The operator was acquiring players across multiple paid and affiliate channels, but couldn't tell which sources were producing valuable customers versus just volume. We connected acquisition data through to real player value.
An iGaming operator was acquiring players across multiple paid and affiliate channels, but struggled to understand which sources were actually producing the most valuable customers. Acquisition decisions were being made largely on registration volume, because that was the number available fastest, not necessarily the number that mattered most.
A channel producing a high volume of sign-ups looked good in a weekly report, right up until you followed those players through to deposits and revenue and found a very different picture underneath.
What the operator needed wasn't more acquisition volume. It was a way to see past the registration to what a player from each source was actually worth.
We unified acquisition, registration, deposit and player revenue data into a single reporting structure, built around the metrics that actually reflect player value: CPA, FTD, NGR and LTV, connected back to the marketing source that acquired each player.
Players were then segmented by acquisition source and behavioural characteristics, so the team could see not just which channels brought in players, but which channels brought in players who stuck around and deposited.
Acquisition, registration, deposit and player revenue data connected into a single reporting structure.
Reporting built around the metrics that reflect real player value, not just registration volume.
Players segmented by acquisition source and behaviour, to compare channels on outcomes, not just sign-ups.
Channels producing high registration volume but low player value identified and flagged for review.
Dashboards for acquisition and retention teams, with automated reporting tracking player cohorts over time.
The reporting revealed significant differences in player value between acquisition sources. Some channels that looked strong on registrations were, in fact, producing disproportionately low-value players; others that looked unremarkable on volume were quietly outperforming on revenue.
With cost-to-deposit-to-revenue-to-LTV visibility in place, marketing spend could be shifted deliberately towards higher-LTV cohorts, and registration volume stopped being treated as the primary measure of acquisition success.
Differences in player value revealed between acquisition sources
Marketing spend shifted towards higher-LTV player cohorts
Full visibility from cost to deposit to revenue to lifetime value
The same approach applies anywhere acquisition volume and customer value can pull in different directions: connect the data, report on outcomes, then reallocate spend accordingly.
Acquisition, deposit and revenue data connected in one place.
Metrics that reflect real player value, not just sign-ups.
Players grouped by source and behaviour to compare outcomes.
Automated reporting tracking cohorts over time.
If you can't see player value by source, you're probably funding some channels that look good and quietly cost you. We'll show you where.