iGaming

Cost per FTD and payback period in Philippine iGaming.

Across four operators measured on a common method, cost per first-time depositor ranged from $6.44 to roughly $25, and payback ran from 2.9 months to 9.6 months. Every measured LTV:CAC ratio came in below 1. Here is why payback is the number to lead with.

Book a Strategy Call

The benchmark

Four operators, one method.

Monthly ARPU per depositing player, a 20% gross margin, and average lifespan taken as one divided by the monthly churn rate. Acquisition cost is cost per first-time depositor.

Established

Monthly ARPU $13.00

M1 retention 32.0%

Cost per FTD ~$25

LTV:CAC 0.15x

9.6 mo

Payback

Newer

Monthly ARPU $12.02

M1 retention 29.2%

Cost per FTD $7.17

LTV:CAC 0.47x

3.0 mo

Payback

Scaling

Monthly ARPU $11.02

M1 retention 32.0%

Cost per FTD $6.44

LTV:CAC 0.50x

2.9 mo

Payback

VIP-optimized

Monthly ARPU $50 to $60

M1 retention not verified

Cost per FTD not disclosed

LTV:CAC not computed

~1.5 mo

Payback

Operators are anonymized. The VIP-optimized operator counts players who deposited and placed a real-money bet, which is a narrower population than the others. Comparing its ARPU directly to the rest is the most common analytical error in this market.

The argument

Payback survives bad data. LTV:CAC does not.

Payback is cost per FTD divided by monthly net gaming revenue per player. Retention does not appear in it. That is the entire reason to use it.

Retention is the hardest number to get right in this market and the one most likely to be wrong. It depends on how you define an active player, whether you exclude bonus-only bettors, whether your M0 cohort is depositors or depositors who also placed a real bet, and whether you have a true cohort curve or a monthly aggregate that only resembles one. Any of those choices can move the number by more than the actual gap between operators.

LTV:CAC inherits all of that fragility and compounds it. Payback inherits none of it.

The obvious objection

Every ratio is below 1. These businesses still work.

The standard formula models one clean player life: they arrive, decay at a constant rate, and disappear. In this market that misses three real sources of value.

Reactivation

Roughly 5% of a churned cohort returns in a given month, measured across five consecutive cohorts at one operator. The single-cycle model treats a churned player as dead. Here they are dormant, and multi-homing behavior, with players holding around three accounts, is what makes returning cheap.

Tier migration

A blended LTV assumes the player you acquired stays the player you acquired. The upper tiers are a rounding error in player count and carry most of the revenue, paying back inside the first month. Acquisition economics are decided by what share of a cohort climbs.

The tail past modelled lifespan

A 1.47-month average lifespan does not mean players leave in six weeks. It means the average is dragged down by a very large entry tier that churns fast. The players who stay, stay far longer than the model can express.

What to do about it

Four changes worth making this quarter.

Lead with payback, quote LTV:CAC second

Payback answers the question a CFO is actually asking, which is how long the cash is out. It also cannot be quietly inflated by an optimistic retention assumption.

Fix the CAC input before touching anything else

In one model reviewed here, a single blended CAC was applied across all operator columns. Under that assumption the highest-cost operator showed a 2.8-month payback and looked like the most efficient business in the market. Real per-operator CAC moved it to 9.6 months and last place. Same retention data, same ARPU, opposite conclusion.

Stop treating retention as a competitive metric

At 29% to 32% across the market, it is table stakes. The operators pulling ahead are doing it on acquisition cost and tier migration, both of which are controllable.

Publish the definition next to the number

Any ARPU, retention, or CAC figure quoted without its population definition is not a benchmark. It is a number that happens to have a label on it.

Common questions

Cost per FTD and payback, answered.

What is a good cost per FTD in the Philippines?

Across four operators measured on a common method, cost per first-time depositor ranged from $6.44 to roughly $25. The lower end is typical of newer and scaling operators buying on performance. The high end belongs to an established brand carrying higher acquisition cost against a stronger market position.

What is a good CAC payback period for an iGaming operator?

In this dataset payback ranged from 2.9 months to 9.6 months. Payback is cost per FTD divided by monthly net gaming revenue per player. Anything inside three months is efficient in this market. Beyond six months the cash is out long enough to constrain reinvestment.

Why is LTV:CAC below 1 for most Philippine operators?

Because the standard formula models one clean player life and misses three real sources of value: reactivation of churned players, migration into higher tiers, and the long tail of players who stay well past the modelled average lifespan. The ratio being below 1 reflects a blunt formula rather than an unprofitable market.

Should we report payback period or LTV:CAC?

Lead with payback and quote LTV:CAC second. Payback answers how long the cash is out, and it cannot be inflated by an optimistic retention assumption. LTV:CAC depends on retention, which is the least reliable input in this market.

What is a normal M1 retention rate for Philippine iGaming?

Three of the four operators measured sit between 29% and 32% M1 retention. That narrow band suggests retention is a market condition rather than a point of competitive difference. Operators pulling ahead are doing it on acquisition cost and tier migration.

Want your own numbers measured this way?

We instrument acquisition so source ties to downstream behavior, then report payback alongside cost per FTD. A discovery call is 45 minutes and there is no deck.

Book a Strategy Call

See how we run acquisition →