Hunger Games - McDonalds Edition

Interesting what you can go through your mind when you participate in a lottery. Well, not exactly "participate" but I hope you know what I mean. Yes, the McDonalds Monopoly has made ​​clear to me how the marketing strikes sometimes unnoticed - or rather said - should strike. Here some thoughts.

1:3, that one got that big-printed

All right, what is this McDonald's Monopoly though? For those who not already know, it is a lottery where you get with certain burgers, beverages, other foods, etc. some stickers ...of course in Monopoly style! If a product gives you stickers they come in three. And in some menus for example you can get a total of 9 stickers.
Now the hook of this: If you have a street row (are there also water plants etc. also?), you get a collection prize: whether it's a vacation in a cottage for a few days, an iPad, or even an Audi ... seems interesting, isn’t it?

And if you look at the link_~ [Link here!] 1:3 chance to win ... sounds like a simple win, right? Hm ... *evil laugh *When you know what the catch is, the 1:3 chance to win disappears very, very quickly.

Now for the catch: 1:3 are the odds - says the theory: a sticker always has a prize for me ready. Mhm. True. In the form of instant prizes though. And there is the problem! The 1:3 chance to win is actually true, but irrelevant to the collective prizes in a certain way.

The system in which the stickers are divided to (to my knowledge):
First Sticker: Always a Monopoly field
Second Sticker: Monopoly field / free product at McDonalds (but probably only small things)
Third Sticker: instant prize

Conclusion: One gets logically always something! Nice ... just that one does not usually notice it: it reduces the chances of collection prizes. This "1:3 chance to win" is rather to be seen as marketing. Actually, the chance to win is 100%. The 1:3 does not refer to the collection prizes ... if you're unlucky, there is even only one Monopoly field because the second sticker is a free hamburger. Thus for all collection prize collectors: the collection prizes are rarer than discount stickers for cottage vacation or other stuff ... and the fact that only one field is guaranteed for sticker collecting reduces the chances even more. I can count myself lucky that I am close to three collection prizes, but there is one thing that made puzzled me and made ​​me think ahead...

For whoever has, more will be given him

Some stickers are identical (they always come in three so some triples are indeed identical). So I got Conneticut Avenue, Main Station and a flatrate for a year for a no-name SIM card provider…in multiple tries…thrice…means three times the exact same. What the…?!
I gotta say though, whether McDonalds handles it how I think they do I honestly dunno; but as contest or lottery creator myself I’ve come up with this:

Example of one street row:
Red: Kentucky Avenue-Indiana Avenue-Illinois Avenue

What do you do so that the chances for collection prizes are the smallest possible?
Hm, well, one street could be vacant but it’d be ridiculous and on the other hand a total lie. But the relations can be manipulated. Meaning that of 1000 collection prizes 20,000x Illinois Avenue and Indiana Avenue comes up but only exactly 1,000 times Conneticut Avenue.
Sly thought because if I got already two of these three stickers, then I woulda want the third one, too. But…chances are really, really small. It was never said all stickers are available in the same amount (logical, ain’t it so?). If this was the case, the chances for collection prizes aren’t even at all.

But okay: with the ‘nearly winning’ chance you as customer got hooked…thus on the hook. Not necessarily the hunger but a prize may lead you to McDonalds to buy some pricy products which have these stickers. And of course only the big versions of products have them (no medium fries, tztztztz…).

Ergo: more customers. Ergo: more profit. Ergo: customer finally hooked. For the supporters and sponsors like Apple or Audi would such a strategy suggested by me be advantageous for them, too: this strategy would minimize the chances to win and Apple doesn’t have to watch that often how somebody wins and give away an iPad for free which is economically seen a loss.

And, for the end…

Easy come, easy go…

Such contests or lotteries of every kind always got a hook: ma it be minimal chances to win (like 1:1,000,000), costs to participate (hotline lotteries) or hidden schemes. Lotteries have with casinos something in common: of what you bet can become tons of money or a total loss; what you don’t bet you cannot lose.

Right that is, but why this trip to the casino principle? The ethics of such a game is suggested but let’s be simple: as much as you wanna complain about unjust lotteries, it is just stupid to do so. Ever complained to an one-armed bandit because you lose all the time? You can complain as much as you want, it is unjustified. Lotteries always have a hook by which they play and you always have to be on the watch, realizing new schemes or discovering a pattern behind something. This 1:3 chance I haven’t noticed, too, at first but more and more I came to realize that something may be a bit fishy. Filling out a card with name, address, e-mail address and giving it to the phone provider who hosts such an ‘easy’ lottery sounds simple as pie. As you read the small-printed you may realize: ‘Wait! They’ll send me advertisement via mail?! Hell no!’ What a sly way to advertise by spamming my holy creeks of internet called my mail account without noticing how it came to happen.

That’s why I won’t put my signature on this card or just write an spam mail address down. XD But yeah, enough thoughts for today (well, yesterday but translating and sleep have prevented me from saying ‘today’…wait…I still have said ‘today’ XD ) and good that I could write something again. Even if I translated the beginning a bit with Google Translator to find the most efficient way of translating which kinda failed I guess. And hoping that I’ll write more constantly as before (like from zero to hero)!