Ohio Lottery Case Study; Review the attached case study and using 700 words answer the questions based off the case study; each question response must be supported with at least 3 peer-reviewed sources. Each thread must also include 2 biblical applications/integrations.
- Detail the overall research design in the Ohio Lottery case (See Exhibit OL1). What are the advantages and disadvantages of this design?,
- Evaluate the MET process (Exhibit OL-2). What are some of the strengths and weaknesses of the MET technique?,
- 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?,
- Using text Exhibit 12-2 map out the likely quantitative instrument content.,
- 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?,
- Evaluate the MET discussion guide for the Ohio Lottery Research.
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 approximately 7% of the public educational budget. This research was originally undertaken 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. 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. Ohio Lottery Case Study
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 psychographic 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. Because 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 motivations.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