Digital businesses rarely create all of their own products. A streaming platform doesn’t create any of its content. A cloud marketplace doesn’t create any of the software sold on its platform. An e-commerce platform doesn’t touch any of the goods it sells. A digital business can offer a wide variety of products, but the products can belong to many different owners. Online casino businesses work in the same way. A casino that offers 500 different games almost definitely doesn’t create any of its games. The slots, table games, and crash games, among other things, are created by other companies. This infrastructure creates a way for content to be moved from the studio that created it to the casino that will offer it. This is game aggregation, and this is how the modern casino business can grow and scale.

That scale is driven by a single API connection. Traditionally, operators would need to build and maintain a custom integration for each game provider, resulting in hundreds of uniquely negotiated relationships. With an aggregator, that connection is simplified, and the aggregator manages the distribution of the studio content through that unified connection. The effects of this model are profound. Integration timelines that once spanned weeks, or even months, for a single provider, are now condensed to a single four to eight week cycle. From a back office integration standpoint, a single connection simplifies reporting from thirty studio dashboards to a single reporting dashboard. Simplification is also felt on the operational side, where instead of managing thirty commercial agreements, a single agreement is all that is needed. Betinia NJ‘s seamless integration of thousands of games for their players is made possible by a back end aggregation layer that operates behind the scenes for the operator. The aggregator simplifies distribution, and allows the operator to focus on the product.

The single-API model condenses distribution so much that it essentially removes the need for the individual agreements and integrations for each step of the process. To picture this in the context of casino lobbies, think of the three main pieces: the game providers, the aggregators, and the operators. Each of these pieces has their own contracts and integrations, and the single API connection simplifies this integration.

The shelf nobody builds alone

There are three main roles in a distribution chain, and it is important to keep them separate even if a single supplier takes on more than one of these roles.

A game studio builds and certifies content. A studio finances the design, the math, the art, and the regulatory testing that is required to legally offer a game in any market. Studios vary in size from large studios that produce dozens of titles a year to small studios that produce a few titles over a large span of time. The goal of a studio is distribution. A studio wants as many operators to have their content as possible, and a studio cannot afford to fund a sales and integration team for every operator.

An aggregator is a bridge between a studio and an operator. An aggregator provides a unified Application Programming Interface (API) and wholesales game content. An aggregator manages relationships with studios, and it integrates each studio’s content with its platform. An aggregator charges a few percentage points of gross gaming revenue for its distribution service to operators.

An operator runs a casino. An operator’s job is to provide a good player experience and to retain players. An operator does not build integrations. An operator builds a product. The aggregator model provides the operator with a solution to the content supply problem.

One handshake, every catalogue

A direct integration with every content studio is a viable alternative to an aggregator. Each integration is a project. There is contract negotiation, review of API documentation, engineering effort on both sides, and QA. After integration, there is the ongoing maintenance as the studio’s platform changes. Thirty integrations means thirty concurrent projects and thirty sets of commercial terms to manage.

A single integration with an aggregator simplifies all of this. After the initial integration, the back office gives access to the entire studio network. From there, the operator can enable new studios that join the aggregator’s network.

Aggregators provide access to content in other ways as well. Aggregators consolidate content across multiple product verticals. These include slots, live dealer, table games, crash and other less popular game types, and products with jackpots. Operators can gain access to all of this content through a single aggregator. This allows an operator to have a lobby with a variety of content before they are able to justify the volume of direct studio relationships.

Economics remain clear. Studios set a wholesale rate. The aggregator sets a retail rate and charges the operator that rate. The operator pays that rate, which is typically 7-20% of gross gaming revenue, to the aggregator. The aggregator nets a fee in the low single digits. For the operator, that fee is quickly offset by decreased technical debt and a more timely market entry.

Thoughtful design of the release pipeline

Game studios are constantly releasing content. An active studio can release multiple titles in a month as well as release updates for existing titles. Each of those releases is a coordination event for an operator with direct relationships. That event includes documentation, testing, staging, and deployment. Think about managing thirty studios and the release calendar. It is a full-time job.

That operation becomes the responsibility of the aggregator. A new release from a studio in the aggregator’s network requires the aggregator to do the necessary development and staging for distribution to all of the operating companies. From the operator’s back office, the new content is presented for deployment and is integrated for use. There is no document revision or integration work needed for each new release.

The back office integrates the entire catalog. Teams can now choose studios and games, create lobby layouts, and generate consolidated performance reports, all from one convenient location. These reports are tremendously useful. Traditionally, operators would have to wait to gather performance data from each provider, and then export it to a report. Now, data is instantly available to help operators make decisions on content promotion, studio placement, and even identify gaps in their catalog.

In essence, the release process has been simplified. The operators’ team has transitioned from being a curation team to a configuration team.

Growing the catalogue without growing the team

Maintaining a large catalog rather than a small one has traditionally been a challenge for operators. Players are accustomed to browsing and searching for specific games. A catalog of 100 games feels small when compared to a catalog of 500. Direct relationships with studios mean a proportional increase in both the commercial and technical teams to support those relationships.

The aggregator model provides a solution to this issue. From an engineering perspective, adding additional studios to a catalog is as easy as adding new back office configuration. Once the single API is live, the catalog can grow as much as needed. The operators’ team can determine which studios and titles are added, and configure where and how they are made available, and the changes are live instantly.

This has important implications for how operators approach growth. With regards to expanding into new markets, it means that rather than building a new studio roster, an existing aggregator connection would simply need to be activated for that jurisdiction in order to access the appropriate content. The aggregator’s jurisdictional routing ensures that studios that are certified for that market appear in the local lobby, and studios that are not certified are automatically blocked from that market.

Catalog analytics make these decisions even more precise. Back offices for aggregators are eventually going to have this data. This means that for each market, the most popular titles and studios will be automatically listed. An operator that is entering a new country or state can focus on the most relevant content rather than launch with a generic catalog and then refine it.

The burden that is easily overlooked

There are three main areas where aggregators help ease operational burden. The first two are content access and release logistics, but the third, easily overlooked, is compliance.

For every jurisdiction where a game is offered, the game must be certified. There are accredited labs, like eCOGRA and Gaming Laboratories International, that do a lot of this testing for regulated markets. For a studio operating in multiple jurisdictions, it means a matrix of certifications to obtain, maintain, and renew as standards change. For an operator working with thirty studios, it means tracking the certification for each studio for each market.

Aggregators consolidate this as well. Many hold certifications themselves or handle the certification process for the studios in their network. The jurisdictional routing in an aggregator’s platform depends on whether a studio is certified in a particular market. A studio that is not certified in a particular market does not appear in that market’s lobby. The operator does not need to audit the matrix; the infrastructure enforces it.

Revenue reporting takes the same approach. Aggregators create the consolidated reporting feeds that operators need for their accounting, and that regulatory bodies require for oversight. What once required an expensive and time consuming manual export from thirty studio portals becomes a single, automated data feed. At scale, this model naturally reduces the compliance burden that would increase with each new studio partnership.

Many studios, one relationship

The aggregator model alters the nature of partnership on both sides of the relationship.

For operators, a single aggregator relationship eliminates the need for the commercial relationship infrastructure that thirty direct studio relationships would require. The negotiation of contracts, renewals, revenue-share audits, and disputes all happen with a single counterparty. From a commercial relationship standpoint, this concentration simplifies the work of the business and reduces the number of disputes caused by incongruent reporting from the various studio systems.

For studios, the aggregator provides a distribution opportunity to a new customer base. By working with an aggregator, a studio can have their title posted on any of the casinos on the aggregator’s network. A studio would not need to promote their title to each of the casinos on the network, or pay to have their title integrated, as they would if the studio worked with the casinos directly. A studio can concentrate their efforts on building a relationship with the aggregator and improving their title, as opposed to managing a relationship with each individual casino on the network.

This relationship creates a catalog that continually draws in new studios. The more casinos an aggregator works with, the more attractive the aggregator is to studios. The reverse is also true. The more studios an aggregator works with, the more attractive the aggregator is to the casinos. The aggregator that achieves this balance with both groups becomes a durable part of the relationship, as both the studios and the casinos work to build on this relationship rather than switch to a different aggregator.

The main reason studios choose the launchpad

From the studios’ perspective, the aggregator relationship is a way to bridge the gap between creating a game and getting it to the market. Distributing a game is a different responsibility from creating a game, and most studios do not have the means to take on distribution.

Direct access to a major operator base would require substantial investment in sales, technical integration, and compliance infrastructure for all targeted markets. A well-known studio could possibly make that investment for its three to five largest operator relationships, which would likely be its most profitable relationships. Relationships with smaller operators would not warrant that infrastructure.

Aggregators provide a distribution infrastructure replacement through a single business relationship. A studio enters into one agreement and delivers its content to one platform to gain access to an aggregator’s entire operator network. Burdens of certification are managed, often times jointly, by the aggregator’s compliance function. New operator relationships are determined by the aggregator’s platform rather than commercial negotiations.

This model provides a studio with the quickest market access for new titles. A studio using an established aggregator is able to distribute its titles to a wide operator base during that aggregator’s single deployment cycle. New geographic markets are easily accessible to a studio because, through the aggregator model, an operator base is available to a studio without the need for the studio to create a local commercial presence.

The business logic in one frame

The aggregator model persists because it simplifies the distribution triangle, which consists of manufacturers, retailers, and platforms. Each element of the triangle has conflicting needs and requirements.

Studios don’t have the means to build and maintain distribution infrastructure. Operators don’t have the means to build and maintain integration infrastructure for all the content they want to offer. The aggregator simplifies the work of both parties and takes a margin for it. Making both parties’ work easier represents a significant amount of work on the part of the aggregator to reduce friction.

This is evident in the mature operator pattern. Most operators start by sourcing all of their content through an aggregator, and then source select content directly from the studios that represent the biggest revenue stream, keeping the aggregator for the rest of their catalog. Even for large, established operators that have the capacity to build direct relationships that pay off, the majority of game revenue still flows through aggregators. The infrastructure provided by the aggregator does not go away as an operator grows. It becomes the infrastructure for the things that do not pay off to manage directly. The commercial logic of the model is very good: one API, thousands of games, and a distribution layer that deserves to exist every time an operator opens a new market or a studio ships a new title.