It's definitely a saturated market, but with the right CRM tools, a sufficiently well positioned and marketed product, and enough knowledge of your demographic there's a lot of scope to make money as an entirely networked bingo site is self regulating and runs at an average of 28-33 AGW%.
Most of these smaller companies are white labels but still managed by the software owner themselves (in terms of the account functionality etc)...
The only risks i can see moving forward really are the effect that consumption tax will have, and also will the bubble burst in the medium to long term.
Business ideas
I know that you like to have an opinion on everything Russ, but not a single thing you've written here is true.Roll_With_It_Russ wrote:The bonuses are a red herring... Not actually giving away anything. Since bingo does not need conform to any payout level. Most sites that offer the triple deposit bonus only have a payout in the 25% to 50% bracket. Note the multiples of bonus only apply to bingo games... The odd person may experoence well above average luck and make a cash out but most never will mathmatically.
Target auidence is sit a home house wife.
-
Roll_With_It_Russ
- Senior Member
- Posts: 783
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:51 pm
Well with the explosion of tablet and mobile, the target market had moved away from what it 'was', )which was a misconception anyway as it was never just 'jeremy kylers' or however you want to call them), and is now aimed at popularising bingo as a leisure pursuit amongst 18-35 men and women.
Also, any bonuses offered generally have 3x wagering (industry standard.. not sure where you got 10 from)... and at a 30% margin (which is stsndard, and I can elaborate why if you want) most of these offers are ever so slightly abusable, but given the nature of the bingo player and the palty amounts involved this is not an issue, as gambling sites position offers based on attracting the genuine players with the greatest lifetime values, and due to the level of saturation you referenced, and the Spiraling cost per acquisition, companies are prepared to make a loss.
Also, any bonuses offered generally have 3x wagering (industry standard.. not sure where you got 10 from)... and at a 30% margin (which is stsndard, and I can elaborate why if you want) most of these offers are ever so slightly abusable, but given the nature of the bingo player and the palty amounts involved this is not an issue, as gambling sites position offers based on attracting the genuine players with the greatest lifetime values, and due to the level of saturation you referenced, and the Spiraling cost per acquisition, companies are prepared to make a loss.
-
Roll_With_It_Russ
- Senior Member
- Posts: 783
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:51 pm
Well the vast majority of Virtue Fusion and Dragonfish sites do, so that's a few hundred to get you started on.
There may be a discrepancy about whether or not bonus funds contribute to the prize pool or not, but for all contributing funds i'd be suprised if any vaguely well known bingo room was operating above 35%.
There may be a discrepancy about whether or not bonus funds contribute to the prize pool or not, but for all contributing funds i'd be suprised if any vaguely well known bingo room was operating above 35%.
-
Roll_With_It_Russ
- Senior Member
- Posts: 783
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:51 pm
Where do I find these figures on rtp.Drpepper wrote:Well the vast majority of Virtue Fusion and Dragonfish sites do, so that's a few hundred to get you started on.
There may be a discrepancy about whether or not bonus funds contribute to the prize pool or not, but for all contributing funds i'd be suprised if any vaguely well known bingo room was operating above 35%.
I gave up asking sky vegas and ladbrokes after they gave a run around saying they display the number of players etc.
I repeatedly asked why the ticket sale were not.
In the end it was clear no such rules apply to bingo.
Its so high margin... To work out the rtp just visit at a quiet time select a room where no one is playing.
I have brought tickets to work it out and evevn if I won 1 line 2 line and full house I Still would have lost half my stake. Ok so small amount gets fed into large jackpots.
However bonus funds not having the same weight as deposited money is very very wrong imo.
-
redlinesman
- Senior Member
- Posts: 542
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:24 pm
- Location: Paris
Just like in gambling - you need an edge guys. Gambling sites and car parks are all very good but what are you going to different to anyone else? Buy some land for a car park and you're going to be competing with people who know a lot more about these opportunties than you - and then the local gangsters come calling. Going against the grain is key gents, I realised that on fruit machines a long time ago and it's served me very well.
Kind Regards, Sir Linesman
Kind Regards, Sir Linesman
Amidst an intelligent exchange of views between Russ and Dr Pepper, in rides White Linesman on his trusty steed, and attempts to offer his 'expertise' on something he knows nothing about.redlinesman wrote:Just like in gambling - you need an edge guys. Gambling sites and car parks are all very good but what are you going to different to anyone else? Buy some land for a car park and you're going to be competing with people who know a lot more about these opportunties than you - and then the local gangsters come calling. Going against the grain is key gents, I realised that on fruit machines a long time ago and it's served me very well.
Kind Regards, Sir Linesman
Going 'against the grain' is all very well and good if you have a surfeit of ready cash, but you'll find that in most aspects of business once a proven winning formula has been established you tend to stick to it, and milk it dry. Very few businesses are prepared to take the risk of trying something completely new, especially when there is still money to be made out of something else.
Here's a tip for you... when you post try to elaborate on WHY your advice is so worthy of mass appreciation. This will ensure that some of what you post is more credible.