Question about Premuim Bonds and Omaze

shanew4874

I never understand why say with premium bonds they don’t spread out the high value winners so that it’s say 20 people winning £100,000 each instead of just two people getting 1 million pounds each, have always thought that it would actually encourage more people to take part, even better example is the omaze draws where one person gets a house worth 3 million or 5 million house + £100,000 cash, why not make the top prize a 1 million pound house (as that is a life changing amount of money for 99% of the people who enter these type of draws) then with the 2 or 4 million pounds left split the money so say 20 people win £100,000 or £200,000 as that would be a life changing amount for most people who enter, I’m guessing omaze have their reasons for doing it how they do it but I know I’d be more inclined to enter if there were more prizes per draw to win, as it stands it seems too unatainable, I really think they would get even more entries doing it my way but there must be a reason or reasons why they don’t?

Hoenir

The same logic can be applied to lotteries and scratchcards. Big prizes attract the money in.

The top prize hasn't changed for a very long time. Being eroded by inflation. Meanwhie the number of smaller prizes has been increased. 

spider42

The proportion of the prize fund going to the £1m prizes is already very low. This month, the total prize fund was £451m, and there were two £1m prizes.

There were 5.8 million prizes in total, so swapping two £1m prizes for twenty £100k prizes would make no noticeable difference to the chances of anybody winning something.

MisterMotivated

Personally, I'd rather have the miniscule chance of winning £1Million than ten miniscule chances of winning £100k.

shanew4874

interesting perspectives, seems like the logic of my proposal is flawed then

p00hsticks

I would imagine with Omaze that they need the sort of high-end luxury house in the best location that will attract the most punters, and even £1 million may not be enough to buy that these days. Similarly they could offer more run-of-the mill family cars as prizes rather than the single Ferrari / Lamborghini etc that they do, but it wouldn't attract people to buy tickets. 

Albermarle

shanew4874 said:

interesting perspectives, seems like the logic of my proposal is flawed then

I do not think it is flawed, just that different ways of presenting the prize possibilities appeals to different people.

Somerset_Alan

Personally I hate those kinds of draws - the ones on Channel 5 follow the same principle, where 1 lucky winner gets everything (holiday, spa treatments etc. and a cash sum) and everyone elsde gets nothing.

shanew4874

They could still have say a £2 mill house but offer more cash prizes for runners up, guess their current business model is doing them just fine though so don’t expect them to change that, a 2 mill property is still something that 99% of people would never be able to aquire outside of the draw so it would still be appealing enough to the people that currently buy in to their draws, just think it would be even more appealing with a few more cash prizes for some runners up

Hoenir

In the US in January a lottery winner won $842 million.  Does one sngle person actually need that amount of money? 

Nardy

spider42 said:

The proportion of the prize fund going to the £1m prizes is already very low. This month, the total prize fund was £451m, and there were two £1m prizes.

There were 5.8 million prizes in total, so swapping two £1m prizes for twenty £100k prizes would make no noticeable difference to the chances of anybody winning something.

Good grief, what I am, about to tell you is from 40 years. I was at a seminar about analytical methods and marketing where a large oil company talked about petrol pricing. They said in surveys people said they prefer cheaper petrol than free wine glasses and in practice enough people went for the glasses than cheaper petrol that giving away glasses was worthwhile.

This was typed up while drinking wine from a 1980s Esso glass.