Archives: Articles

IssueM Articles

Coin-Ops LLC

Ira Warren has been a dealer and collector of antique gambling machines since the early 1970s. He founded Coin-Ops LLC to offer the casino industry the opportunity to own and display early three-reel slot machines, poker-style and other antique coin-operated gambling machines.

The first slot machines were manufactured in the United States beginning in the early 1890s, with the first three-reel slots appearing in casinos and gambling establishments around 1910. 

Ira Warren’s machines are authentic and original examples  in working condition. None are reproductions.

Of the hundreds of thousands of people who pass through each casino every year, less than one-tenth of one percent have ever seen any of these early mechanical moneymakers. Now, casinos can offer visitors the chance to see them up close and learn some of the history related to contemporary slot machines.

Pictured is the first commercial three-reel slot machine of 1910—the one that began the entire industry. Weighing in at 85 pounds, working perfectly and housed in a highly detailed cast iron cabinet, it has survived all the abuse players could dish out and makes a wonderful display in any casino. Also pictured is a circa 1905 floor-model poker-style slot machine.

 Warren’s current inventory includes many different early gambling machines. He is constantly in touch with other collectors all over the world to add to his collection.

A museum-quality display of several historic gambling machines would be highly unique and help to distinguish a casino in a highly competitive industry. In fact, a fascinating display of authentic historic slot machines would be sure to draw attention—and players—from near and far.

For more information, email coinop99@aol.com.

Ainsworth Game Technology

Ainsworth Game Technology will showcase more than 50 game titles at Booth 1435 at the Indian Gaming Tradeshow & Convention. Also, Ainsworth—for the first time—will bring its experience to Class II markets.
     
Ainsworth entered the Class II market with the acquisition of Nova Technologies last year. Now, the company is off to a fast start in this market segment at NIGA, where it will show more than a dozen Class II titles, including games developed by Ainsworth and Nova. The Class II games are available on both the proven A560 Dual Screen and Atlas 100 cabinets.
     
Highlighting Class II offerings on display will be the first three Ainsworth Class II titles: Twice the Money, Mustang Fortune and Cash Cave. Titles developed by Nova to be displayed will include China Gold, Dragon’s Heat, Wheel of Time and a pair of companion games, Immortal Nights Day of Reckoning and Immortal Nights Judgement Day.

Expanded Game Library for Class III

In total, Ainsworth’s Class III game library now tops 150 unique titles, giving casino operators a wide selection of unique game content for the A560 Dual Screen, A560 SL and A560 Wideboy cabinets, all of which will be on display at NIGA.
     
Highlighting Ainsworth’s Class III offerings for NIGA will be the debut of the new Gold Award brand on the A560 SL. The A560 SL was exclusively designed for a highly entertaining game range that has delighted players across North America. The A560 SL features a striking 32-inch high-definition display, 19-inch LCD topper option for jackpot promotion, unique attract lighting stylized to each game, premium sound experience and breathtaking animations.
      
Gold Award games take proven Dual Screen titles with strong track records of performance and bring them to the A560 SL cabinet, resulting in even greater levels of excitement. Such classic titles include Roaming Reels, Mustang Money and Dragon Lines, among other timeless Ainsworth classics.
    
These three-by-five-array games offer more ways to win when the game expands to nine-by-five during bonuses. Each title includes a special feature designed to take full advantage of the 32-inch high-definition screen.
    
Follow-up titles to the highly successful and popular Sweet Zone brand games Rumble Rumble and Flying Horse also will be on display. These include the new offerings Grand Lions and Jumbo Wilds.

For more information, visit ainsworth.com.au.

AGS

Based in Las Vegas with offices in Georgia, Oklahoma and Mexico, AGS is a full-service designer and manufacturer of gaming products for the casino floor. The company’s roots are in the Class II Native American market, and it has recently expanded its product lines to include top-performing slot games for the Class III commercial marketplace, as well as live felt table games and social mobile gaming.
    
The recent acquisition of Cadillac Jack, entry into the table games market and the addition of a mobile gaming segment with the acquisition of RocketPlay denote a dramatic expansion of AGS products.
      
Increased slot titles and jurisdictional licenses have made AGS the second-largest supplier of Class II games in the world, and its presence in Class III casinos continues to grow. AGS now boasts a competitive slot offering with a robust content library and attractive cabinetry.
      
AGS quickly has become a leading table-game supplier with more than 700 table games in the field, a variety of ancillary table products and plans to launch a shuffler in mid-2016. The diverse line of table products can help casino operators find exactly what they need for any part of the pit.
      
Last, but not least, the company aims to capture a whole new audience by offering its content through social mobile gaming. AGS has two social casino products—Lucky Play Casino and Vegas Fever—that include proven land-based titles and have a strong player base of millennials.
      
Riding on the heels of an exciting and transformative 2015, AGS aims to be a force to be reckoned with in the gaming industry for 2016 and beyond.
      
For more information, visit playags.com.

Leveling Up

Three years ago, billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson predicted iGaming would break the back of the land-based industry. As chief moneybags behind the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling, Adelson said the emerging industry would scuttle hundreds of thousands of jobs and prey on society’s most vulnerable: the young, the poor and the elderly.

Adelson also was concerned from a business standpoint. Though operators might see an initial bump from social casinos, “unbranded competitors will eat into the market, buy the business and make the profitability much less,” he warned. “Then big social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, Schmitter, Zynga will come in with a billion hits a day … and a Google will say, ‘Play with me.’”

Adelson’s opposition has done little to stem online growth. Though real-money iGaming is still limited to Nevada, New Jersey and Delaware, cashless games have exploded. Last year, Eilers Research analyst Adam Krejcik estimated that social casinos would generate $2.7 billion in revenues for 2015, 10 times more than the real-money market; other estimates exceed $3 billion. According to a September 2015 report from App Annie, of the top 100 iOS game app downloads, 49 were casino slots.

Today, more operators are realizing it’s time to play or pay.


If You Can’t Beat ’Em…

The key word is convergence: aligning two different and, in this case, seemingly competitive business models to create a stronger, congruent and collaborative whole. Social casinos enable land-based properties to keep patrons in the pocket after they leave the property, when the casino-patron relationship typically ends.

“Between one-third and two-thirds of casino patrons are already playing online, consuming slot machines, casino table games or online video poker on their mobile phones, laptops or tablets,” says Dermot Smurfit, CEO of GAN (formerly Game Account Network), which recently opened its North American headquarters in Las Vegas. 

While online players as a whole tend to be “promiscuous,” dividing their loyalties among up to 10 social casinos, they can be effectively corralled to a branded gaming experience. “If you offer a similar product online as you do in the retail channel, and it is properly integrated with your rewards program, customers are increasingly loyal to you, and increasingly likely to come back to your bricks-and-mortar facility,” says Smurfit. 

At the dawn of the social casino era—which is really only about five years ago—U.S. operators like Adelson worried that online gaming, even on a cashless basis, could cannibalize their land-based businesses. Smurfit believed otherwise; he had seen the dynamic at work in Europe, especially in the U.K., where the industry is more entrenched. There, he says, “the concept of cannibalization by an online proposition doesn’t even exist.”

In 2011, GAN entered the stateside market, launching its first free-to-play offering with Aristocrat at Maryland Live! in the Baltimore-Washington corridor (last December, that early offering was migrated into GAN’s Simulated Gaming platform).

From the jump, there was “an extraordinary demand” for the social option, in part because most Americans can’t access real-money gaming websites like players in Europe, Asia and elsewhere, says Smurfit. The site offers $5,000 in virtual currency for new players, along with hundreds of slot titles and table games including poker and baccarat. Once it went live, patrons started to visit the property more frequently, says Smurfit. (They were verifiable as existing patrons, because they had used their rewards cards to sign up.)

“This was a revelation to our casino partners, who started from the premise that online could be a bit dangerous,” says Smurfit. “They thought surely everyone would just sit home and play and never come back to the property. But the truth is exactly the reverse. We reported a 28 percent uplift in land-based gaming revenues from those casino patrons who went home and started playing online” with their brand of choice.

“In other words, as they spend money online playing these games offered by their local casino, they are effectively preparing to return to the land-based property.”

The Chicken or the Egg

That level of measurable outcome has been a game-changer, says Rory Shanahan, director of B2B products and marketing for Scientific Games’ Interactive Division. “For the first few years it was kind of the chicken or the egg,” he says. “It was hard to get (operators) to take a chance on social casinos, because we had no data to back up the claims.”

Today, he says, statistics confirm that casino patrons who play online tend to increase their on-site spend. In another important metric, the average daily social player will engage with a casino brand four times a day, says Shanahan, for a total of between 80 and 100 minutes.

“Whether it’s a current player in the database or a new player acquired through the social casino, that’s four different times every day that they’re surrounded by the casino’s brand. They’re exposed to the entertainment options. The casino has the ability to email them or send them a push notification (about) the reasons they’d want to come to the casino floor—whether it’s a free concert, a new restaurant or a free-play offer.”

(One caveat: According to a 2015 report from SuperDataResearch.com, ads can be a social casino’s “best friend and worst enemy… While the social casino audience is highly receptive to marketing, 35 percent of social casino players quit games because of excessive ads and pop-ups.”)

Al O’Brien, director of marketing and entertainment for Black Oak Casino Resort in Tuolumne, California, says the property’s Scientific Games-designed Play4Fun Network “has provided us with a wealth of opportunity to connect with our gaming audience and keep us top of mind for their next in-person visit. It also gives us an opportunity to showcase new games and video formats to keep our players informed about trends on the gaming floor.” An interactive app lets customers not only play a slot game but book a room, get up to speed on current promotions, and otherwise keep in touch with the property, operated by the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians.

For the most part, concerns about cannibalization have been put to rest, but barriers to online entry remain, says Shanahan. For one thing, most operators just don’t know how to run social casinos. “There’s a certain amount of expertise and investment, up-front and ongoing, that’s required to engage in this space. A lot of people don’t have the time or energy to take on what essentially is an R&D gamble.”

Until recently, he adds, some operators have been waiting for real-money online gaming before leaping into the digital space. They’re still waiting. “Widespread adoption (of iGaming) is going much more slowly than even the most conservative estimates,” he says. “Meanwhile, players are engaging in social casinos, and there’s an opportunity cost for operators who take a wait-and-see approach.

“If you don’t have something out there under your brand,” Shanahan says, “your players will engage in another brand, whether it’s a competitive land-based casino or some company in Silicon Valley.”

Fantasy Springs Resort Casino in Indio, California, owned and operated by the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, launched its social casino in 2015. The SG Universe system gives new players 50,000 free credits for unlocked games, with content from the Bally, Barcrest, Shuffle Master and Williams studios. “It’s been a huge hit with our customers,” says Don Casper, vice president of marketing for Fantasy Springs. “We’re always looking for more ways to keep our players engaged and interacting with our website and social sites, and this addition has proved to be extremely successful in achieving that goal. Our customers love the idea that they can play real games that are actually on the casino floor from anywhere they have access to a mobile device or computer.”

The social casino “keeps players interacting with our brand on a daily basis,” he says.

TMI?

Not surprisingly, social casinos are a valuable tool for mining customer data, says Smurfit. “You know everything about an online customer—where they played, how long they played, what games appeal to them. I would say it’s almost too much information, because it takes a long time for land-based casino executives to filter the wheat from the chaff and really derive understanding from all that information.”

Because the social casino network is integrated with the land-based management system, operators have an open window to patron activities, on-property and online. And that user information is proprietary, unlike information generated by Facebook games.

“If I’m a player on DoubleDown Casino on Facebook,” says Shanahan, “anybody in the world can pay to advertise directly to me. Also on Facebook, there’s a constant barrage of ads for competing content, so from a player-data security standpoint, it’s one of our top priorities to ensure that each casino’s player database is completely controlled and not visible to any other partners or third parties.” Needless to add, Facebook charges 30 percent of all revenues derived from social casinos on the ubiquitous social network. And why give it away?

Interestingly and perhaps counterintuitively, it’s not the social-maniacal millennials who are most active online, though that may change as more skill-based and interactive games are added. “The core of demand among casino patrons is really about slots and table games. So yes, millennials can be and are engaged online, and the demographic appeal is much, much younger online than on-property,” concedes Smurfit. “But crucially, in order to generate serious amounts of money and really engage with the existing casino base or audience, you need great breadth in land-based casino slots,” which (surprise!) still tends to appeal to older females.

But the audience is not all “blue-haired slot players,” says Shanahan. “It’s a very diverse population, and although there are certainly players over 65 who play our product, about half of all social casino players are under 40, and 70 percent are under 50.”

As Mohegan Sun General Manager Ray Pineault recently told the Associated Press, “You can’t over-emphasize millennials to the detriment of your other customers. They’re still young and have less disposable income than their more established parents.”

Let the Games Begin

Social casinos are currently monetized when players who run through their free credits opt to buy more time or level up to locked content. About 15 percent will make at least one purchase per month, according to Shanahan. “Most just enjoy the entertainment experience and like to play between trips (to the property); it’s an opportunity also to try new games before they try them on the casino floor.” SG Universe’s Cool Jewels, for example, launched online just as the product was going live on-property. “So the casinos could advertise to their players and say, ‘Hey, this just came to our casino floor. Come play it live.’”

But how blurred are the lines between play-for-fun and the intensely regulated real-money environment? An October 2014 post on PokerUpdate.com cited gaming expert Chris Grove’s statement that a “top customer” on PurePlay “risk-free online poker” had spent more than $250,000 on play chips—“chips with no redemption value.” Could that get the attention of regulators?

It’s true that social players do indeed spend money and can earn rewards as well as bragging rights when they “win.” But Smurfit is confident there are no regulatory issues, present or future, around social casinos. “There have been plenty of test cases to prove that because players cannot win anything, it is not gambling. It is simply paying for the entertainment experience.”

Social casinos may be especially meaningful for tribal operations in out-of-the-way locations. At its best, they extend the relationship with customers across the miles and beyond the casino doors. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, whose casino is set high in the San Bernardino Mountains of California, launched its mobile app across Google Play and on iOS in December, partly in response to the delay of regulated online poker in the Golden State. The Indians recruited iGaming veteran Matt Cullen to run San Manuel Digital. Cullen, like Smurfit, has seen firsthand the evolution of social games around the world.

“You saw it in Western Europe in the early 2000s, when all the betting shops were going online and feared it would cannibalize their core business, the retail business,” says Cullen. “Well, it didn’t. It lifted everything and grew exponentially across the board. Then they realized, ‘Oh wow, not only can we make money here, but it drives patronage and loyalty on the land-based side.’

“For tribes and for casinos in general, there really isn’t any reason not to get into social if you can afford to do to it,” says Cullen. “It’s just a further distribution of your brand, and gives you the ability to touch players where they are—which is online and on mobile devices.”

Going Social

  • Who’s your competition? More than 1,000 social casino apps are currently available for download or on Facebook. And about 200 new social casinos are launched each month. 
  • Distracted ‘drivers.’ According to SuperDataResearch.com, social casinos compete with other media for players’ attention; for example, 63 percent of players engage while also watching TV.
  • Interplay. An estimated 46 percent of social casino players start on a personal computer before shifting to mobile play; 28 percent start on mobile and switch to a PC.
  • The smart money.  According to research from customer marketing firm Optimove, mobile social casino gamers are “like web players on fast-forward:” they play more often and convert faster to paying customers.

ROC, Not ROI

There are two metrics in determining the success or failure of a tribal casino or, for that matter, any indigenous government business enterprise, says Katherine Spilde, chair of the Sycuan Institute on Tribal Gaming at San Diego State University.

“The first metric is return on investment,” Spilde says. “If the casino is not generating net gaming revenue to the tribe, it’s not serving its stated federal purpose” as intended by Congress in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).

“But there’s another concept,” she says. “There’s return on community. That’s the ‘tribal’ in tribal gaming.”

Unlike commercial casinos generating profits to business partners or corporate shareholders, a tribal casino is owned by members of an indigenous community who rely on every dollar earned for health care, housing and other government services.

There are also intangibles, not the least of which is the fact a tribal casino often becomes a community center, a gathering place for activities and entertainment. This is particularly true on remote, often impoverished reservations.

The casino manager must grasp both concepts: generating profits for government services and creating value to the community.

“You have to understand that it’s government gaming,” says Conrad Granito, general manager of the Muckleshoot Casino, an enterprise of the Muckleshoot Tribe of Washington state.  “Your shareholder is every member of the tribe.

“What’s important to the tribe could include employment, water, housing, education or elder care. Those are the drivers.

“The community is not always looking at increasing the share price or return on investment,” Granito says. “The motivation might not be monetary. Understanding that concept is the biggest challenge facing people who get into tribal gaming. That’s what a lot of them don’t get.”

Managing a tribal casino requires an understanding that every dollar directed to marketing expenses is a dollar taken away, at least temporarily, from tribal services.

“That means a scholarship fund or health care for a tribal citizen, fixing a road or heating oil,” Spilde says. “That kind of understanding about the proper use of gaming revenues—maintaining a responsible stewardship of tribal funds—is not something many people truly understand.”

Tribal employment rights ordinances (TEROs) can increase a salary budget by 15 percent, but it fulfills a strategy of combating unemployment and providing opportunity for a disadvantaged community.

A tribal government casino resort can also generate non-gaming amenities and retail and vendor businesses.

Navajo casino restaurants purchase beef from tribal cattle ranches and stock gift shops with crafts by tribal artisans. The Muckleshoot Casino restaurants use salmon raised by community fisheries and huckleberries gathered by the tribe.

Tribal casinos often house museums and cultural centers. Bingo halls and meeting/convention facilities accommodate gatherings of elderly residents and ceremonial events.

Spilde, who was raised on the remote White Earth Band of Ojibwe Indians reservation in Northern Minnesota, is aware of how a tribal government casino can become an important part of an indigenous community.

“The casino is open 24 hours,” Granito says. “It’s a place to bank on the weekends. It’s the place to eat. It’s the place to meet. It’s the center not only for the tribal community, but the local community.”

Derrick Watchman, CEO of Navajo Nation Gaming Enterprise, says using meeting facilities at the tribe’s Twin Arrows Casino Resort for community activities can cut into the bottom line. But it’s a sacrifice he’s willing to make.

Granito managed a casino for a New Mexico pueblo that ordered the day-long closure of the facility to accommodate a ceremony, a move that cost the community about $500,000 in gross gambling revenues.

“You could perhaps run a tribal casino more effectively or more efficiently,” Granito says. “But that’s not always what’s important to the tribe.

“And you do what’s important to the tribe.”

Politics As Usual

Mel Tomasket, a pioneer in the American Indian self-determination movement of the 1970s and a member of the tribal council for the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Washington state, occasionally will find himself a bit conflicted.

“I’m in a funny position. I wear my hat sideways a lot,” Tomasket says of his dual roles as a tribal councilman and member of the commission that regulates Colville’s government casinos.

Tomasket is aware it’s best to keep whatever opinions he has on how to manage tribal business enterprises to himself. But he finds the urge a bit too much, for example, when he notices menu prices at the tribal casinos are a bit high.

“It’s difficult for us on the tribal council to keep our political hands out of the economic businesses,” Tomasket says, particularly when tribal elders complain to him that they can’t afford to eat at the tribe’s Mill Bay and Coulee Dam casino restaurants.

“We might get complaints our food costs too much,” he says. “But how much pressure do we put on the board of directors for the tribal business corporation, or the director of gaming, so we can bring things back to reality and help increase the business?

“I’m sure other tribal councils have the same problem. Or issue. Or concern.”

Political Influence

Tribal governments have historically grappled with the need to keep political hands out of day-to-day business decisions, particularly with the dramatic economic and social progress achieved with passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988.

Most tribes with experience in government enterprises—many in reservation natural resources such as coal and timber—have learned to separate politics from business. The Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, Southern Ute Tribe of Colorado and Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska have development corporations skilled in overseeing a vast portfolio of enterprises.

But the issue is heavily nuanced with smaller indigenous communities where the familial ties are strong and whose economic development efforts largely began with government casinos.

The profiles of the 366 federal recognized Indian tribes in the lower 48 states vary dramatically, from small enrollment bands in California to the larger reservations in the Great Plains and Midwest.

“Some of these tribes have a long history of managing businesses,” says Jamie Fullmer, former chairman of the Yavapai-Apache Nation of Arizona and CEO of Blue Stone Strategy Group, which consults with tribes on economic development.

“Other tribes are just getting into diversifying their business economies outside of gaming, natural resources, timber, fishing or whatever their primary revenue driver is.”

“For many tribes gaming is their first experience in running a government enterprise,” says Dr. Katherine Spilde, chair of the Sycuan Institute on Tribal Gaming at San Diego State University.

“It’s hard to make sweeping generalizations,” says Bill Lomax, a member of the Gitxsen Nation of Canada and president of the Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA).

Many tribes accelerating economic diversification efforts in the wake of a decade-long plateauing of tribal casino revenues are attempting to keep tribal politics from getting in the way of business development, both on and off the reservation.

“There is a desire among tribes to set up separate economic development corporations to be able to create autonomy,” says Kristi Jackson, vice chairwoman and CEO of Tribal Financial Advisors. How the government and economic development is structured “depends on the tribe,” she says. “But where there’s a will, there’s a way.”

A number of tribes have adopted business strategies modeled after Harvard University’s Project on American Indian Economic Development and the Native Nations Institute at the University of Arizona.

The hallmark of the Harvard and Native Nations plans recommends vesting long-term economic strategies and land use policy to tribal councils as representatives of the indigenous citizens.

But to ensure success and an ability to compete, experts believe business enterprises should be operated independent of tribal politics.

“It is appropriate that strategic decisions regarding the disposition of reservation resources and the character of reservation life be brought into the political arena,” Harvard economics professor Joseph Kalt testified in 1996 before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

“This does not mean, however, that tribal governments should make all or even a significant number of the day-to-day business decisions on reservations,” he said. “Inserting politics into day-to-day business decisions invariably undermines efficiency and productivity, saps the resources of the organizations and runs enterprises into the ground.”

A number of tribes with Bureau of Indian Affairs constitutions drafted with passage of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 have business enterprises under tax-exempt Section 17 federal corporations. Others utilize state corporations subject to state taxes and regulations.

Still others have tribal corporations, such as the highly regarded Ho-Chunk Inc., the economic development arm of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, with 30 subsidiaries in the United States and five foreign countries.

Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc., a federally chartered corporation wholly owned by the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, serves as holding company for a dozen subsidiaries.

And the Southern Ute Tribe of Colorado established the Southern Ute Growth Fund, which manages the tribe’s extensive energy production and real estate investments.

“What structure works for one tribe will not work for another,” says Levi Esquerra, program director for Northern Arizona University’s Center for American Indian Economic Development.

Accelerating Diversity

With the plateauing of the $28.5 billion tribal casino industry—the result of market maturation and the recession of 2008—Indian communities are accelerating efforts to diversify their business portfolios. The more successful tribes have formed corporate structures and acquired skilled management free of political pressure.

Tribes also have improved their business acumen, in many cases as a result of casino financing ventures.

In addition, many tribal leaders who have grown to adulthood in the tribal self-determination era are looking to advance government independence in attaining community economic and social progress.

“You can’t just build on your gaming forever,” Jackson says. “There’s a move to find new avenues for growth. It’s no longer, ‘I’m going to build more on my reservation.’ Tribes are looking beyond their reservation borders.”

“You are seeing tribes do their best to diversify and try to establish other economic engines,” Esquerra says.

Maintaining a continuous economic strategy can be difficult with tribal elections every two to four years.

“Different administrations want to set up their own projects and establish their own priorities,” Esquerra says.

“During the political changeovers those separate enterprise entities are looked at and changes are made,” Fullmer says.


Role of the Tribal Council

While there are advantages to an economic strategy that remains consistent with changing administrations, council input in economic affairs is often necessary in representing the will of the corporate shareholders, which in the case of tribal businesses are the indigenous citizens.

“Regardless of whether there is a separate enterprise corporation, there are certain things the tribal government needs to be involved with and agree to,” Jackson says. “After all, it’s the tribe that needs to sign these debt agreements.”

“Sometimes there is too much separation,” Fullmer says. “It’s important that the enterprise board and management team is reporting to the community so there isn’t a distrust being created.”

Tribal councils must be involved in decisions regarding both trust and fee lands in private ownership within reservation boarders.

“The tribal council is responsible for overseeing use of tribal trust land,” Fullmer says. “Council members are not just going to hand that over to their business enterprises. They are responsible for leasing it out or obligating it.”

“Separating the two functions (tribal councils and government enterprises) shouldn’t mean the tribal leaders and tribal citizens don’t have a say in business decisions,” Spilde says. “Nobody would claim that tribal economic development is not inherently political.

“There should be a partnering between the institutions.”

Tribal economic strategies and enterprise governing authorities can undergo sudden and often violent upheavals. That has been the case when issues such as per-capita distributions of casino revenues resulted in leadership changes in general elections and recall votes.

“Indian gaming has been a savior to Indian Country, but it’s also been a curse,” says a tribal official who requested anonymity. “And the curse is per capita.”

But there are times when change is necessary.

Spilde says tribes have an advantage over non-Indian governments in that they are flexible to change.

“That’s how many governments fail, not being able to change and adapt to changing circumstances,” she says. “It’s not about building the perfect system. It’s about building a system that can be innovative.

“Tribes get to decide how these institutions are to be formed,” Spilde says. “Then they can change them, very quickly.”
Balancing Act

“There has to be clear communication between management, enterprise boards and tribal councils,” says Muckleshoot Casino General Manager Conrad Granito, who has operated six tribal casinos. “You find those challenges in any operation.”

While Granito believes in an open-door policy, encouraging tribal leaders to bring complaints and observations to his attention, he hasn’t experienced any serious meddling.

“I don’t get the calls, ‘Why did you fire my cousin?’ or ‘Why are you charging $6 for a grill cheese sandwich?’” Granito says.

But he realizes those complaints are often directed at tribal leaders.

“When you change the cheese on the grilled cheese sandwich, they (tribal officials) are going to get a call,” Granito says. “I realize that. I tell them, ‘When you guys (tribal officials) hear something, tell me.’”

Derrick Watchman, CEO of Navajo Nation Gaming Enterprise, which manages four tribal casinos, has a more formal line of communication with a tribal council that oversees a three-state reservation with 300,000 citizens.

“I have two people assigned to lobby, to update, to keep big Navajo—the Navajo government—informed about what we’re doing,” Watchman says.

There has been some criticism over decisions on reinvesting and dispersing casino revenue, he says, but issues of meal prices do not disturb him at all.

“We were charging five-star prices and we were a three-star town,” he says of the flagship Twin Arrows Casino Resort outside Flagstaff, Arizona. “Over time I got it. Now we’re in line. But obviously I got a lot of flak from our leadership.”

There were occasions in the past when Tomasket thought directors of the Colville Tribal Federal Corporation (CTFC), which manages 13 enterprises including the two casinos, were not engaged enough in managing the businesses.

But he was hesitant to speak out, in part because he was friends or acquaintances of many of the 10,000 tribal citizens, including the five CTFC directors.

“It’s difficult is when you live in an area where you know so many people,” Tomasket says. “You try to bring it up to them—knowing you don’t have the authority to tell them what to do or not to do—but if they don’t respond, what do you do?”

Tomasket believes in diplomacy when passing on suggestions to CTFC directors or enterprise managers.

“I talk to them as a friend,” he says.  “I don’t order them around. I say, ‘This is what I’ve noticed. You might want to take a look at it.’

“I don’t believe in bullying or interfering, though I suspect some tribal councils might do that.

“Each tribe has its own set of circumstances.”

Working Free Play

The Sycuan Institute on Tribal Gaming is dedicated to producing research that is responsive to ongoing tribal public policy needs while also launching a new body of work analyzing tribal casino operations management practices.

Because tribal gaming revenues are directed toward improving tribes’ social and economic welfare, it is critical for tribal budgets that tribal casinos are operated with maximum efficiency. Any dollar wasted on flawed marketing strategies, for example, is a dollar that could have been invested in tribal scholarships, health care or housing.

Consistent with the requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, tribal governments are investing gaming revenues into a variety of tribal programs and services (health, law enforcement and education, to name a few) and promoting economic diversification, among other endeavors. As such, inefficient or wasteful tribal casino management, whether a result of ignorance or apathy, impacts tribal lives directly.

The net gaming revenues available for tribal government investment vary considerably across the United States. Tribal government gaming facilities closer to larger gaming markets logically produce more revenues for investment and recovery.

Until recently, most research directed at tribal economic and social recovery from gaming has focused on tribal governments’ uses of revenues after they have been transferred to the tribal government. However, tribal casino management and marketing practices also play a significant role in how much money ultimately flows to tribal communities.

One of the biggest investments by tribal casinos, free play, is a meaningful place to start evaluating casino performance.

Free-play (FP) awards have been established as a critical and costly play incentive in most U.S. casinos, and tribal government casino marketing reflects that trend largely through the long-term practice of importing casino executives from existing markets. In spite of their industry-wide popularity and the considerable cost of these offers, however, little is known about their effect on customer behavior, especially in tribal government-owned gaming facilities.

The Sycuan Institute recently funded and completed an analysis of the differential impacts of discretionary FP (DFP) and earned FP (EFP) in two tribal properties as a way to test the assumption that free-play offers will stimulate increased spend per trip. Specifically, tribal casino marketers must know whether and to what extent FP redeemers gamble with their own bankroll.

Two tribal gaming properties, named Resort A and Resort B to protect their identities, shared detailed marketing data to allow for our analysis. Like many casinos, these properties relied heavily upon slot revenues and operated in competitive markets where other properties were offering similar FP programs.

The model used for analysis was originally developed to analyze FP performance in non-tribal properties and had consistently revealed that FP generally underperformed relative to the assumptions of management. Importantly, the tribal property called Resort B shows outstanding performance on FP relative to all other properties tested to date, demonstrating that FP can perform as intended if it is tailored to the market.

(The full results of the study are available from the authors and will be published in an academic journal in 2016.)

For Resort A, one dollar increase in DFP resulted in a $11.75 increase in coin-in. EFP also produced a positive and statistically significant effect at Resort A. Resort B also showed a positive result.

At first blush, these results suggest that the free-play program is a huge success. However, once the costs associated with implementing the DFP program are considered, the resulting analysis of Resort A’s success suggests that the incremental win (i.e., revenue) associated with DFP redemption is insufficient to cover the offer costs.

Computing the incremental revenue associated with DFP redemption demonstrates that Resort A had to invest $1 in DFP to produce an incremental win of 88 cents. This suggests that for every one dollar of DFP redeemed in Resort A, management can expect to see an 880cent -increase in carded win, the equivalent of exchanging $1 for $0.88.

Additionally, there are many other operating and LP program costs to cover, aside from the direct offer costs. This result for Resort A suggests that management should to take a critical look at the DFP program. (It certainly does not mean that DFP is not a viable option for the LP, it simply suggests that revisions to the offer process should be seriously considered.)

For Resort B, a $1 increase in DFP resulted in a $24.27 increase in coin-in, which ultimately translated into $1.64 of incremental win. That is, for every FP dollar redeemed in Resort B, management can expect to see a $1.64 increase in carded win.

Although much more favorable than Resort A’s result, again, there are other operating and LP costs to cover. Still, this outcome is more encouraging with respect to the efficacy of Resort B’s current DFP program. While differences in resort-level results are to be expected, it is worth noting that Resort B’s investment level in DFP appears lower than that of Resort A. For example, Resort B redeemed 9 percent of its theoretical win in DFP, while Resort A redeemed 11.7 percent of its theoretical win in DFP. While this correlation does not provide a definitive explanation, Resort B’s superior result could be due in part to a more restrictive DFP offer protocol, indicating that less may be more.

The New Millennials

We’ve heard about millennials over the past year until that word has become odious. Yes, we understand that millennials are the future of the gaming industry, but since none of them are even 40 yet, I think it’s a bit premature to worry about whether they’re going to evolve into gamblers the same way their mothers, fathers, grandparents and great-grandparents did. After all, we’ve still got a relatively healthy and prosperous baby boomer generation to serve.
   
What isn’t premature about millennials, particularly in tribal gaming, is the transition of leadership from the first generation of tribal leaders to the next. And remember, the first generation were and have been incredible people—national leaders like Rick Hill and Tim Wapato; legal and legislative geniuses like Frank Ducheneaux and Sharon House; tribal leaders like Richard Milanovich and Marge Anderson. These people—and hundreds like them—established tribal government gaming, led it through the early tumultuous years, and brought it to the respectable, profitable business it is today that benefits all Native Americans and the communities in which it operates.
   
But what happens now? The transition to the second generation of leaders in tribal government gaming is just beginning. Over the past several years, I’ve met many people who would fit this description, Native Americans and casino executives who have come to realize that tribal gaming is the most fulfilling part of the casino industry.
   
And while I hesitate to compare them to the greats of Indian gaming, there are dozens of examples of young leaders learning to take over: Kevin Brown, the chairman of the Mohegan tribe in Connecticut; Richard Manuel, who is mentoring future leaders, and will soon take over as COO of the Gila River gaming operations; Kara Fox-LaRose, a Mohegan tribal member who was recently named the GM of the new Cowlitz casino resort in Washington; Cody Martinez, the new chairman of the Sycuan Band in San Diego; Angela Heikes, who will take over from the legendary Don Stevenson at Mystic Lake in Minnesota; Roman Carrillo, the GM at the Paiute Palace Casino in California; Shannon Keel, the CEO/general manager at the St. Regis Mohawks’ Akwesasne Casino Resort in New York; Joe Olujic, the COO of the Osage Casinos in Oklahoma; Crystal Janvier, who does research for the First Nations of Saskatchewan in Canada.
   
These are but a few of the great young leaders in Indian gaming who will inherit the mission begun by the first generation.
   
A few years ago I was doing a story about the expansion of Casino del Sol in Tucson, owned by the Pascua Yaqui Tribe. I was interviewing several of the tribal leaders, who were about my age (old), and they were telling me about their childhoods, with no electricity, running water or even a fourth wall on their houses. It seemed inconceivable that in this day and age, there were still people who had suffered those indignities. But these leaders had, as have thousands of other Native Americans across North America. And it was tribal government gaming that rescued them from that life.
   
The younger generation can listen to these stories, but can never experience that hardship, so will they ever understand how important tribal government gaming was and is to their tribes and their gaming operations? I believe they can, because if these leaders tell those stories with the passion and the courage that I heard from the leaders of the Pascua Yaqui, you can’t help but be moved.
   
The younger generation has the advantage of education, the business history, and frankly, the creature comforts that gaming allows us all to enjoy. They have the ability to advance tribal gaming to the next level if they think about the future and why gaming is crucial to the survival of the tribe-owners of the gaming enterprises.
   
But it’s up to the first generation to spread the story—good or bad—and explain what the stakes were in the beginning and why those stakes haven’t really changed. Tell them your most difficult experiences, your darkest times, and then reveal to them how it takes a community to build a gaming operation that works for everyone.
   
I am confident that tribal gaming will survive and thrive, so passing the torch to our new leaders is the most important thing that the originators of tribal government gaming can do. 

Identifying Gamesmanship

As chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission—both in an acting capacity for 18 months and since my confirmation in April 2015, I have made protecting against anything that amounts to gamesmanship on the backs of tribes a top priority for the agency.

Simply put, our extraordinary team is focused on doing whatever we can within our authority to work with tribes and relevant partners to defend against any third-party threats to the tribes’ legally protected interests in their gaming operations. We recognize that gaming continues to be a critical economic engine for hundreds of native communities which simply seek to improve the lives and opportunities for their people.

Accordingly, we are solemnly committed to fulfilling our responsibility as regulators to serve as strong partners in protecting tribal assets and preserving the integrity of tribal gaming.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) was enacted to support and promote tribal economic development, self-sufficienc, and strong tribal governments through the operation of gaming on Indian lands. IGRA established the NIGC to regulate and support tribal gaming with authority to enforce IGRA to ensure its purposes are achieved. (See 25 U.S.C. § 2704.)

The NIGC is taking a targeted approach based on IGRA’s statutory requirements to ensure that tribes are truly the primary beneficiaries of their gaming enterprises by reducing gamesmanship in the Indian gaming industry and helping tribes develop ways to prevent gamesmanship before it occurs.

Gamesmanship in Indian gaming occurs when a non-tribal government interest manipulates business, professional and employment relationships associated with the Indian gaming operations to further its own interests at the expense of the tribal gaming operation and, therefore, the tribe and its people. Gamesmanship often results in the violation of IGRA, NIGC’s regulations, or the tribe’s gaming ordinance (and often other federal laws) and may include: managing an Indian gaming operation without an approved management contract, misuse of gaming revenue, a violation of the sole proprietary interest requirement, or all three.

Such gamesmanship is even more egregious when the parties engaging in said gamesmanship have undue influence over the tribal decision making process, as can be the case when the gamesmanship is facilitated by trusted tribal advisers.

Gamesmanship may manifest itself as a third-party entity managing a tribal gaming operation without an NIGC-approved management contract. This is often done through schemes offered as legal methods for achieving the same goal as a management agreement with less regulatory oversight.

By managing without an approved contract, third parties are able to avoid the protections that IGRA provides to tribes and tribal operations, through IGRA-required contract terms such as caps on the amount a manager can be paid, guarantee of dollars for the tribe, dispute resolution procedures and backgrounding of managers to ensure no corrupt influences exist. When gamesmanship is employed, one or all of these protections are missing from the arrangement, resulting in the third party entity taking more than the permitted 30-40 percent of revenues and denying the tribe the resources to which it is statutorily entitled.

Gamesmanship may also be employed to allow third parties to gain access to net revenues without management and can lead to the misuse of gaming revenues. Under the guise of providing services not related to the gaming activity (marketing, security, parking, financial), third parties have received unearned compensation, bonuses or premiums, based on percentages of net gaming revenues.  In those instances, the parties have found themselves violating IGRA’s limitations on the use of net revenues.

Unapproved management contracts and misuses of net revenue can happen simultaneously or individually, and can be so egregious that they are a violation of the sole proprietary interest requirement of IGRA. Gamesmanship often results in the non-tribal entities acquiring a substantial financial benefit for minimal input, indicating a proprietary interest.

Every approved tribal gaming ordinance must provide that the tribe will have sole proprietary interest and responsibility for the conduct of any gaming activity. Gamesmanship results in parties violating these gaming ordinance provisions and, in turn, IGRA’s requirement.

Gamesmanship is not always identified quickly and, unfortunately, tribes suffer the substantial consequences from gamesmanship. Not only can tribes be deprived of the fruits of their gaming, but may be subject to fines for failing to protect them. In one notable circumstance, the tribe received less than 30 percent of the net revenue from their facility, had a non-tribal entity owning and operating a gaming operation on their property, and was deprived of the ability to develop their own gaming operation.

NIGC is always mindful of the incredible work that tribes, as the primary regulators of Indian gaming, have done in building and protecting the industry, making it the success it is today. To that end, tribal leadership, gaming commissions and tribal employees are best situated to identify gamesmanship. The integrity of the industry is best protected when tribes avoid gamesmanship at the outset, before IGRA, NIGC regulations or tribal gaming ordinances have been violated.

Two ways tribes can prevent the most prevalent forms of gamesmanship is by having strong conflicts-of-interest statutes and ensuring that there is adequate supervision of all gaming operation employees, including management officials.

NIGC is committed and well-positioned to provide tribes and tribal regulators with robust assistance to prevent, and enforce against, gamesmanship and protect tribal assets. Together, the commission and tribes can work to prevent gamesmanship on the backs of tribes and to ensure that native communities are the primary beneficiaries of their gaming revenue.

Indian gaming’s continued economic success is dependent upon our mutual vigilance. Please do not hesitate to contact NIGC if you have concerns about third-party gamesmanship.  

Underutilized Marketing Strategies

In a few markets, the competition for Native American casinos is from commercial casinos as well as other Native American casinos. In these markets (Florida, Michigan, Lousiana and Mississippi, to cite a few), it appears that the Native American casinos embrace the safe road by not taking full advantage of their unique protected positions.

Let’s consider the state sales tax from which most Native American enterprises are exempt when conducted on reservation land. Rather than wear a white hat claiming the obvious benefits to the patron, real and implied, of “a no-sales-tax zone,” they continue to charge the sales tax. Why? Because they can! Patrons are accustomed to paying the sales tax everywhere else in the immediate area.

A different descriptive term may be used, but the net result is a misrepresentation to the gaming patron. When discovered, the patrons feel duped and immediately become suspicious of all activities at the casino. What confidence should casino patrons have that the casino games they play are not misrepresented, if the operator misrepresents the alleged “tax?”

Transparency is a sound initial marketing strategy. The competitive commercial casinos are required by law to pay the sales tax. Sharing the Native Americans’ unique no-sales-tax benefit with gaming patrons goes far to build loyalty. Everyone enjoys minimizing taxes.

When positioned properly, patrons cite the sharing of this benefit as a motivating factor for casino selection. Inform the patron that there’s no sales tax, and besides increased loyalty from transparency, the casino will benefit when the patron has a bit more money to play in the casino.

The primary independent revenue source for a casino is gambling revenue. The more money patrons play, the greater the profit potential for the casino. Patrons are in a casino to gamble. Money is the measuring stick. The casino should encourage play by minimizing or eliminating unnecessary finance charges.

This particularly applies to ridiculously disproportionate fees for ATM, check cashing and other financial services. Patrons lament the $4 or more ATM fees the casino charges, which are further increased by the patrons’ bank charges. Fees are even greater for check cashing or cash advances. Virtually all patrons who use these financials services put the money immediately in play. So, why charge a fee?

The chief financial officers may view the fees as a significant revenue source, but the CFO is not a gambler. The CFO would never pay similar fees, and does not understand the frustration of the gaming patrons when forced to pay the fees.

The patrons judge the fees as just another way the casino seeks to minimize the patrons’ play time in the casino. Eliminating ATM fees and minimizing other financial fees significantly increases patron casino loyalty. If the CFO is concerned about too many patrons taking advantage of a “no fees” policy, then the program can be presented as an exclusive benefit to higher-tier, higher-value gaming patrons.

Now that we have two strategies to get more money to the gaming patrons, what can we do to improve the patrons’ overall casino experience? Patrons seek more play time in the casino. They seek new games that will give them the perception of more time.

Staying with the general transparency strategy, the casino should introduce new games in a fashion similar to automobiles.

Rather than a showroom of models from one manufacturer, offer the patrons the opportunity to play new games with their own money from multiple manufacturers in a separate, unique area before the games are placed on the general casino floor. There would be total disclosure describing the hold, the degree of volatility, what the patrons can expect in play, the wagering options and what to expect at each wagering option, as well as the bonus minimum and maximum sizes, to name a few. This would educate patrons, leading to a more satisfactory gambling experience. Barona Casino successfully employs a similar practice.

Gaming patrons have indicated time and again they seek to stay in play for their available or allotted time on their predetermined gambling budget.

While they appreciate promotional drawings, they dislike what they perceive as the disproportionate drawing prize sizes. This is particularly true where there is one large-size, say $10,000 prize, and 10 smaller prizes of $1,000 each. There is a far greater chance the patrons will play back the smaller amount as opposed to leaving the casino with the larger amounts to spend on other expenses. A sound marketing strategy is to learn from the patrons what motivates more and deliver the same.

A gaming-centric reward program featuring many relatively smaller prize sizes with heavy emphasis on individual customized rewards works well. Sure, patrons appreciate the food and hotel coupons, but if they have enough time to play in the casino they earn enough comp points to have comped food and comped hotel rooms. It is the play time they seek, and what the casino must deliver.

Gaming patrons have modest expectations, like more time on the machine and less strain on their gaming budget. They do not expect to win life-changing jackpots, or even IRS W2G jackpots. They seek escapism through active participation in casino games in a live casino environment.

The more gaming-centric opportunities—increased free play, hot seats, double prize periods—the casino can present to the patrons, the greater the win for both.