Australian Newsagency Blog

A blog on issues affecting Australia's newsagents, media and small business generally.

The NANA position on Lottoland’s offer to newsagents

Mark Fletcher
April 19th, 2018 · 3 Comments

Plenty of newsagents have sent me this email published today by NANA. Many sent it saying WTF NANA?

Their line about not being in anyone’s pocket reads as a passive-aggressive statement to me.

Their line about monopolies, too, is odd as they have dealt with monopolies in our channel for years.

NANA’s Position on Lottoland’s Offer to Newsagents
From tomorrow (19 April), you are likely to receive a letter from Lottoland.  NANA understands the letter will refer to an offer Lottoland has made to NANA on behalf of its Members and other interested Newsagents across Australia.

NANA is considering that offer.  It is substantially higher than previous offers made to ALNA and to Newsagents in the media.  The offer is based on a percentage of sales value, not profit.  The percentage rate is higher than the percentages Newsagents and other lotteries outlets receive in commissions from Tatts Group Lotteries for their lotteries products.

Firstly, NANA is not in anyone’s pocket.

Secondly, Newsagents have asked NANA to negotiate with Lottoland and other alternate lotteries/wagering products providers to deliver a benefit to them.  Lottoland is not the only player in this space.

NANA says that Lottoland’s approach to the industry in the past been ham-fisted.  At the end of the day, it is about income and income that Newsagents and other lotteries outlets are already losing to online lotteries and wagering product sales, irrespective of who the product owner is.

NANA has not finalised an agreement.  NANA is duty bound to consider any alternative that gives Newsagents a fair share.

NANA has written to the Deputy Prime Minister and Senator Fifield about the proposed amendments to the Interactive Gambling legislation.  If the identified issues concerning taxation, State government revenue, consumer education and income for Newsagents and other lotteries outlets are resolved, why shouldn’t Newsagents get an additional income stream, which balances what they are losing to alternate wagering products and to Tatts Group Lotteries’ own online sales activities.

From day one of the campaign funded and conducted by Tatts Group Lotteries against alternate lotteries/wagering products, NANA has stressed that there will be enormous consequences for Newsagents if Tatts Group Lotteries has no effective competition.  Already, Tatts Group Lotteries has an almost monopoly position in every State and Territory except Western Australia.  If this position is reinforced by a legislated ban on alternate/wagering products, there will be nothing to prevent Tatts Group Lotteries building on their thrust into online sales.  Already their online sales represent a significant proportion of the overall sales of lotteries products.

Monopolies are not good for small businesses.

Monopolies are not good for consumers.

Tatts Group Lotteries do not object to online sales of lotteries products.  They do it all the time.  They do it through their app and online.  They also have a substantial beneficial stake in the online lotteries sales company Jumbo Interactive.  This company is licensed by Tatts Group Lotteries and competes online against Newsagents and other lotteries outlets.

Throughout the campaign orchestrated and funded by Tatts Group Lotteries, a campaign on which they have spent more than $5 MILLION, they portrayed the resistance they have created as being initiated and managed on a grass roots level by Newsagents and other lotteries outlets.  Make no mistake, the campaign was and is funded and orchestrated by Tatts Group Lotteries.  Some Newsagent and Lotteries associations have tied themselves to the campaign and appear to act as mouthpieces for Tatts Group Lotteries.  One must ask the questions “How do they afford their extensive media and public relations campaign when they could be technically insolvent.  Who is picking up the tab for their media and PR agency and keeping them afloat?”

NANA has been approached to represent the interests of significant blocks of Newsagents outside of NSW and ACT.  Why?  Because Newsagents are sick and tired of being used as cannon fodder by the likes of Tatts Group Lotteries and associations that act as their mouthpiece.  NANA is working with those Newsagents to work out what will be best for them.

There is a long way to go in this saga.  NANA has existed for more than 125 years and is here for the long haul.  NANA is committed to continuing to work in the best interests of its Members.  Dismissing any genuine offer from any organisation to work with Newsagents closes the gate and will potentially cost Newsagents income.

NANA will continue to negotiate with Lottoland and other organisations for the benefit of its Members.

If an agreement cannot be reached that is good for Newsagents, then nothing will change.

We will keep you updated as things develop.
Contact NANA on 1300 113 044 or by email to

In my opinion, NANA is a joke, redundant and of no value to newsagents. It has been thus for years.


Category: Lotteries

3 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Jim // Apr 19, 2018 at 9:59 PM

    Finally someone is leveraging off Lottoland to get a better outcome for lottery agents. Well done NANA.


  • 2 Mark R // Apr 20, 2018 at 10:24 AM

    NANA needs to come clean and reveal if they are receiving a financial benefit from Lottoland


  • 3 Dean Young // Apr 20, 2018 at 12:30 PM

    Firstly, my question to NANA would be do they have ACCC permission to negotiate on behalf of newsagents? If they don’t, then last time i checked, collusion was illegal.
    Secondly, if lotto land go ahead, will NANA negotiate with all the new players in this unregulated market to get newsagents the same amount of commission? Can they guarantee this?
    I don’t see much upside to tatts at the moment, but at least they provide some tax and jobs in Australia, they also do not put ads on tv denigrating the newsagent.
    Lastly, if lotto land go ahead, do you not think one of the first things tatts will do is to also provide this synthetic betting option as well – then we will just have lots of competing businesses with only one of them (maybe) paying commission to newsagents.
    Doesn’t seem very smart to me.
    Lottoland are clutching at straws to stay in the market and have found a willing participant to help them divide newsagents.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Reload Image