A full century separates the heydays of Babe Ruth and Aaron Judge. That notable factoid raises two critical questions:
- Who cares?
- What in the world does that have to do with gaming?
As it turns out, the worlds in which the left-handed slugger of the 1920s and his current right-handed counterpart swung their respective pieces of lumber shared some common traits, most notably the all-too-human foible in which we fear first and ask questions later.
The Ruthian era coincided with the advent of a world-changing technology know as “radio.” The fear at the time was that baseball fans would forego visiting Yankee Stadium and its counterparts and would choose to listen on those big, ugly boxes that were invading living rooms across the nation.
Famed play-by-play announcer Red Barber noted many years ago: “When radio came along and began to broadcast some baseball games, some of the entrenched conservative owners said, ‘Wait a minute. Why give away something that you’re trying to sell for your living, to try and keep your enterprise afloat?’ … They did not realize at the time the beneficial effect of radio, that it would be making families of fans.”
Another notable historical factoid is that, in the 1930s, individual teams had the option of either allowing or banning broadcasts. The three New York teams at the time all chose to ban radio. However, in 1938, the Brooklyn Dodgers lifted their ban and, lo and behold, attendance grew.
The subsequent full flowering of sports broadcasts since then has not dampened attendance, and has instead followed Barber’s reasoning. Visit the “House that Ruth Built” today and you will see that fans still thrill to the power of a Judge home run, and jerseys sporting his No. 99 can be found in nearly every row and section.
The gaming industry today is at an inflection point that bears similarities to the dilemma that Major League Baseball faced a century ago. The advent of iGaming and mobile sports betting has fueled fears that bettors will choose to stay home and gamble in their pajamas rather than get dressed, get in the car and visit a casino.
At the same time, noted gaming journalist Brant James recently penned an excellent analysis that showed that sportsbooks at ballparks were, for the most part, underperforming expectations and not attracting significant numbers of bettors.
How to resolve these very clear, very real dilemmas? As Red Barber famously said, “People see what they want to see.” With that in mind, I see some straightforward answers to these 21st century questions.
The genie of iGaming and mobile betting cannot be returned to its bottle. These technologies are here, and they are not going away. The answer for policymakers and operators in states that offer – or are considering – legal iGaming, iLottery and digital sports betting is to marry these technologies to physical casinos.
Smart operators – BetMGM, for example – are already identifying players who emerge through digital doorways and converting them to loyal, in-person customers who visit casinos, stay overnight, eat at restaurants, shop in stores and help generate employment, capital investment and other laudable goals.
Smart leaders in the public and private sectors recognize the critical difference between a “transaction” and an “experience.” They are not interchangeable. When sportsbooks at ballparks do not attract great numbers of bettors, that should not be cause for disappointment. Rather, it should be a recognition that fans attend games for the experience, and not for the transactions that can be made elsewhere.
I am not advocating that all states rush out to approve any or all forms of digital gaming. Those are policy decisions best left to elected and appointed policymakers. Rather, I simply suggest that any such policies need to recognize what Red Barber and the Brooklyn Dodgers learned a long time ago: Technologies can be harnessed to create new customers who want new experiences. That is what their grandparents longed for, and what their grandchildren will someday seek.
