets.
The result is a pattern thatamplifies inequality and raises
questions about publicresponsibility, corporate
ethics, and how we want revenuesystems to work in a just
society.
If you're interested in readingmore, we'll include sources and
(09:06):
studies on lottery spending byincome, the geography of lottery
retail outlets, and research ontargeted advertising and
algorithmic bias in our episodenotes.
You can also visitgreatdayradio.com to add your
comments and read more on thesubject.
Thanks for listening.
We'll be back for our nextepisode examining how zoning
(09:27):
rules shape access to parks andhealthy food.
If you liked this episode,subscribe, share, and tell us
what neighborhood ad patternsyou've noticed.
Be sure to take our brief surveyat greatdayradio.com.
Take care.