I got a call from a VC friend of mine asking for my opinion regarding 'why' the consolidation of the remote gaming sector has not really arrived yet. I told him what I thought, and since I went to Paul Walsh's BIMA drinks last night, I realised that how 'slag' I have been in my blogging (to be honest, this is hard work).. and hope its worthwhile of sharing with the world our thoughts (intermittently).
below is what I already told my friend Sam:
Reason for not much 'real actions' happening in the consolidation space yet for the remote gaming market (no particular order):
* lack of transparency of how big 'really' the market is, therefore difficult to quantify the real 'worth' of the company, made worst by their usual secrecy..
#(I founded GamBond® to work with governments/regulators, gaming firms, banks and payment processors to exactly address that issue, as we will hopefully have a handle on the 'exact' size of the whole market anonymously)
* constantly changing regulations internationally
* blurring line for some gaming operators and vendors
* lack of convergence into other more acceptable 'entertainment' or 'offline/asset rich' operations.
* lack of understanding of the gaming world from outside industries (that was the reason why I founded Gambit http://www.TheGambit.info ).
However, this is mostly due to the fact that like the 'premium rate' market, most companies despite making millions, they are still mostly playing a 'short-term' game.. which means that given the points mentioned above, it does not make sense to take 'chances' nor 'invest' for the future by consolidating..
However, there is a wave of change, as likes of Gigi Levy of 888.com (with backgrounds in telecoms like myself) are keen to work on the medium to long term goals.. by doing what they do better, like real CRM, reaching new audiences etc.
Challenge for us in the sector is how to become a more respectable and 'understood' sector... I humbly submit that it can only be achieved by being more transparent and communicate.
I hope that GamBond® and Gambit can play a part going forward.
Showing posts with label finance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label finance. Show all posts
Thursday, 18 October 2007
Saturday, 1 September 2007
Financing for growth in the gaming gambling sector, Synergies with offline gaming
finally, things are starting to get normal.
Got sometime to finish integrating Mark's report to the Gambit website. Many thanks for the fantastic speakers that contributed!
You may find the report on the Financing for growth, Private equity vs. public market, of the last Gambit public forum on finance of interest. full report here.
In terms of strategic fit, I am still surprised that our remote gaming market sector despite the risk nature is sooo risk averse, I guess this is partly due to the comparatively smaller capital expenditure and the constant flux of legal changes internationally, top management are forced to think short term to maximise on the return 'whilst you still can'...
I trust that is the wrong way of thinking about it, as it is a no brainer, that if any of the 'top brands' and 'market leaders' of our remote gaming sector, as soon as they buy some offline (not be bought!) gaming interests, or even gaming group, they would automatically gained a huge amount of trust, and therefore move the basis of competition away from the FMCG, you are as good as your last campaign type of scenario.
But hey, the later they do that, the better from my view, as I maybe able to pull off some deals before that happens. fingers crossed.
Do you agree?
Got sometime to finish integrating Mark's report to the Gambit website. Many thanks for the fantastic speakers that contributed!
You may find the report on the Financing for growth, Private equity vs. public market, of the last Gambit public forum on finance of interest. full report here.
In terms of strategic fit, I am still surprised that our remote gaming market sector despite the risk nature is sooo risk averse, I guess this is partly due to the comparatively smaller capital expenditure and the constant flux of legal changes internationally, top management are forced to think short term to maximise on the return 'whilst you still can'...
I trust that is the wrong way of thinking about it, as it is a no brainer, that if any of the 'top brands' and 'market leaders' of our remote gaming sector, as soon as they buy some offline (not be bought!) gaming interests, or even gaming group, they would automatically gained a huge amount of trust, and therefore move the basis of competition away from the FMCG, you are as good as your last campaign type of scenario.
But hey, the later they do that, the better from my view, as I maybe able to pull off some deals before that happens. fingers crossed.
Do you agree?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)