 |
 |
|
It is easy to be cynical about online gaming operators mentioning the importance of brands and how they believe that the future of the industry will belong to the biggest companies in the sector – those that have the biggest brand names, the biggest budgets and are bigger than everybody else. Indeed, they are unlikely to say anything different. Furthermore, what does having the biggest brand mean exactly? That a company gobbles up all the advertising space it can find on TV, online and in print, or that it goes on a spree of sponsorship agreements with sports clubs and poker celebrities? Such questions are simplistic. They also don’t take account of the work that is being done behind the scenes in building up users’ trust in their brand names. They do this through their customer service and retention departments or their programmes aimed at promoting social responsibility. Operators probably dream of the day when punters will log onto their sites to place a bet or play a hand of poker in the same way that they purchase a book or CD from an online retailer such as Amazon. Such thoughts are natural and the industry should be praised for having the breadth of vision and skill to implement the strategies that will get them to that stage. This point is reinforced when one considers the unclear regulation and protectionist policies operators have to contend with in many of Europe’s major markets. But for all the talk of dominance by the major companies in the sector, their arguments raise significant issues. If their claims turn out to be true, this would lead many to wonder about the variety and originality of e-gaming products on offer. Various leading firms in the sector have already signed a number of partnerships with suppliers and operators that see it act as an e-gaming ‘enabler’, offering softer suppliers’ products as well as its own to other operators. So what’s the reason behind signing up to third-party deals? Are companies worried about not generating enough revenue from their players or about the liquidity pools sinking further from that of their competitors who have continued to take bets in the US? Many operators have been very busy this year in signing distribution and third-party agreements and they believe that smaller operators will not have the capacity to survive the next 12 to 18 months unless they are bought out or merge with other operators. The regulation of the industry will lead to more white label sites, as many of the new entrants in the sector will not own or be able to build their own software platforms. Many believe there will be a demand for providers and these new entrants will want to deal with transparent, publicly traded companies with a view to using their products. While it is true that only the major brands in e-gaming will be big enough to operate on grandiose levels, smaller operators will be able to strive in their shadows, thanks to their flexibility and speed to market, operating on the coat-tails of the ‘majors’. It’s what they have always done and it should be praised, as they provide the originality and variety that is vital to any industry aiming for the mass consumer market.
|
Bonus 
Stars 
