- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Excellent article. :thumbsup:
I hope that companies like MGM will be more willing to step forward now that American people are beginning to reject the far right wing extremist nuts who had been running this country for the last six years.
Very encouraging article.
umm… The only reason MGM is stepping up now is because they helped subsidize Fritz’s law. They WANTED the overseas companies to go bankrupt so that they could dominate the US market.
Seriously – I said this about 1 1/2 years ago and it is still true today. MGM/Mirage and Harrahs want this market all to themselves.
Want a piece of it???? But IGT stock.
Sure, Las Vegas casinos would love to have Internet gambling legalized. No need to imagine the synergies between online gambling and their land based brick and mortar casino fantasy buildings and playgrounds.
Internet poker has definitely fueled the rise of poker rooms in Las Vegas and across the USA – from Atlantic City casinos, to Indian casinos in California to Indian casinos in Floriad – long queques line up every poker room. Much the opposit of the 90’s when casinos across the country were closing poker rooms.
Imagine this. Play on a Vegas owned online casino – win comps in the hotel – which will get the costumer to suit up for a Vegas trip – spend more money in the casino – or at the shops and restaurants… ahhh, Las Vegas needs Internet gambling to be approved. Link
It would be better to have the industry regulated and the big players in the marketplace than to have prohibition. There would be plenty of competition, keeping the need for affiliates and many more people willing to play online. Yes, there is a ton of hipocrisy here, but if it is a means to an end, then it ain’t all bad.
When the market is regulated and big companies like MGM enter the industry – these big companies may not need for affiliates coz they can then advertise their big legitimate brands on all mainstream media – or if they did offered affiliate relationships – it will not be along the commission levels most affiliate programs currently offer.
just my 2 cents
webber286 wrote:It would be better to have the industry regulated and the big players in the marketplace than to have prohibition. There would be plenty of competition, keeping the need for affiliates and many more people willing to play online.codename wrote:When the market is regulated and big companies like MGM enter the industry – these big companies may not need for affiliates coz they can then advertise their big legitimate brands on all mainstream media – or if they did offered affiliate relationships – it will not be along the commission levels most affiliate programs currently offer.just my 2 cents
It’s possible, but I’d bet they’d still want a piece of the Web. And they’d want to spend their money on targetted traffic if they could. And casino portals have exactly that.
It will be interesting, but if big companies with loads of money ruled out the need for affilliates, then why are people like Virgin, Corals, Ladbrokes and a host of others embracing the affiliate model?
I still think at 25% and bearing in mind it’s paid only in a profit-making scenario, affiliates are a cheap form of marketing with the added benefit of bringing in highly-targetted traffic. It’s one of very very few forms of marketing where you only pay for it if you make a profit. They may start without it, but in time I think they’ll appreciate it’s cost-effectiveness.
codename wrote:When the market is regulated and big companies like MGM enter the industry – these big companies may not need for affiliates coz they can then advertise their big legitimate brands on all mainstream media – or if they did offered affiliate relationships – it will not be along the commission levels most affiliate programs currently offer.just my 2 cents
That’s a strange assertion for an affiliate – and it suggests that you don’t actually realise the huge amount of value that you are generating for your selected casinos??
What affiliates do is valuable – and certainly all my chosen partners have made profits on the services and advertising that I’ve done for them.
The affiliate model works – and is cost effective for many major online companies that had deep pockets (before law changes) – and it will work for the smart new entrants too.
(New entrants that try to do it without affiliates will probably throw their hands up in 12 months and claim that there isn’t much profit in it)
Additionally, I’d disagree simply because the days of mainstream media came to an end when the proliferation of digital channels arrived. The very definition of “broadcast” TV is almost anochronistic now – with hundreds of channels and other digital media. It’s all “narrowcast”.
Furthermore, players don’t play through their TV screens (yet) so the new casinos also need to have a big presence on the internet which is where they will need to spend money to attract new customers.
Based on UK experiences, I’d say that major bricks-n-mortar casinos have a good brand awareness and an advantage in players mindset that they are big and local and can be trusted …
… but if a new player goes to google and subsequently doesn’t find them listed in the portal that they get sent to then that advantage is lost.
As for reduced commission levels – that might be true if the new companies act as some sort of “Cartel” and agree amoungst themselves to fix prices – otherwise competition will keep rev shares at a good level.
codename wrote:When the market is regulated and big companies like MGM enter the industry – these big companies may not need for affiliates coz they can then advertise their big legitimate brands on all mainstream media – or if they did offered affiliate relationships – it will not be along the commission levels most affiliate programs currently offer.I disagree. Online gambling is a hyper-competitive industry and so is on-strip gambling. It’s not like MGM would be the only Vegas casino to jump online if they could, every single one of them would be there just as quickly as they could. This means that they will have to compete online for marketshare and part of the competition will be for attracting as many online players as possible. For some casinos, perhaps all of them, online revenues could surpass real-world revenues now that the entire world can gamble at the MGM, Bellagio, Mandalay Bay and others, 24-7 from the comfort of their own homes.
The competition would be fierce among these casinos, and there is no guarantee that players will like their interfaces, bonuses, gameplay, etc., any better than current online casinos. Add to this the economics of online casinos where the cost to service 1 gambler or 1,000 gamblers is nominal online…and the marketing managers at MGM and others will quickly understand that any new player that comes their way is worth paying out a percentage to an affiliate. If it is a player they wouldn’t have had anyway, why not give a percentage of the win to an affiliate. Or, if an affiliate can convince a player to switch to another casino, why not reward them. Besides the percentage paid to an affiliate, there is no other downside. Most certainly there will still be an online casino affiliate industry.
An argument could be made that the big casinos wouldn’t be as likely to offer 25% for the life of a player, if this is the case, one of 2 things would happen:
1) Affiliates won’t be that interested in marketing the real-world casino, meaning all of that juicy search engine traffic gets diverted to a competing casino. Do you think MGM would be happy to loose business to Treasure Island, especially once TI has the online gambler they can incentive them to come visit Las Vegas and spend more money in their restaurants and shops. Under this scenario, the first Vegas casino to offer a sweeter deal to affiliates would be rewarded handsomly and the rest of the casinos would then jump on board.
2) The industry could decide that 10% commission for life is more than fair, and if their brands dominated online, they might have the power to leave it that low. But, this could come with much higher conversion and retention rates than current online casinos experience. Even online, it’s the known brands that convert better than the unknown online casino. For the affiliate, this would mean that the same amount of traffic converting at a higher rate and playing for a longer period of time would result in more income, even at a lower commission rate.
No, the affiliate industry would not die if the online gambling industry were regulated, on the contrary, it would open up a whole new world of opportunities for affiliates.
IMHO
I think this proves how hypocritical the entire mindset in the USA is. If someone who is all ready a billionaire decides to offer internet gambling it’s allowed. If someone who is an entrepeuneur does it then it’s evil and illegal.
I do think that the one advantage offshore casinos and affiliates have is that many players who play online do so with the theory that they dont have to report gambling winnings. Obviously if they play at the MGM they will have to report all winnings.
antoine wrote:Obviously if they play at the MGM they will have to report all winnings.Thats a very interesting observation Antione. I wonder if this means that the Strip casinos would operate their casinos from offshore locations, or whether the US would relax rules to allow them to remain competitive. Very interesting point and not one that had occurred to me.
I don´t know why reporting casino winnings would be an obstacle for players? Do you want to say the US taxes your casino winnings? If not then the only other reason would be to layer dirty money and conceal it´s origins and as we all know that´s not a major reason to gamble for most people.
As for codename´s comment, I think there is more truth in what she said than some people want to admit. Ladbrokes, Coral, etc. all use affiliates because a large number of players can be acquired from countries where the legal situation is debatable at best. They are taking players from jurisdictions where gambling is illegal until their first exec gets arrested in one of those countries. On the other hand I do agree that affiliates are a valuable source of highly targeted traffic that casinos can get on the cheap.
Goldfinger wrote:I don´t know why reporting casino winnings would be an obstacle for players?Maybe it’s not but I doubt the B&M’s would just want to compete for American money.
codename wrote:When the market is regulated and big companies like MGM enter the industry – these big companies may not need for affiliates coz they can then advertise their big legitimate brands on all mainstream media – or if they did offered affiliate relationships – it will not be along the commission levels most affiliate programs currently offer.just my 2 cents
Several things could happen IMO in that imaginary scenario.
1) As any recognized brand name they will have a top position in Google and others.
2) Impressive offline media advertising.Anyway they will need some affiliate network.
If we think in City Bank or the top credit cards they are using Aff Marketing.
The net is just too big and segmentated.On the other hand is too complex for a company to explain to the general audience the pros and cons of the online product.
Serious portals with unbiased info could have an opp if this market becomes reality.
