It's the same line of false reasoning that justifies lotteries moving to computerized drawings.
Anyone who does serious financial modeling knows that stuff like this is not a simple add-and-subtract exercise. Changes have rippling repercussions, and the failure to acknowledge and account for that is highly misleading.
The TV station (NJN) said that 2 million people watch the live drawings. Does the lottery seriously think that 2 million people will all have the same exact reaction of not changing their buying patterns based on the loss of live broadcasts?
This reminds me of something another member told me recently about a different state lottery. He said that an aide to the Governor in that state did not understand what was the big deal about watching ping pong ball drawings, and why they kept interrupting other shows for a few minutes when the draw took place (even if only showing a small caption of the results).
Now, this aid, who obviously has the Governor's ear, and thus has the ability to influence the Governor's thinking, has the potential to hurt the integrity of the lottery and/or impact sales by eliminating the live drawings in that state -- and the guy probably has zero knowledge about lottery players or lottery sales.
Why the heck are these singular politicians -- in this case a non-elected aid -- able to carry strong influence into a subject matter (the lottery) which they know nothing about? This stuff goes on all the time in different areas of government too, such as when some politician who knows nothing about education influences the curriculum standards in the state.
Enough of this already!