Bonus Shop Test Lifted Deposits And NGR In A Monthly A/B Trial
How The Mechanic Worked
The case study tested a bonus shop designed to raise average player turnover and, in turn, GGR. Players generated coins through real money wagering, then exchanged those coins for bonuses inside a shop. The setup linked reward access to actual play, giving users a visible reason to extend activity.
The concept was split across two segments, non-VIP and VIP. Both groups received the same interface and communication structure, but the bonus catalogue differed. Non-VIP players saw lower-cost rewards, while VIP players were offered higher-cost options that better matched their spending profile.
How The Pricing Model Was Set
The operator set a coin value by working backwards from existing turnover and a target uplift. In the example shared, a segment producing 5,000 in daily turnover would earn 50 coins at a rate of one coin per 100 turnover. To achieve a 10% uplift without increasing coin output, the coin price would need to move to 110 turnover.
Using real segment data, the final rates were set at one coin for every 125 turnover in the non-VIP segment and one coin for every 200 turnover in the VIP segment. The case notes that coin pricing was pushed slightly higher to ensure the gain from extra activity could cover the value of issued bonuses.
Test Structure And Key Results
The shop launched through a month-long A/B test with 1,200 users in each group. The control group had no shop. The test group had access to the shop and saw all related communications, which meant the feature was supported by direct player messaging rather than left to discovery alone.
Average daily turnover in the test group rose by 5% to 7% for non-VIP players and by 4% to 5% for VIP players. Monthly deposit value increased by 12%, while monthly NGR improved by 7%. The original turnover target of 10% was missed, but the commercial outcome still moved in the right direction across core revenue indicators.
Why The Margin Impact Matters
The most important detail for operators is that bonus cost stayed close to the control baseline. Bonus issued as a share of deposit sum was 18.3% in the control group and 18.9% in the test group. RTP was also similar, at 95.4% in control and 95.7% in test.
That pattern suggests the shop did not buy growth at any price. Extra rewards were distributed, yet the uplift in player activity and deposits was strong enough to preserve efficiency. For CRM and loyalty teams, this is the practical value of an exchange mechanic: it can make bonuses feel earned, not simply granted.
What Player Usage Revealed
Adoption was meaningful but not universal. At least one purchase in the shop was made by 55% of players, while 23% used the mechanic more than five times during the month. That split points to a classic lifecycle pattern: novelty attracts trial, but repeat use depends on reward relevance and pricing clarity.
For suppliers and operators, the next optimisation step is clear. The mechanic already improved turnover, deposits and NGR. The bigger opportunity now is to raise repeat engagement through better reward design, tighter segmentation and communication timing that matches each player group's value and behaviour.
Source: iGaming CEO Telegram
🌐 Source: iGaming CEO Telegram
