Across Fieldstream’s iGaming projects, one pattern is consistent: growth has not translated into profitability.
iGaming has historically been one of the most growth-obsessed industries in marketing. For years, the objective has been simple: acquire as many new depositing customers as possible, as quickly as possible. Channels have been scaled based on volume and short-term CPA efficiency, with success measured in deposits, sign-ups, and market share. This approach worked—until it didn’t. As competition intensified and acquisition costs increased, a structural problem emerged: a meaningful share of marketing spend was driving volume, but not long-term value.
At the same time, operators are now facing increasing regulatory and tax pressure across multiple markets. Higher gaming taxes, stricter compliance requirements, advertising restrictions, affordability checks, bonus limitations, and increased operational overheads have materially compressed margins. In many regulated markets, the cost of acquiring a player has risen significantly, while the monetisation window has narrowed. Growth that once translated into operating leverage is now often absorbed by taxation, compliance costs, and inefficient acquisition spend. 
This shift is already visible across the industry. Over the past 12–24 months, layoffs have hit multiple parts of the iGaming ecosystem—from operators like Evoke plc, which cut hundreds of roles following integration and cost restructuring, to affiliate businesses such as Catena Media and Raketech, which have gone through multiple rounds of layoffs. On the B2B side, companies like Bragg Gaming Group have reduced workforce as part of profitability-focused restructuring. These are not isolated events. They reflect a broader shift: an industry that optimized for growth is now being forced to optimize for profitability.
This is not a marginal issue. It is a fundamental flaw in how performance has been defined. Other industries—subscription, telecom, e-commerce—have already gone through this reset. Growth alone is no longer acceptable. The focus has shifted to profitable growth. The difference is fundamental. Growth asks: how much volume can we generate? Profitable growth asks: what is the marginal value of each euro spent?
At Fieldstream, this gap shows up immediately once data is unified. Most operators run fragmented measurement setups: affiliate platforms report CPA and volume, CRM tracks retention and revenue, paid media platforms report attributed conversions, and finance tracks NGR and margin. These systems are not connected in a way that supports allocation decisions. When these datasets are integrated, the same patterns emerge: 10–20% of acquisition spend tied to low or negative LTV/CAC, 30–50% variation in LTV between partners with similar CPA, and clear saturation in top affiliate segments. None of this is visible in standard reporting because decisions are made on averages, not marginal contribution.
The reset becomes operational through data structure. Each acquisition is reduced to the same unit—one user, one source, one cost, one cohort. Definitions of NDC, FTD, deposits, and NGR are standardized across systems. Users are grouped into cohorts, and revenue is tracked forward. Instead of attribution, each source is evaluated on actual downstream value – modeled LTV. This creates a single performance layer where all channels are measured on LTV/CAC. Once this is in place, decisions are straightforward: reduce spend where LTV/CAC is below threshold, cap segments where marginal return is declining, and reallocate budget to higher-value cohorts and partners. This is portfolio-level allocation, not channel-level optimization.
Across Fieldstream’s projects, applying this consistently results in +8–12% improvement in LTV/CAC, +5–10% increase in NGR on the same budget, and removal of 10–20% inefficient spend. No additional budget. No new channels. The gain comes from correcting allocation. Most operators already have the required data – affiliate logs, media spend, CRM events, revenue. The constraint is not access, but structure. Without a unified model, channels are compared on incompatible metrics. With one, performance is defined by contribution to profit.
iGaming is behind on this. Other industries already allocate budget based on marginal return across the full portfolio. In iGaming, decisions are still driven by CPA and volume. That gap is measurable. And once corrected, the impact is immediate. Growth is no longer constrained by demand. It is constrained by how efficiently capital is allocated.
Staffan Engström is Founder and CEO of Fieldstream AI, an intelligence platform focused on marketing mix modelling, incrementality measurement, and AI-driven capital allocation for enterprise organisations. With 25 years of experience in media, marketing research, and neuroscience, he works at the intersection of AI, marketing effectiveness, and operational decision-making within iGaming and enterprise marketing.
Antoine Bonello is CEO of Fieldstream.ai and Principal at Vari Partners. With nearly two decades in iGaming, he sits at the intersection of data, marketing, and M&A—helping operators understand what truly drives profitable growth and how to scale it across markets and verticals. Antoine Bonello, CEO iGaming Fieldstream.ai
