Whether you had a dog in this race (I did…) or not, the latest 888holdings decision regarding SIsportsbook and partnership with Authentic Brands Group has stirred the iGaming feed and rekindled a decade-old brand/media/gaming debate (for a few minutes at least, until the algo moves our collective ADHD onwards…) This has enough fissile material for a longer post + discussion, but here are some key (proposed) takeaways: 1. The Coke Zero Paradox: in most cases media/brand companies want the great taste (revenues) but none of the calories (licensing, gambling association). No matter how big the meeting room is (having sat in most if not all of them at one point or another), if you’re not sitting opposite the CEO (physically or by delegation), it’s not a partnership you’re negotiating. You are calories. Nothing wrong with that, as long as both of you see it that way. It is incremental value to their business, but it’s all of yours. 2. Sexy vs. CPA: some brands garner awareness, some offer distribution and conversion, while others increase engagement and stickiness. They almost never present the coveted triple-threat. At the end of the day, media/brand partnerships are meant to serve as shortcuts on your chartered strategic course. If they do not translate into lower CPA/higher LTV, it means you’re probably lost (see #5). 3. Don’t say Sky! Sky Bet, now part of the Flutter group, rose to power in the UK while being part of the NewsCorp empire, and even then took a few years to hone and streamline its proposition. It is the exception, NOT the rule. The digital plains are now riddled with media/gaming corps (Fox Bet, MaximBet, fuboTV sportsbook, Barstool). It’s not to say it can’t be done (see TheScore in Ontario, Fanatics and ESPN Bet early days), but it has to be done out of a shared strategic view and alignment of interests (see #5 again…) 4. Keep your eyes on the road: although some pundits claim to have seen SIsportsbook’s fate from the outset, it’s still hindsight and still 20/20 when you only look at a singular event. Business Development is always forward looking and always contextual. For us the SI partnership was a milestone in a road beginning in 2009, stretching through 2013 then 2018… we could have gone right instead of left at every junction. Hindsight’s only value is if you project it forward. Otherwise, it’s a post on LI 😊 5. Strategy eats Opportunity for breakfast: speaking of the road, you have to make sure you’re driving on one… opportunities come and go, they often have real or made-up clocks ticking on them. But striking any strategic deal/partnership under the “let’s just do it and figure it out later” motto turns it into a lottery card, with similar win chances. When kicking the can, you’ll find the road is much shorter than expected. Hope this is helpful and doesn’t get folded into a fortune cookie, but if it does – let’s hope it’s a branded one!
🚨 888holdings announces strategic review of US B2C operations - considering sale 👉 CEO Per Widerström expects to update at the end of March 2024 👉 US profit margin is lower than the wider group 👉 Also ending partnership with Sports Illustrated https://lnkd.in/evrVcMEf
James Torvaney
2mo
Hi Yaniv. Re 3 - Whilst I agree in general that the media/sports ‘convergence’ strategy is often poorly implemented, it’s not just Sky that has made it work. LiveScore comes to mind as a convergence play that has worked, but there are a number of others. Like you say, there needs to be strategic alignment - live score apps, for example, are far better at converting users to sports betting than, say, viral sports gossip sites (Barstool).
Dustin Gouker
2mo
To be fair I thought all three of the media brand deals over here were bad from the outset! And bearish on ESPN at this point. Fox is the outlier where I think it had a chance but had other structural issues. Anyway appreciate the insight here!
Martin Calvert
2mo
Enjoyed the candour in this post and agree to an extent about 'geniuses' who only look backward to criticise others BUT I do think US-facing operators in particular have largely missed the boat in terms of other, less 'big bang', forms of acquisition and brand building and customer acquisition. The digital side of our business is an SEO/content/PR agency so of course we lean towards that side of things but it's *really* notable how comparatively few operators have been in our orbit for that kind of thing which I'd say is probably seen as fundamental in other geos - even 'new' one like Brazil.
Experienced technology leader, advisor and mentor
2moYaniv, many valid views expressed, and it's great to see you expressing them openly with passion. The gaming industry is littered with marriages between big media brands and tech/gambling/product savy operators but in reality very few have delivered on the promise (to date)....low CPA is not the silver bullet. Let’s face it the US iGaming market is currently dominated by businesses not with media roots but by the early disruptors who stayed focused on building great product experiences, driven by scalable in-house tech, who then sank everything into creating their own brands. Successful disruptive cross-over innovation is possible but as you say the SkyBets of the world are few and far between.