Gambling Operators Understand CTV. They Haven't Figured Out How to Measure It Yet.
- Kevin Jones
- 5 days ago
- 5 min read
Connected television advertising has moved past the novelty phase inside most gambling marketing teams, but not by much. Attribution remains structurally difficult in a non-clickable environment, most operators are still launching campaigns with a single creative asset and expecting performance-channel results, and many teams are applying digital measurement frameworks to a channel that doesn't behave like a digital one. Jason Sukhraj is CEO of Plexus Media and runs CTV campaigns for gambling operators across multiple markets. In this interview, he addresses the gap between trial and committed spend, the attribution compromises operators are currently making, how broadcasters manage gambling inventory, and whether prediction market operators face a different CTV calculus. He also argues that operators chasing targeting precision before they've tested creative are paying premiums for assumptions, not performance.
Gaming Eminence: There's a meaningful difference between operators running CTV trials and operators making it a core budget line. From what you're seeing across clients, where are most gambling advertisers actually sitting on that spectrum right now?
Jason Sukhraj: "Most operators today are in early adoption, but with the expectation that CTV will become a core budget line.
A few years ago we spent a lot of time explaining why gambling advertisers should even test CTV. That conversation comes up much less now. Most operators already understand the scale of the audience and the quality of the viewing environment. The discussion today is less about convincing teams to spend and more about helping them understand what capabilities CTV can unlock when it is integrated properly into their acquisition strategy.
At the same time, the acquisition landscape is shifting. AI-driven search is beginning to change discovery, and traditional affiliate strategies are under pressure. Those channels are very effective at capturing demand, but typically once that interest already exists.
CTV increasingly sits between traditional linear television and pure performance channels. It allows operators to influence consideration earlier in the journey while still maintaining the ability to measure and optimise campaigns. For many teams that means approaching CTV through a structured testing framework while they build the underlying infrastructure. Once those signals and feedback loops are in place, it becomes much easier to move the channel from a test budget into a core part of the acquisition strategy."
Gaming Eminence: Measuring acquisition through premium TV is genuinely difficult in regulated markets given consent frameworks, limited tracking and panel-based measurement. Where do you see operators struggling most to get an accurate read on CTV performance, and how are they currently working around it?
JS: "One of the core challenges is that CTV is not a clickable environment. A viewer sees the ad on television, but the conversion typically happens later on a phone or computer. That creates a natural gap between exposure and action, since the ad is viewed on a television while registrations or deposits usually occur on a personal device.
Where operators often struggle is trying to evaluate CTV using the same attribution expectations they apply to channels like paid social or search. If a campaign is measured using a narrow attribution window, such as eight hours, it will almost always undervalue the role television plays in influencing behaviour.
Most operators recognise that no acquisition channel today is perfectly deterministic. The shift we are seeing is away from trying to assign perfect credit and more toward optimizing campaigns against real outcomes.
For CTV in particular, that optimisation needs to be based on an attribution framework that reflects how the channel actually works. Exposure happens on a television, while the conversion may occur later on another device. That means looking at exposure signals alongside downstream events like registrations or deposits and evaluating those outcomes over a timeframe that better reflects television’s role in the conversion journey. Those signals can then be used to guide both media allocation and creative optimisation."
Gaming Eminence: Broadcasters operate within clear regulatory limits on gambling advertising, but the commercial reality of how they prioritise the category varies. From your experience working across premium inventory, how does the gambling vertical tend to be treated and where does the friction most commonly show up?
JS: "Broadcasters are generally comfortable working with gambling brands, particularly around sports programming, but they want campaigns to meet the standards of the platform and the expectations of their audience.
Where things work best is when there is a direct relationship with supply partners. That allows both sides to establish clear swim lanes around where campaigns can run, how frequently they appear, and what creative approaches are appropriate for that environment. Those parameters matter because the way gambling messaging is framed for television often needs to differ from how it appears in digital acquisition channels.
Frequency management is another important factor. Premium broadcasters are very conscious of the viewer experience, so campaigns that appear too frequently or feel repetitive can create friction. That is not unique to gambling, but it does tend to receive closer attention given the regulatory context.
In practice, most friction tends to occur when campaigns are introduced into premium environments without those guardrails in place. When operators align early with supply partners on placement expectations, creative structure and frequency controls, the category tends to integrate into premium inventory without much difficulty."
Gaming Eminence: The prediction market user skews younger, platform-native and data-literate, a meaningfully different profile from the traditional sportsbook bettor. How do you think about CTV as an acquisition channel for that audience, and does it require a different media strategy entirely?
JS: "In practice, the approach does not need to be dramatically different. Streaming environments already skew younger, so CTV naturally reaches a large portion of the platform-native audience that prediction markets tend to attract.At the same time, prediction market products often operate across a broader footprint than traditional state-by-state sportsbooks.
That means the addressable audience within CTV can be meaningfully larger, which makes the channel a useful way to reach those users at scale.Where the focus tends to be is less on changing the media strategy and more on building the right feedback loop. Successful campaigns typically launch with multiple creative approaches, test different ways of framing the product, and then scale the messaging that begins to show a clear connection to registrations or trading activity.
Prediction markets may attract a somewhat different user profile, but the underlying principle is the same. The operators that perform best are the ones who structure campaigns so they can learn quickly, refine their messaging, and continuously align creative with the outcomes they are trying to drive."
Gaming Eminence: Running gambling CTV campaigns across different operator types, you'll have seen where expectations and reality diverge. What tends to surprise clients most when they see actual performance data, and where do you find yourself resetting assumptions most often?
JS: "One of the biggest surprises is how much creative matters. Many operators initially approach CTV with a single hero asset, similar to a traditional television campaign. In a performance environment, this rarely works well. Campaigns tend to perform much better when they launch with multiple variants that test different hooks, messaging angles and calls to action. That gives the campaign room to learn which narratives actually drive registrations or deposits and then scale the ones that work.
We also often reset assumptions around targeting. Many advertisers assume that more granular targeting or running against specific site lists will automatically improve results. Those strategies often come with premiums, and if the campaign does not yet have creative that aligns with those audiences or environments, it is easy to end up paying more without seeing better outcomes.
There is absolutely a place for more precise targeting and curated environments, but it tends to work best once campaigns have already identified which creative and messaging is resonating. At that point those learnings can be applied more intentionally, allowing operators to take advantage of premium targeting without relying on assumptions early in the campaign."
