Constructing Tomorrow’s Gaming: Is a Multi-Channel Approach the Sole Path to Success?
## Constructing Tomorrow’s Gaming: Is a Multi-Channel Approach the Sole Path to Success?
The gaming sector is abuzz with talk of multi-channel tactics – and with good reason. It represents a significant shift in marketing strategies. At ICE, a group of specialists delved into this very subject, examining its influence and possibilities.
The discussion, guided by Mybet’s Sean Kiely, featured a lineup of industry leaders: Gerhard Burda, Chief Product Officer of Inspired Gaming Group; Claire Barry, Head of Digital Planning and Strategy at Camelot; Shiala Nicolaou, Casino and Games Director at Rank Group PLC; and Nikolas Papadoglou, Group Director of Product Management and Planning at Intralot.
The phrase “multi-channel” was ubiquitous at ICE Totally Gaming, with businesses of all sizes debating its execution and advantages. But what does it truly signify? And how does it influence marketing approaches? The panel “Are you at a disadvantage without a multi-channel approach?” addressed these inquiries directly.
Is a multi-channel strategy genuinely crucial for achieving success? Do the majority of consumers truly desire to connect with brands across numerous channels, or is this simply a small, vocal group?
Claire Barry stressed that consumers anticipate both digital and physical interaction, even if the nature of that interaction varies. As an example, lottery participants might purchase their tickets offline but then verify the outcomes online.
Weve observed that numerous retail patrons who engage with us via our application or webpage primarily utilize digital channels to review their outcomes, not to actively participate in games. They favor having the gaming encounter in person, at a physical venue.
Consider Grosvenor Casinos, as an illustration. They manage 56 casinos within the UK and witnessed 1.7 million distinct guests last financial year. Through conversations with their clientele, they discovered that approximately 45% also wager online, just not through Grosvenor’s system. For casino proprietors, it’s entirely about captivating that offline consumer and fostering brand recognition.
Within the gaming sector, we have several options to entice that offline customer group to online platforms. To me, omnichannel signifies enabling the customer to interact with your brand whenever and wherever they desire, whether that’s in a physical store, on their tablet, or on their desktop — from utilizing a central customer relationship management system, to having the ability to see recently acquired rewards, to being aware of the evening’s specials at their local casino restaurant.
My belief is that the dialogue surrounding omnichannel commenced when mobile truly gained momentum in the web and retail domains. Users anticipate a distinct experience on mobile compared to retail, and their browsing patterns on a desktop are entirely different from their habits on their phone, which is essentially an extension of themselves. Nevertheless, brand uniformity remains crucial, and the method of achieving that is something everyone is striving to determine.
Was the shift towards a multichannel framework a deliberate choice? Is there universal agreement on the multichannel approach?
GB:
The response is affirmative, as we acknowledge the existence of the multichannel user. Statistics indicate that roughly 20% of participants engage with all our platforms, and we understand these players are highly profitable, so we aim to retain them.
Nevertheless, a genuine multichannel strategy necessitates technology that is fully interconnected, which presents a challenge. Currently, there’s still division among the various systems we employ and their communication methods, for instance, with promotions, which also require a multichannel perspective.
Certain businesses claim to have attained complete integration, but I’m doubtful that anyone has truly reached that point.
Are there justifiable grounds for questioning a multichannel strategy? Does its effectiveness depend on specific circumstances?
CB:
I wouldn’t say I’m doubtful, but I do believe it can be somewhat restrictive at times when operating with two separate back-end frameworks and marketplaces, particularly when introducing something novel, like a tangible scratch-off ticket in retail outlets alongside a game in a digital or mobile setting. It simply entails more tasks and considerations. The timeframe for physical stores differs significantly from digital platforms. The manner in which the opportunity is conveyed to the customer also varies considerably.
”
The significant disparity between in-person and digital engagement presents a substantial marketing hurdle. Simply promoting the experience isn’t sufficient; the communication must be tailored for each platform. While not inherently negative, this demands a more meticulous approach.
Should identical marketing tactics be employed for both online patrons and those frequenting our physical establishments?
Unequivocally. Previously, the emphasis solely revolved around membership enrollment, with little insight into subsequent customer behavior. Did they indulge in beverages, savor a lavish meal, or spend hours engrossed in blackjack? To rectify this, our loyalty program underwent a complete overhaul. Now, upon registration, customers can monitor their activities comprehensively, encompassing expenditures and gaming preferences. Rewards are distributed as points based on spending, providing a transparent view of their origin. This yields invaluable insights into customer inclinations, facilitating highly targeted marketing endeavors.
Consider this: in retail, communication can be disseminated through emails, text messages, or even traditional printed flyers. Conversely, we cannot simply dispatch a generic message proclaiming, “Greetings, you recently visited our casino, return for our blackjack tournament!” It’s entirely plausible that the recipient has never even engaged in blackjack!
In reality, the casino industry is still navigating the complexities of “omnichannel” strategies. Catering to diverse customer segments with varying requirements and interests is paramount.
Gen Z and younger demographics aren’t as drawn to the allure of purchasing lottery entries at physical locations. Being raised in the digital world is a key factor. However, certain population segments still value the face-to-face interaction, and we can engage them through incentives for repeat customers and joint marketing initiatives.
One discovery we’ve made is that while some individuals openly share their lives on the internet, they become extremely guarded in a brick-and-mortar environment. They willingly provide all their personal details online, yet ask for their name in a shop and they refuse to answer. It’s perplexing why they’re so apprehensive!
The hurdle for businesses like ours is connecting the online and offline realms. How can we utilize our digital resources in a physical setting, particularly when patrons are reluctant to reveal their identities? As an illustration, our automated retail kiosks necessitate proof of age, which is unattainable if the consumer won’t disclose that data. This disparity between conventional commerce and the anticipations of the technological era is a puzzle the entire sector is wrestling with.
From a practical standpoint, ensuring all our frameworks function harmoniously across physical and digital avenues is a monumental endeavor. Moreover, we need to determine the optimal organizational framework. How do we dismantle the barriers and unite everyone towards a common objective?
GB:
Achieving complete alignment has presented significant obstacles. Why should our mobile application team be delayed by the retail team’s readiness before introducing a new feature? It shouldn’t revolve around internal power struggles; it should prioritize the overall well-being of the organization.
When obligated to produce outcomes quarterly, there’s insufficient opportunity to contemplate necessary adjustments across various platforms to address their unique obstacles. The strain is excessive.”
Within China, this highlights the significance of inclination modeling and authentic data examination. For entities like us, participants engaging both digitally and at physical locations hold immense worth. It’s brand precedence, followed by the customer – identifying the appropriate customer at the opportune moment with the fitting communication is paramount. This must be founded on customer respect – I wouldn’t have my customer relationship management team disseminating identical promotional content to every individual who has engaged with us digitally and in retail. Losing that respect leads to customer attrition.
Regarding game development and offerings, should they maintain distinctiveness across different avenues?
In the United Kingdom, diverse perspectives exist on this matter, and I hold my own viewpoint. A unified brand is crucial, one you can cultivate and sustain, but does that necessitate identical game mechanics? Personally, I harbor doubts. Conversely, some advocate for complete homogeneity. I remain skeptical due to the disparity in player behavior.
Illustratively, in 2015, Inspired achieved remarkable success with a consistent mathematical model and game performance across both online and offline domains. However, an opposing perspective suggests that bonus games excel digitally, while free spin games thrive in retail environments.
The surge in mobile gaming led to a period of experimentation, with developers trying various approaches to see what resonated with players. However, the industry is now maturing. Creators are recognizing the importance of comprehending player preferences, establishing a distinct identity, and designing immersive experiences that connect with their target demographic.
